JAMES verʃus BROWNE.
T
HIS was an action of Account render, brough by one Partner againft another, and feveral iffues were joined on the pleas, 1ft of Ne unques Receiver, and 2d Fully accounted. In the declaration the Plaintiff and Defendant were named Merchants, and the Defendant was charged as a Receiver of monies to the joint benefit of the company from three perfons, and the proof was of a receipt from one of them.
For the Deƒendant, it was contended, that as he had not been charged as Britiʃh, in order to make him accountable as Receiver, it was incumbent upon the Plaintiff to ftate in his declaration, by whofe hands the monies were received, and to prove, accordingly, a receipt, by the hands of fuch perfon, or perfons, Bull L.N.P. 121. That unlefs the proof went to all the perfons ftated in the declaration, he failed in his action ; or, at leaft, that the verdict muft be conformable to the evidence, which was only of a receipt by the hands of one, fo that the judgment quod compulet, purfuing the verdict, muft be reftricted to that receipt alone.
But it was anfwered, and fo ruled by the court in their charge to the Jury, that, however the law ftood in the cafe a Common Receiver, yet, as between Co-partners, the action of Account render (illegible text) be nugatory, it the fame doctrine prevailed. That in Pennʃylvania particularly, where there is no Court of Chancery to compel a difclofure of the numerous and extenfive tranfactions, which one partner might manage for the joint benefit of the company, there would be no remedy, unlefs this action were liberally extended. That between partners, therefore, it is fufficient for the Plaintiff to charge the Defendant, generally, with the receipt by the hands of any one of the perfons mentioned in the declaration, he is entitled to general verdict upon the firʃt iffue. Then, on the judgment quod compulet, all the accounts between the parties will come before the auditors, without particular refpect to the receipts proved upon the trial.
No evidence being offered by the Defendant, in fupport of the ʃecond plea, the Jury gave general verdicts for the Plaintiff upon both iffues: and thereupon judgment quod compulet was entered.
Afterwards, when the Court were about to appoint Auditors in this caufe, the chief justice made the following obfervations:
M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice. The neceffity of a liberal extenfion of the action of Account render between joint partners, is apparent, not only from the nature of the cafe, but from this circumftance alfo, that the parties would otherwife be deftitute of any means to arrive at juftice: For the action on the cafe, though beneficially conftrued in modern practice, would certainly be inadequate; and we have no Court of Chancery to interpofe an equitable jurifdiction. The action of account has, we know, been almoft difufed in England for a century
