
    Mary Jones, Administratrix of John A. Jones, deceased, v. A. B. Farquhar, Appellant.
    
      Interest — Accounting—Equity—Costs.
    Where two persons are engaged in a joint enterprise, not amounting to a partnership, and one is liable to account to the other, but fails to do so even after a long period of litigation, although he could readily have done so at any time, interest will be charged upon the amount due from the time when the account could have first been stated. In such a case the costs of litigation will be wholly imposed upon the person whose duty it was to account.
    Argued May 17, 1898.
    Appeal, No. 481, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from decree of C. P. York Co., on bill in equity.
    Before Sterrett, C. J., McCollum:, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Bill in equity for an account. Before Bittenger, P. J.
    The facts appear by the opinion of the court, which is quoted in the last preceding case, ante, p. 386.
    
      Errors assigned were (1) in allowing interest upon the sum ascertained to be due; (2) in imposing the costs upon the defendant.
    
      Francis Farquhar and Jere S. Black, for appellant,
    cited on the question of interest: Hentz v. Penna. Co. for Ins., 134 Pa. 343; 1 Lindley on Partnership (5th ed.), *11; Collyer v. Collyer, 38 Pa. 257; Hedge & Horn’s App., 63 Pa. 273; Christy’s App., 92 Pa. 157; Brown’s App., 89 Pa. 139; Grubb’s App., 66 Pa. 117.
    Cited on the question of cost-s: Gordon v. Moore, 134 Pa. 486; Gyger’s App., 62 Pa. 73.
    
      N. M. Wanner, for appellee,
    cited on the question of costs: Gyger’s App., 62 Pa. 73; Greenmount Cemetery Co.’s App., 4 Atl. Rep. 528; O’Hara v. Stack, 90 Pa. 477; Graver’s App., 1 Lanc. L. Rev. 227; Grim v. Walbert, 155 Pa. 147; Saeger’s App., 96 Pa. 479; Wadlinger on Costs, 360; Sayen v. Johnson, 4 Pa. C. C. 360; Biddle’s App., 19 W. N. C. 219; Devine v. Mundell, 13 W. N. C. 267; Stocker v. Hutter, 134 Pa. 27; McKibbin v. Peters, 6 Dist. Rep. 67.
    Cited on the question of interest: Magilton v. Stevenson, 173 Pa. 560; Hollister v. Barkley, 11 N. H. 501; Stoughton v. Lynch, 2 Johns. Chan. 209.
    May 30, 1898:
   Per. Curiam,

This case was heard with No. 475, January term, 1897, in which the plaintiff: appealed from the same decree. In a per curiam opinion just filed in that case, ante, p. 386, the decree has been affirmed. For reasons there given this appeal is dismissed at appellant’s costs.  