Liquidating partner. It is the duty of those upon whom, by appointment or other wise, it devolves, after the dissolution of a firm, to wind up the affairs of the partner ship, to act for the best advantage of the concern, to make no inconsistent use of the property, and to seek no private advantage in the composition of debts or in any, other transaction in the performance of this busi ness ; Lewis v. Moffett, 11 Ill. 392 ; Insley v. Shire, 54 Kan. 793, 39 Pac. 713, 45 Am. St. Rep. 308. Nor, in this case, can any part ner claim any.commission for getting in the debts, or, in any other particular, reward or compensation for his trouble; id.; Denver v.
Roane, 99 II. S. 355, 25 L. Ed. 476; 1 Knapp, P. C. 312; 3 Kent 64 ; Washburn v. man, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 519; Patton's Ex'rs v. Calhoun's Ex'rs, 4 Gratt. (Va.) 138; er v. Slater, 175 N. Y. 143, '67 N. E. 224, 61 L. R. A. 796, 96 Am. St. Rep. 605; Appeal of Gyger, 62 Pa. 73, 1 Ani. Rep. 382; Kimball v. Lincoln, 99 Ill. 578 ; contra, Royster v. Johnson, 73 N. C. 474 ; but in Bradley v. Chamberlin, 16 Vt. 613, a partner who per formed services in settling up the affairs of a firm after dissolution was allowed compensa tion for them, and where one partner con tributed all the capital and exercised com plete management of the business, he was allowed compensation; Mattingly v. Stone's Adm'r (Ky.) 35 S. W. 921; and where there is a great difference between the services of the partners, there may be compensation; Beatty v. Wray, 19 Pa. 516, 57 Am. Dec. 677; see Dunlap v. Watson, 124 Mass. 305; it is held that no compensation will be allowed for an excess of services without a special agreement ; Heckard v. Fay, 57 Ill. App. 20. But it is held that a partner will be allowed compensation for extra and outside services in winding up ; Schenkl v. Dana, 118 Mass. 236. See Compensation, supra.
Litigation. A partner may recover the costs of carrying on litigation for the firm —but not compensation for conducting it, un less by express agreement; Coddington v. Idell, 29 N. J. Eq. 504.
Profits and losses, how distributed. As be tween the partners, they may by agreement stipulate for equal or unequal shares in the profit and loss of the partnership ; Paul v. Cullum, 132 U. S. 539, 10 Sup. Ct. 151, 33 L. Ed. 430; Story, Part. § 23; but in the ab sence. of any express agreement or stipula tion between them, and of all controlling evi dence and circumstances, the presumption has been held to be that they are interested in equal shares; Frazer v. Linton, 183 Pa.
186, 38 Atl. 589 ; Turnipseed v. Goodwin, 9 Ala. 372 ; 20 Beay. 98; Lewis v. Loper, 54 Fed. 237; Paul v. Cullum, 132 U. S. 539, 10 Sup. Ct. 151, 33 L. Ed. 430; Fleischman v. Gottschalk, 70 Md. 523, 17 Atl. 384. And the circumstance that each partner has brought an unequal amount of capital into the com mon stock, or that one or more have brought in the whole capital and the others have only brought industry, skill, and experience, would not seem to furnish any substantial ground of difference as to the distribution; 3 Kent 28, 29; Bradbury v. Smith, 21 Me. 117.
It has sometimes been asserted, however, that it is a matter of fact, to be settled ac cording to all the circumstances, what would be a reasonable apportionment, uncontrolled by any natural presumption of equality in the distribution; Story, Partn: § 24; 2 Camp. 45. The opinion in England seems divided ; but in America the authorities seem decided ly to favor the doctrine of a presumed equal ity of interest. See American cases cited above ; Story, Part. § 24. "The better view is that although all or a large part of the capital is furnished by one partner, the en tire loss is to be borne by all. Hence, after payment of the debts, the contributions of partners to capital are all to be repaid be fore there can be any division of profits (L. R. 7 Eq. 538; Whitcomb v. Converse, 119 Mass. 38, 20 Am. Rep. 311; Leserman v. Bern heimer, 113 N. Y. 39, 20 N. E. 869). And if the assets are not sufficient, after paying the debts, to repay the capita], the deficit must be shared by all the partners; and the part ner who has contributed more than his share of capital is therefore entitled to contribu tion from the rest (Hellebush v. Coughlin, 37 Fed. 294; Emerick v. Moir, 124 Pa. 498, 17 Atl. 1)." Pars. Part., Beale's ed. § 173.
Receiver, appointment of. To authorize a partner to demand the appointment of a re ceiver of a subsisting partnership, he must show such a case of gross abuse and miscon duct on the part of his co-partner, that a dis solution ought to be decreed and the busi ness wound up; Story, Part. § 228, 231; Sutro v. Wagner, 23 N. J. Eq. 388; Camp bell v. Oil Co., 96 S. W. 442, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 716; and the courts will not interfere with the .management of a firm except as inci dental to winding up its affairs dis tributing its assets; 15 Ves. 10.