
    Pendleton & Webb v. Wambersie et al.
    
    
      Equity jurisdiction. — Parties.
    An assignee of an assignee of a copartner in a joint purchase and sale of lands, may sustain a bill in equity against the other copartners and the agent of the concern, to compel a discovery of the quantity purchased and sold, and for an account and distribution of the proceeds.
    Error to the Circuit Court for the district of Georgia, in a suit in equity in which Pendleton & Webb were complainants, and Emanuel Wambersie, James Seagrove, and the representative of James Armstrong, Jacob Weed and Henry Osborne, were defendants.
    The bill stated that Henry Osborne, Jacob Weed, James Armstrong, James Seagrove, and the complainant, John Webb, on the 22dof December 1786, entered into an agreement with each other, under seal, to procure lands on their joint account, in the state of Georgia, to an amount not exceeding 200,000 acres, at *their joint expense, and for their joint benefit. That grants were obtained for about 165,000 acres. That Webb, by [*74 deed, transferred all his right to the lands and contract to John McQueen, in consideration of 400Z. sterling, to be paid in four equal annual instalments. That McQueen, not having paid Webb, assigned his right to Pendleton, the complainant, who undertook to indemnify McQueen against Webb’s demand. That Webb had never received the money due from McQueen. That Wambersie, as agent for the company, had sold 60,000 acres of the land, in Holland, at $1.56 per acre, had received in cash $51,000, and had made himself liable for the balance. That he had refused to pay to the complainant, Pendleton, the one-fifth of the purchase-money. That the other defendants refused to divide the residue of the lands, and to account for the profits, &c. That the lands were liable, in the hands of the purchasers, for the balance of the purchase-money, both to the complainant Webb, for the purchase-money due to him, and the complainant Pendleton, for his one-fifth of the amount of the sales. The bill sought a discovery of the amount of lands granted to the company, of the amount sold, &c., and prayed that the defendants might account, and that the lands might be charged with the balance of the purchase-money, &c.
    The defendants demurred for want of equity in the bill, and the court below sustained the demurrer, and decreed that the bill be dismissed, with costs. But—
   This Court, without argument, overruled the demurrer, reversed the decree, and remanded the cause for further proceedings.  