JUDGES: SHAW, J. We concur: HENSHAW, J.; MELVIN, J.; LAWLOR, J.
OPINION
SHAW, Judge
In Bank.
The plaintiff in this case did not expressly ask an accounting. His express prayer was that the partnership be dissolved, and that a receiver be appointed to sell the property, and out of the proceeds to pay the partnership debts, dividing the balance, if any, between the partners. The findings lay no foundation for an accounting. They do not state either the partnership debts, the amount of property on hand, or the shares of the partners. The judgment merely is that the partnership be dissolved, and that plaintiff take nothing by his action. Under these circumstances we do not think the judgment would be a bar to a subsequent suit for an accounting, and the question whether or not the plaintiff is debarred from maintaining such an action in equity by reason of the frauds practiced by him, as found by the court, in obtaining the agreement of partnership, does not arise in the case. Consequently what is said in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal on that subject is obiter dictum, and does not constitute the law of the case. Regarding that opinion as a mere declaration that the judgment dissolving the partnership was properly given, we have no fault to find with it, and for that reason the application for rehearing is denied.
We concur: HENSHAW, J.; MELVIN, J.; LAWLOR, J.