in any form, so far as appears. In September, 1878, and prior to the distribution of the stocks by the trustees of the new firm, payment of this debt was demanded by the rep- resentative of David Eegester of the executer of Edward Dodge, who then denied the existence of the debt as a liabil- ity of Edward Dodge. Thereafter the representative of David Eegester participated in the distribution of the stocks belong- ing to the new firm of Jay Cooke & Co. made by the trustees thereof, and as a crediter of thatfirm received sundry shares of various stocks, which he forthwith, and on June 12, 1879, Bold at private sale, without notice to the executer of Edward Dodge. The amount of the cash dividends received from the estate of the new firm, tegether with the amount realized from the sale of the stocks distributed by direction of the trustees of that firm, net being equal to the amount of the deposits made in 1869 by David Eegester, this action is breught by his representative to charge the estate of Edward Dodge with the deficiency. �The law of the case is net doubtful. By the deposits made in 1869 with the old firm of Jay Cooke & Ce., Edward Dodge, then a member of that firm, became liable for the amount thereof. That liability continues, unless facts be shown from which an intention on the part of the crediter to aceept the liability of the new firm in lieu of the liability of the old firm can be fairly inferred. The question, therefore, is ■whether the facts above stated are sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the liability of the new firm was so accepted by the plaintiff. �In disposiiig of questions of this character, courts have frequently held that, when the dissolution of an old firm has occurred, and a new firm bas agreed to assume the liabilitiea of the old firm, but slight ciroumstances are required to jus- tify finding an intention en the part of a crediter of the old firm, who has notice of the dissolution and of the agreement by the new firm, te aceept the liability of the new firm in. place of the liability of the old. In Ex parte Williams, Buck^ 13, the court, speaking of such a case, say: "A very little will do." In In re Smith, Knigbt d Co. L. E. 4 Ch. App. 66^ ��� �
