the award of the arbitrators could not conclude the infant, but the mother only, as to her own share and proportion: Appellant did not come of age till 1687, and her estate being got into the chamber of London, she was not apprised of her right, nor in a condition to prosecute it, until about eight years after she was of full age; but as soon as she was informed thereof, viz. in Trinity term, 1695, she exhibited a bill for an account, and satisfaction of her share of the said estate in partnership; and in bar to the relief sought by this bill, respondent pleaded the statute of limitations, and the said award made between him and appellant's mother, and the mother's release; upon arguing which plea, it was over-ruled [81] 20th November, 1696, and respondent ordered to answer the bill, saving to him, on the hearing, the benefit of so much of the plea as related to the award; and the respondent afterwards put in an answer, which was reported insufficient; and he answered over, and appellant replied and obtained several orders for the respondent to produce all books relating to the partnership before a master of the court; and several errors and omissions were found therein, and also in the account upon which the arbitrators grounded their award; and proof made of several of those errors and other matters sufficient, as she was advised to invalidate the account, and set aside the award; the cause was brought on to a hearing, and her bill dismissed: but the chancellor at the same time declared he thought appellant wronged by respondent, and recommended it to him to make her a satisfaction; which he neglecting, and insisting on the dismission, and refusing to have the account examined by a master, thereby to deprive her of her share of the partnership estate; therefore she appealed from the said order of dismission, and insisted the Lords ought to open the said account, and not suffer her to be concluded by the award. (W. Williams.)
In affirmance of the dismiss, the respondent made this case; That Charles Harvey, a relation of respondent's wife, was taken by the respondent a partner in his said trade of an ironmonger, in which their stock was to be 6000l. two thirds being the respondent's, and one third Harvey's; who not being able to raise above 1100l. the respondent in kindness lent him 900l. to make up his third of the stock, and had it repaid out of his share of the profits as he could spare it; and afterwards they enlarged their trade to the making and casting of iron guns, and other iron wares: and in March, 1670, the partners, (as they had formerly done) for private satisfaction, cast up their stocks, and the rest then made amounted to 30,288l. besides 5000l. thrown out as bad debts owing to the stock, and the stock then owed 7488l. 15s. and being agreed to continue the joint trade with the said stock, were exact in the estimate, because whenever they parted, an account was to be taken of the whole trade and partnership from the beginning; and by articles, dated 31st July, 1671, agreed to keep on the joint trade for ten years, from the 1st March, 1670, (if they both lived so long) and accordingly carried on joint trade [82] and dealings in the old books till 28th October, 1672, when Charles Harvey died; after which respondent, with the consent of Elizabeth Harvey, executrix of Charles, caused extracts and accounts of the said joint stock and estate to be taken by Thomas Harvey, (the appellant's uncle, and who had served an apprenticeship to the said joint trade, and kept the cash, and managed the trade for the copartners in Harvey's last sickness,) and Edmund Harvey (another of the appellant's uncles) an experienced tradesman and good accomptant; and all the goods and wares then in stock were, by consent of the respondent and the executrix, appraised by them, and with the debts owing to and by the stock, (5000l. being thrown out as bad debts) the nest stock was 23,671l. but the executrix obstructed the closing the said account, insisting that the copartnership was not determined by her testator's death, but she ought to be partner in his stead: And differences thereupon arising between respondent and the executrix, they, pursuant to the articles, referred all matters in difference to John Boun (the executrix's brother-in-law) and Thomas Bard (the appellant's near kinsman) who was then an iron-master; with whom said extract was left as a true account admitted by both parties; and all the partnership books were laid before them, and examined with the extract; and the executrix and appellant's two uncles, on her and her said mother's behalf, managed the reference before the arbitrators; who on full information, 2d June, 1673, made their award in writing, and awarded respondent
191
