
    Leinbach, Appellant, v. Wolle.
    
      Account stated—Definition—Partnership—Equity.
    
    An account stated is an account in writing, examined and accepted by both parties; and this acceptance need not be expressed, but may be implied from circumstances.
    Where an account of partnership transactions is prepared by an expert, selected by all parties in interest, and a copy of the account is given to each of the parties, and one of the parties makes no objection to it, although he may not have expressly accepted it, the account as to such party is an account stated, and will be á sufficient defense to a bill in equity filed by him against the other partners for an account of partnership transactions.
    Argued March 7, 1905.
    Appeal, No. 155, Jan. T., 1904, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Northampton Co., Feb. T., 1902, No. 5, In Equity, dismissing bill in equity in case of John E. Leinbach and Mary E. Leinbach, Administrators of Felix W. Leinbach, deceased, v. Clarence A. Wolle, Amanda Kemerer, Albert G. Kemerer, as Administrator of Jacob B. Kemerer, deceased, and individually and Lovina M. Seem.
    Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Bill in equity for an account. -
    Schuyler, P. J., filed the following opinion:
    This is a bill for an account of partnership transactions on the theory, most unhappily expressed, that no settlement of the partnership accounts has ever been made. The answer sets up an account stated, and thus is raised the only question for present decision. “ It is a preliminary question which requires disposition prior to any hearing on the merits : ” Dampf s Ápp., 106 Pa. 72; Randolph’s App., 66 Pa. 178. An account stated is defined by a high authority to be “ an account in writing, examined and accepted by both parties. And this acceptance need not be express, but may be implied from circumstances : ” Story’s Eq. Jur. sec. 526. Tested by this definition is the account set up • by the defendants an account stated ? In determining this question all evidence tending to prove errors in the account must be brushed aside as being in contravention of the rule above cited which forbids all inquiry into the merits at this stage of the proceedings—a most excellent rule as -our experience in the. present case abundantly testifies.
    The account in question was prepared by an expert selected by all the parties in interest, and bears upon its face unmistakable evidence of care and skill. When completed a copy of the account was handed to each of the parties. A meeting of the parties was then held at Mr. Leinbach’s request, followed by others, at all of which the account was under investigation. After some changes had been made the account in its present form was finally accepted as correct at the last meeting by both Mr. Wolle and Mr. Kemerer. Mr. Leinbach claims that he did not expressly accept-the account. In this he is flatly contradicted-not only by Mr. Wolle and Mr. Kemerer, but by the expert. - But let It be conceded that he did not expressly accept the account. He admits that he made no objection to it, and his silence under the circumstances must be construed as the equivalent of consent. Beyond doubt, therefore, the account in question is a stated account and I so find.
    The court subsequently entered a final decree dismissing the bill.
    
      Error assigned was the decree of the court.
    
      George R. Booth and John I). Hoffman, for appellant.
    
      II. C. Cope and Kirkpatrick # Maxwell, for appellee were not heard.
    May 1, 1905 :
   Pee Cueiam,

.'This decree is affirmed on the opinion of the court below.  