434 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

partners, until the purposes for -which it was acquired, have
been accomplished.

But when all the claims against the partnership have been
satisfied, the partnership account adjusted, and the object of the
trust fulfilled, in a case where the partners have not, either by
an express or implied agreement, indicated an intention to con-
vert their lands into personal estate, no solid reason can be as-
signed, why the real estate should not be treated in a court of
equity, as at law, according to its real nature, and consequent-
ly chargeable with the widow's dower.

The proposition thus announced will be found to be sustain-
ed, among other cases, by Tfiornton vs. Dixon, 3 Bru. C. R.,
200; Bell vs. Phym, 7 Ves., 456; Balmain vs. Shore, 9 Ves.
508; Cookson vs. Cookson, 8 Simons C. R., 629, and by a
very elaborate and able opinion, delivered by Chief Justice
Shaw, in Dyer vs. dark, 5 Medf., 562. In this case it ap-
peared, that the real estate in controversy was purchased by the
partners, with the partnership funds, for the use and conveni-
ence of the trade. On the death of Burleigh, one of the part-
ners, his administrator sold his undivided moiety of the,lands
for the sum of fifteen hundred dollars. The firm was represent-
ed to be insolvent, unless the proceeds of the real estate, so sold
by the administrator, should be applied to the liquidation of th'e
partnership accounts. The prayer of the bill was, that the
plaintiff might be allowed to retain the rents which had accru-
ed since the decease of Burleigh, to be applied to the adjust-
ment of the partnership accounts, and that the defendant might
be restrained from paying the proceeds of the real estate to the
individual creditors of Burleigh. The widow and heirs of the
deceased partner also asserted their claims upon the fund.

In this case, in reference to the rights of the widow, the
court say:

"That the right of the widow is not distinguishable from that
of the creditors and heirs of the deceased partner. That as far
as this estate was held in trust by her deceased husband, for the
purposes of the partnership; she was not entitled to dower.
For all beyond that, she was entitled, because he held it as real
estate, unless she is barred by her release."