HALL v. McPHBRSON.—3 BLAND. 519

It states, that on the first of July, 1822, a partnership was formed
under the firm of Tongue & McPherson, between the intestate of
the plaintiff and the defendant, which was carried on until the
first of November, 1825; of the profits of which Tongue was to
have two-thirds and McPherson one-third. That immediately on
the dissolution of this firm they entered into another co-partner-
ship, the profits of which they were to share equally under the
firm of Thomas T. McPherson & Co. which continued until Tongue's
death: which happened on the 2d of January, 1826. After which
letters of administration on his estate were granted to this plain-
tiff. That both of these firms were largely indebted; that the
stock of goods remaining on hand, and iu the possession of the
defendant, was very considerable: which, with the debts due to
them, if properly managed, would be sufficient to satisfy all the
claims against them and leave some surplus. That the defendant,
although frequently requested, had not exhibited to the plaintiff
any statement of the transactions of those firms. That the de-
fendant, since the death of the plaintiff's intestate, had continued
to carry on business, and was selling the stock of goods belonging
to the two firms without taking any inventory thereof; or in
any * other manner ascertaining the amount, quantity, or
value of the partnership effects. That the defendant has 530
no property; except his interest in those co-partnerships; and his
conduct had been such as to hazard the interests of those joint
concerns, and was calculated to injure the estate of the plaintiff's
intestate, and to expose it to loss and waste; and that the defend-
ant's selling the partnership property and effects at retail was im-
proper, because it should be sold at public sale.

The bill then prayed for an account; the plaintiff thereby offer-
ing to admit the defendant as a creditor of the estate of his intes-
tate for whatever might appear to be due to him from those joint
concerns; for general relief; and for an injunction commanding
the defendant to refrain and surcease from selling the goods, prop-
erty, and effects belonging to either of the co-partnerships, and
also from collecting and receiving any of the debts due and owing
thereto, &c.

On the same day the defendant put in his answer, in which he
admitted, that the two partnerships had been formed and carried
on; and were largely indebted as stated: that the goods which
came to his possession as surviving partner, and were then on
hand, would amount, if sold at retail upon short credit, to about
$2,000; but, if forced into market, and sold at auction for cash,
would not command any price near their original cost. That
without great care and diligence in winding up the two joint con-
cerns, their effects would not be sufficient to meet the claims
against them; that the stock of goods on hand was the only effec-
tual means which the defendant had, to meet the urgent demands