■ IN EB SAULS. TT7 �2 Humph. 529; Behte y.Wynne, 7 Terg. 541; Baneroft v. Snodgrass, 1 Cold. 441. �These and other cases citedj some of them treating of the powers of a partner in existing firms, and some of his powers after dissolution, all show that a partner cannot waste the assets or act beyond the scope of the partnership business, nor, after 'dissolution, create new debts, or misapply the finn property. But they seem to me not to settle any principle ■which militates against the idea, that, after ail, it may be within the legitimate scope of a surviving partner's power to assent to a bankrupt's discharge. The nearest analogy to it in the ordinary conduct of his aff airs is the release of a debt. The case of Bookout v. Anderson, supra, does decide that in Louisiana a surviving partner cannot release a debtor of the firm so as to qualify him to be a witness, but then the law of Louisiana seems to be peculiar as to the powers of a surviv- ing partner, whô has ho right at all to administer the firm assets until authôrized by a court of probate. Coll. Part- nership, (4th Ed.) § 129, note 3 ; Id. § 666. And in Buckley T. Dayton, 14 John. 387, it was held that the release of a witness by one partner alone was suf&cient to qualify him. On general principles, a surviving partner is the owner of the partnership assets ; he has the legal title, and it is only in a court of equity that he is treated as a trustee. Case v. Abeel, 1 Paige, Ch. 393. He may collect, compromise, or otherwise arrange all the debts of the firm, and his receipts, payments, and doings generally in that behalf ^re valid, if honest and within the fair scope and purposes of the trust. And if there be negligence, delay, misconduct, or gross mistake, equity will in- terfere and give proper relief. Pars. Part. (3d Ed.) 440 ; Id. 442 and notes. 8o completely is this so that the fitrm assets pass to his administrator and to his individual assignee in bankruptcy. Brooks v. Brooks, 12 Heisk. 12 ; ee Stevens, 5 N. B. R. 112. �The power of a partner in an existing firm to release a debt cannot be doubted, even after dissolution. Coll. Part. §§ 46S, 636, 637; Story, Part. §§ 115, 252; Pars. Part. 172, note w; Salmon v. Davis, 4 Binney, 375 ; Nepier v. McLeod, 9 Wend. ����
