GOODBURN VS. STEVENS. 421

[On the 15th of January, 1830, Ann B. W. Hayes, who hag
since intermarried with Joseph Goodburn, filed her bill in this
court, stating, that on the |9th of December, 1824, she inter-
married with Samuel Hayes, who, on the 20th of May, 1825,
died intestate, without issue, possessed of 47-100ths of a
manufacturing establishment in Cecil county, called Elk Forge,
consisting of several thousand acres of land, with the various
buildings thereon, on Big Elk Creek, and land and valuable
personal property on Little Elk Creek, and in the states of Dela-
ware and Virginia; that the business of the firm in which the
property, both real and personal, was employed, had been
carried on for many years in the name of Samuel Hayes & Co.;

said firm at the death of Hayes, consisting of himself, Samuel
Stevens and wife, Maria Rudolph, Thomas Hayes, Elizabeth
B. Hayes, Robert M. Hayes, and Geo. Hayes; of whom, all
except Samuel Stevens and wife, were his heirs and repre-
sentatives, as were also the complainant and Henry M. Hayes,
the latter of whom, sold his interest in 1827, to the other sur-
viving partners, except Stevens and wife; that Samuel Hayes,
acquired 25-100ths of his interest, by purchase from William
Seale, to whom he mortgaged the same to secure the payment
of the purchase money, of which there was due at his death,
$5000; that his other debts amounted to about $700, and his
property, independent of his partnership interest, was only
worth about $500; that at his death, the debts due the firm
exceeded those owed by it, and, that there were large profits
for division. That failing in her repeated efforts to obtain an
allowance other interest, the complainant, on the 26th Septem-
ber, 1825, took out letters of administration on her deceased
husband's estate, since which time, she had frequently tried,
without success, to obtain a settlement with the surviving
partners; that the latter continued to conduct the business of
the establishment under the same name, with James Jackson,
as manager; that they had made extensive improvements,
and, as complainant believed, with the profits of the partner-
ship; and, that they had divided amongst themselves annually,
a sum exceeding $3000, whilst complainant had not received
VOL.i—36