VETTEfeLEIN V. BARNBS. 69$ �30, 1864, to April 30, 1865, one-eighth of the whole profits of the firm. The second of these prior New York firms was one consisting of the two bankrupts and the plaintiff, un- der the firm name of Th. H. Vetterlein & Sons, which was formed on the dissolution of the earlier firm of Th. H. & B. Vetterlein & Co., and continued to do business until some time in the year 1867, when it was dissolved by the -with- drawal of the plaintiff, and thereafter the bankrupt firm was formed and continued the business till the bankruptcy. The plaintiff also claims upon the proofs, though not precisely so Btated in the bill, that he was a partner in two prior firms of Vetterlein & Co. of PhiladelpMa, — of the first from sometime in January, 1862, to July 6, 1869, when the firm was dis- solved by the withdrawal of one of the partners, Charles A. Meniar, the firm consisting of Theodore H. Vetterlein, Charles A. Meniar, and the plaintiff; that upon its dissolution a new firm of the same name was formed, composed of Theo- dore H. Vetterlein and the plaintiff, which continued the same business till December 31, 1869, when it was dissolved, and a new firm of the same name, composed of the two bank- rupts, continued the same business till its dissolution by bankruptcy. The plaintiS's interest in the first of these firms of Vetterlein & Co. is claimed to have been, until Jan- uary 1, 1866, one-sixth of Theodore H. Vetterlein's share of the profits, which was four-fifths, and after that time 15 per cent, of the entire profits ; ana. his interest in the business of the second firm of Vetterlein & Co. also 15 per cent, of the entire profits. �The bill further alleges that each sueceeding firm received the remaining assets of the prior firm as liquidators ; that ail of each prior firms were solvent upon their dissolution ; that there was, as to each of them, something still due to the plaintiff for his share of the profits ; that funds or other spe- cifie property which constituted part of the assets of each of said prior firms came to the hands of the bankrupts, and that Bucb assets were not entirely liquidated at the time of the bankruptcy ; that the bankrupts held the same as liquidators only, and that some part of said assets came to the hands of ��� �
