700 FEDEEAL BEPOETEE. �account with Th. H. Vetterlein &'Sons." In this second account, wMch runs from October 23, 1865, to December 21, 1870, the plaintifE is charged with various payments in cash down to the twenty-eighth of November, 1870. He is cred- ited with the above-mentioned balance of the account with the former firm; also with $2,622, his share of the profits up to December 30, 1865, which sum is credited to him on the books of the firm, also with the sums of $20 and $50 cash paid at different times to the firm, with which the books also credit him. This second account is made up with semi- annual rests, and the plaintiff is credited with interest amounting in ail to $8,629.87. He is charged with one item which appears to be a payment by the firm on an individual adventure of his own, $4,904.51; also with $1,479.65, a transfer in Vetterlein & Co.'s ledger. It appears by that ledger that a debit balance to this amount against the plain- tiff was balanced by charging the same to Th. H. Vetterlein & Sons, but no corresponding entry was made in the books of the latter firm. The credit balance of this second account is $19,187.91, and this constitutes the firsfc item in the ac- <}ount rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant with the let- ter of his agent, dated June 1, 1878. The demand in said let- ter not being complied with, the plaintiff commenced this suit in November, 1879. This suit is sought to be maintained by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as a suit by a sole suiv- ent partner to recover the assets of the firm of which he was a member, for the purpose of liquidating the afiairs of the firm and distributing them according to the rights of the sev- eral partners and their representatives. The firms as to which this claim is made appear to have been solvent when dissolved, and, so far as appears, the plaintiff is a solvent part- ner of such of them as he was a member of, though there is no evidence that Bernard Vetterlein and Henry Thurman, who were partners in the firm of Th. H. & B. Vetterlein & Co., and Charles A. Meniar, of Vetterlein & Co., are not also solvent. It is, undoubtedly, the right of a sole remaining solvent partner to demand and take from his insolvent co- ��� �
