#### ALEXANDER ANDERSON Adm’or. vs. JOHN A. TAYLOR.

A partner, without a stipulation to that effect, is not entitled to compensation for any services in conducting the trade, or settling the business of the co-partnership, beyond his share of the profits.

The case of Buford v Neely, % Dev. Eq. Rep. 481, cited and approved.

This was a bill filed by the plaintiff, as -administrator of Aaron Lazarus, dec’d -for the -settlement of a partnership, which had existed between the said Lazaras and the defendant Taylor to carry on a mill for plaining lumber in-the town of Wilmington. The bill was filed at Spring Term, 1842, of New Hanover Court of Equity, and the defendant having answered, a reference was made to the Clerk and Master to state the accounts of the copartnership. Upon his report coming in, exceptions were taken on both sides, and the cause was transmitted for hearing-to the Supreme Court. The exceptions depended exclusively upon questions of fact, except one upon which alone it seems necessary to report the opinion .of the court. The copartnership was dissolved in 1841, by the death of Lazarus, The defendant first claimed $900 a year, according to a stipulation jn -the partnership agreement, for his personal superintendence of the mill* in addition to his share of the profits.— Th-is .claim was rejected by the court, upon the ground that ■by a subsequent agreement the defendant had relinquished, with the assent of his partner, the personal management oí the mill, and engaged in other business which fully occupied his time. The defendant then excepted to the Master’s report, because he bad not allowed him a reasonable compensation for settling the copartnership business after (he death *421of Lazarus. Upon this exception the court gave the following opinion, the case having been argued by

Mordecai for the plaintiff.

J. H. Bryan for the defendant.

Ruffin, C. J.

So, as connected with'it, must also his second exception be overruled. That' is, that the Master, after rejecting the claim for salary, has not allowed the defendant a reasonable compensation for settling the business. But the rule is clear, that, without a stipulation to that effect, a partner is not entitled to compensation for any services in conducting the trade, beyond his share of the profits. Buford v Neely, 2 Dev. Eq. Rep. 481. Here, it is true, there was a stipulation for compensation ; but, as we have already seen, that was abandoned or waivedand the services, as there specified not having been rendered, so as to entitle the defendant to claim under the agreement, the case stands precisely as if the articles had been silent on the subject. — • The defendant did not'act as managing partner, as contemplated in the agreement; but another person supplied his place, and afterwards he only acted as any and every partner would, simply from his interest in the concern.

Pbr Cukiam. Exception overruled.