436 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

The Auditor reports that the deceased was a creditor of the
firm at that time, and this does not appear to be now disputed ;

the controversy with reference to this part of the claim of the
complainant, applying to its amount, and not to its existence.
In the statement of the Auditor, designated as G. No. 19, the
principal of this claim is stated to be $6,644 56, and in account
G. No. 24, which is an account between the administrator and
the surviving partners, interest is allowed her on this sum from
the 1st of May, 1826 to the 1st of September, 1848.

Both sides are dissatisfied with this mode of stating the ac-
count, the complainants insisting that interest should run from
the 1st of May, 1825 to the day of the death, and the defend-
ants insisting that as the bill prays for profits, the Auditor should
not have allowed interest, but should have stated an account of
profit and loss from 1825 to 1841, when a decree was passed
for a sale of the property, and have allowed the administratrix
a proper proportion of those profits.

The rule upon the subject of the right of the representatives
of a deceased partner at their election, to demand an account
of the surviving partners, (if they continue the trade,) of the
profits, or to charge them with interest as stated in Story on
Part., section 343, was adopted by the Court of Appeals, when
this case was in that court, and must, therefore, be looked upon
as the true one.

It is there said, "that if the surviving partners continue the
trade or?business, it is at their own risk, and they will be liable
at the option of the deceased partner, to account for the profits
made thereby, or to be charged with interest upon the deceased
partner's share of the surplus, besides bearing all the losses."

The correctness of this rule has not been, and of course can-
not be denied, sanctioned as it is by the high authority of the
Court of Appeals; but it is said, that no election has been
made in this case, the complainant, the administratrix of the
deceased partner, having only called for an account of the
profits with a view of determining whether she will claim a
share of those profits or interest on the amount due her intestate.

Such, however, is not my understanding of the bill. It al-