422 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

$100, and Seale had only been paid interest on the residue of
his debt. The bill concluded with a prayer, "that the said
surviving partners may be restrained from using the said part-
nership name of Samuel Hayes & Co.; that they may be en-
joined from using the share or proportion of the personal prop-
erty which belonged to the said Samuel Hayes; that a re-
ceiver may be appointed to receive the profits of said concern,
until this matter shall be fully considered in this honorable
court; that the said surviving partners may be compelled to
render a full, true, and perfect account of all the transactions of
said concern; that they'may be compelled to pay off, and
satisfy the debt due the said William Scale from that portion
of said concern which was originally bought of him; that they
may be required to pay over to your oratrix as administratrix
of the said Samuel Hayes, his share or proportion of the per-
sonal property of said concern, as well as his share or propor-
tion of the profits which have accrued thereon since his death ;

that your oratrix may have a reasonable and just allowance
made for her dower in her said husband's interest in said lands
and premises; and, that the said surviving partners, and the
said James Jackson, their manager, may answer this bill," &c.

On the 18th of the same month, an injunction was granted
as prayed, after which, the defendants filed their answers.
The answer of Samuel Stevens and wife, with which the
others mainly corresponded, admitted the interest of said
Hayes, and its amount, but stated, that the purchase money of
the one-fourth purchased of Seale, had not been paid, and
submitted that the same ought to be paid out of the personal
estate; they admitted the marriage of the complainant, the
death of her husband, intestate and without issue, the grant of
letters of administration to his wife, the names of his heirs, the
use of the partnership name, the names of the partners, and the
conveyance by Henry M. Hayes. They stated, that Hayes'
interest at his death, went to his heirs, who consented to a
continuance of the partnership; they refused to admit the com-
plainants' right to control the affairs of the firm after the death
of her husband; denied their opposition to a settlement with