16S FEDEEAL REPORTES. �proved that the use of the copartnership assets " to pay Brewster's debt was without the knowledge or consent of Burr, that the contrary expressly appears by the testimony of Burr himself, who was complainant's witness. �Brewster's interest in having Burr join Baldwin, and fur- nish capital enough to do a successful business, was that Baldwin might be able to pay off his debt to him. This was perfectly well understood by ail parties, and one of the in- ducements held out to Burr to come in was that if he did Brewster would give up $20,000 of his debt against Baldwin, upon the balance of it being promptly paid. Baldwin was to tum into the concern ail his business assets, which were very valuable. �Under the circumstances, which it is nnneeessary to detail more at large, it would be absurdly improbable that there should be any other expectation or understanding between the parties than that after the formation of the firm Baldwin should go on and reduce Brewster's debt down to the limit of $20,000 by using the funds of the firm. Burr himself, who is alleged to have been defrauded by this having been done, testiiied that he expected Brewster to be paid ont of the pro- ceeds of the sales of the stock of goods which by the forma- tion of the copartnership was to become its property. He says, indeed, that as between himself and Baldwin he under- stood such payments were to be charged to Baldwin, and not to the firm. In other words, while he admits that he under- stood that Baldwin was to be allowed to use the firm's funds to pay Brewster, the firm did not assume as its own Bald- win's debt to Brewster. This qualification is of no impor- tance. It simply affects a settlement of copartnership ac- counts between Baldwin and Burr. So far as Brewster's rightfal or wrongful receipt of the money goes Burr's testi- mony distinctly negatives the rJleged fraud of Brewster upon him or his firm in the receipt of these moneys. �It is, however, urged that by the copartnership articles the debt to Brewster was not assumed, and the copartners were expressly prohibited from using the firm's funds to pay the debts of the individual partners. The suggestion bas no ����
