428 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

personal co-operation, advice and aid in the management of
the business. The death of any one partner necessarily puts
an< end to such aid and co-operation. If, therefore, the part-
nership were not put an end to by the death of any one of the
partners, one of two things must follow: either that the whole
business of the partnership must be uanied on by the surviving
partners exclusively, at the hazard of the estate and interests
of the deceased partners, or else, that the personal representa-
tive of the deceased, totoies quoties, who may be a stranger,
wholly unfit for, and unacquainted with the business, must be
admitted into the management. The law will not force either
of these alternatives upon the parties, but it presumes, in the
absence of all contrary stipulations, that by a tacit consent,
death is to dissolve the partnership, because it dissolves the
power of a personal choice, confidence, and management of the
concern."

In Orawshay vs. Maule, 1 Swans, 508, Lord Eldon said,
"The doctrine that death ends a partnership, has been called
unreasonable. Much remains to be considered before this ob-
jactionican be approved. If men will enter into a partnership,
as into a marriage, for better and for worse, they must abide
by it; but if they enter into it without saying how long it shall
endure, they are understood to take that course in the expecta-
tion, that circumstances may arise from which a dissolution will
be the only means of saving them from ruin; and considering
what persons death may introduce into a partnership, there is
strong reason for saying that such should be its effect. Is the
surviving partner to receive into the partnership, at all hazards,
the executor or administrator of the deceased, his next of kin,
or possibly a creditor, taking administration ?" And the Su-
preme Court have declared in Schokfield vs. Eichelberger, 7
Pet. 594, "that although the liability of a deceased partner, as
well as his interest in the profit of a concern, may, by contract,
be extended beyond his death; yet, without such stipulation,
death dissolves the concern." The same doctrine is announced
in Vullimay vs. Noble, 3 Mer. 614; Crawfard vs. Hamilton,
3 Mer. 136; Grate vs. Bayard, 11 & & Raw., 41; Dyer vs.