430 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

by death puts an end to the partnership, from the time of the
occurrence of that event. It completely puts an end to the
power and authority of the surviving partners, to carry on for
the future, the partnership trade or business. It is, therefore,
the duty of the surviving partners, to cease altogether from car-
rying on the trade or business thereof; and if they act other-
wise, and continue the trade or business, it is at their own risk,
and they will be liable, at the option of the representatives of
the deceased partner, to account for the profits made thereby,
or to be charged with the interest upon the deceased partner's
share of the surplus, besides bearing all the losses." The rule
is also correctly given in a late treatise on the subject. Gary, 117.

The author says, "where the surviving partners continue the
business, employing in it the share belonging to the represen-
tative of the deceased partner, and no express direction has
been given by the deceased, relative to the continuance of the
business, the party entitled to the share of the deceased, is at
liberty to choose, either to receive the legal interest on the
capital so employed, or to take the profits that have arisen from
the use of such capital; and in order to enable a party so inter-
ested to determine his choice, a decree will be passed directing
an inquiry, whether the account of interest or profits will be
most advantageous; but unless under particular circumstances,
the party having the choice, cannot elect the interest for one
period, and the profits for another, but must elect to take one
or the other, for the whole period."

In Grawshay against Collins, 15 Ves; 227, Lord Eldon said,
"If the surviving partners do not think proper to settle with the
executor and put an end to the concern, but to make that which
is in equity the joint property of the deceased and them, the
foundation of increased profit, they must be understood to pro-
ceed on the principle which regulated the property before the
death of their partner."

The same doctrine is declared and illustrated in the cases
of Brown vs. Brown, 1 P. W., 140; Hammond v3. Douglas, 5
Ves., 539; Ex-Parte Ruffin, 6 Fes., 119; Brown, vs. De Tasht,
1 Jacob, 295. Heathcote vs. ffulrne, 1 Jac. & Walk., 122, and
is too firmly established to be questioned.