BALTZELL VS. TRUMP. 519

THE CHANCELLOR:

Although the answer in this case, which was filed by Wil-
liam B. Trump, In his lifetime, resists the complainant's title
to the relief prayed by the bill, upon the ground that he,
Trump, was to be allowed the sum of seven hundred dollars
per annum for his services, out of the joint effects of the firm,
as a part of the expense of conducting its business, I do not
understand it to be strongly insisted that the articles of copart-
nership bear that interpretation; and it appears to me to be
totally unwarranted by any one of the stipulations of that
agreement, or of the whole taken together.

As there was to be no division of the profits during the con-
tinuance of the partnership, and as it may be fairly presumed
from the proceedings that Trump would have been without
means to defray his own personal expenses, unless some stipu-
lation had been introduced to authorize him to take something
out of the firm, the fifth article was inserted.

The theory of the answer is, that this article entitled Trump
to take from the firm the sum of seven hundred dollars per an-
num, as a part of the expense of carrying on its operations—
that it was the agreement of the parties, that in addition to his
share of the profits, he should have a salary of seven hundred
dollars, in consideration of his giving his undivided personal
attention to the business of the firm.

If such was really the contract of the parties, it cer-
tainly seems strange that their meaning was not expressed in
clearer terms; and still more extraordinary, that, if a fixed
compensation had been designed, the article should have
declared he should not take more than the given sum. Can it
be reasonably contended, that if Mr. Trump, during the three
years, had withdrawn less than seven hundred dollars per an-
num, he would have been entitled, upon the termination of the
partnership, to have taken out a sum equal to the difference
between the amount so withdrawn by him and the annual com-
pensation which he now claims ? The language of the con-
tract is, that he shall not take more than seven hundred dollars,
but surely he might take less; and there is nothing in any part

*"