1. Where one of two partners, lessees of a furnished hotel, expends money, against the protest of his copartner, in repairs and improvements which neither increase nor preserve the firm assets, he is not entitled, without a subsequent ratification thereof, to charge such expenditures against the copartnership.
2. Nor may one partner, who negligently made an overpayment of rent, claimed by but not payable to a landlord who has become insolvent, charge such overpayment to the copartnership, against the objection of his fellow partner.
3. Where a bill for an account between partners was for four years before a master, who had personal knowledge of the services of an expert accountant employed, an allowance for such services will not be disturbed, in the absence of evidence that it was excessive.
4. Unless there are exceptional reasons for doing otherwise, it is the rule, in the settlement of a partnership business by proceedings in equity before a master, to charge the costs of the proceedings, including the master's fee, to the copartnership, or to the parties, equally.
(a) A landlord demised a furnished hotel to a firm consisting of two partners, one of whom was his son. At different times the landlord gave to his son sums of money which were expended by the latter in repairing the property and renewing the furniture:
5. The landlord taking no receipts or vouchers, or even verbal promises, evidencing that the money was supplied by him as a loan to the firm, and presenting no claim himself against the firm for repayment, such expenditures were not chargeable to the copartnership.
PER CURIAM.
The opinion of the learned judge below covers all the points in this case. We affirm the decree for the reasons given by him.
Decree affirmed, and the appeal dismissed, at the costs of the appellant.