
    COURT OF APPEALS, (E. S.) JUNE TERM, 1820.
    Ward vs. Howell, et al.
    
    cUoife paítneraK sr^ofveT' a're eharg“*™notiier a debt°omkof“he tíonaí0 of liiluta'
    Appeal from Cecil county court. This was an ac-ti°n °f assumpsit, brought by the appellees against the appellant, and Chandler and Raisin, to recover sum of 8188 43, alleged to be due by them as partners. By the case stated, on which the judgment was rendered, it appears that a co-partnership existed between the appellant, and Chandler and Raisin, until the fall of the year 1814, when it was dissolved, and the dissolution known to the appellees. On the 17th of August 1815, Raisin, who had been one of the firm, signed the following paper:
    “gl 88 43 Baltimore, 17th Augt. 1815.
    On settlement of the whole accounts of the Philadelphia packets, we acknowledge a balance due Mr. Ilowell and son, of one hundred and eighty-eight dollars and forty-three cents. There are yet uncollected accounts to the amount of ninetj^-six dollars and fifty-seven cents, which, when collected, will be placed to our credit. We are credited with S60 on account of a day, in the account now settled, which, should it appear hereafter to have been credited, shall be paid.
    (Signed) l
    
      Philip F. Raisin
    
    for the late firm of Francis B. Chandler, & Co. Approved by
    
      TVm. Howell & Son.”
    The plaintiffs below, the present appellees, produced no other evidence, and judgment being rendered for them, Ward appealed to this court, where the cause was argued at this term, before Buchanan, Johnson, Martin and Dorsey, J.
    The only question was, whether the admissions of one partner, after the partnership is at an end, are evidence against the rest of the partners.
   The court

were of opinion, that the evidence was not sufficient to charge the partnership with a debt, though it would be sufficient to take such a debt out of the statute of limitations.

judgment reversed.  