
    Jotra K. Barclay, Plff. in Err., v. A. C. Barclay
    
    Presumption sustained that partner who used machinery after dissolution of firm was purchaser of same so as to charge him with its value on accounting.
    (Decided February 7, 1887.)
    Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas No. 4z of Philadelphia County.
    Affirmed.
    
      J. Howard Gendell for plaintiff in error.
    
      Richard O. Dale for defendant in error.
    
      
      Note. — Where the liquidating partner takes the stock at dissolution, •and carries on business for himself, he is chargeable with its value at that time. Hay’s Appeal, 91 Pa. 265; Parker v. Broadbent, 134 Pa. 322, 19 Atl. 631. But if money made by the continuing partner be solely the result of his own labor after dissolution, no right to an accounting exists. Waring v. Cram, 1 Pars. Sel. Eq. Cas. 516.
    
   Per Curiam:

The able report of the master presents a clear and satisfactory finding of the facts which control the case and a correct con‘dusion as to the law applicable thereto. The court concurred therein. We discover no just cause for complaint.

Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed, at the costs of the appellant.  