ADAMS V. TEKEELL. 79T �The foUowing f acts appear from the agreed staiement : �Enoeh Jones, the aucestor of the plaintifEs, who are his only heirs, was in his life-time and at his death seized in fee of the premises in controvei-By. During his life-time Jones and one Joseph Ulrich had been engaged in commercial business in the city of San Antonio, under the firm name of J. Ulrich & Co. The partnership between them expired by its own limitation in 1861, while Ulrich was in Mexico. In the year 1862 Jones visited Mexico, where he met Ulrich and agreed with him to pay off the debts of the firm, and upon his return to San Antonio published in two newspapers a notice of the dissolution of the firm, and that he assumed its debts. There was no provision in the articles of partnership that the part- nership should be continued after the death of either of th© partners by the surviving partner and the personal representa- tives of the deceased partner. �In August, 1863, Jones died, leaving a will, in which I. A. Paschal and Samuel G. Newton were appointed his executors. They qualified and took possession of the estate. The will provided that the executors should not give bond or security, but only take the oath prescribed by law, and that no action should be taken upon the estate in the probate court other than to record the will and file an inventory of the estate. The will further provided that the business of J. Ulrich & Co. should be continued or closed up, as the executors and Ulrich might decide to be for the best interests of the estate and the firm. Ulrich and the executors never had any understanding or agreement to continue the partnership after the death of Jones, nor did Ulrich give any authority to the executors to continue the business of the firm or consent thereto. �On November 2, 1867, the partnership affairs had not been closed up by the executors. On that day a creditor of tho firm of J. Ulrich & Co. filed a petition in involuntary bank- ruptcy against said firm in the district court for the western dis- trict of Texas. The grounds upon which the petition prayed an adjudication of bankruptcy were that Ulrich, being absent within six calendar months next before the date of the peti- tion, had, with intent to defraud his creditors, remained ab- ����
