Opinion
(December Term, 1842.)
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 copartnership beyond his share of the profits.
THIS was a bill filed by the plaintiff, as administrator of Aaron Lazarus, deceased, for the settlement of a partnership which had existed between the said Lazarus and the defendant Taylor to carry on a mill for planing 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 in the partnership agreement, for his personal superintendence of the mill, in addition to his share of the profits. This 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 of the mill, and engaged in other business which fully occupied his time. The defendant then excepted to the master's report because he had not allowed him a reasonable compensation for settling the copartnership business after the death of Lazarus. Upon this exception the Court gave the (421) following opinion, the case having been argued by
Mordecai for plaintiff.
J. H. Bryan for defendant.
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, 17 N.C. 481. Here, it is true, there was a stipulation for compensation, but, as we have already seen, that was abandoned or waived, and 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.
PER CURIAM. Exception overruled.
Cited : Butner v. Lemly, 58 N.C. 149.