must be filed by one having title to a portion of the premises sought to be partitioned. If a statute of the State authorizes such bill, it must be filed in the State courts.

This is a bill in equity, in which the complainant prays partition of certain placer mining property in which the complainant has, as he alleges, an undivided interest. It appears from the allegations of the bill and the proof, that the title to the property in controversy is in the United States, the parties to this suit having jointly a possessory claim or interest with the right to take ore therefrom, but no other title. The defense is that this court has no jurisdiction in equity, because the complainant has no title to the land.

M. B. CARPENTER, for complainant.

DIXON & REED, for respondents.

MCCRARY, Circuit Judge.

It has long been settled that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States in equity is derived from and defined by the constitution and laws of the United States; that it is the same in all the States, and is not to be affected or varied by the various statutes of the States, whereby the chancery powers and jurisdiction of State courts may be defined and regulated. This court can not, therefore, look to any State legislation as the source of its jurisdiction in equity. In Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Peters, 658, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the Supreme Court, thus stated the rule: "And the settled doctrine of this court is, that the remedies in equity are to be administered, not according to the State practice, but according to the practice of courts of equity in the parent country, as contradistinguished from that of courts of law, subject, of course, to the provisions of the acts of Congress, and to such alterations and rules as, in the exercise of the powers delegated in those acts, the courts of the United States may from time to time prescribe." And see to the same effect, Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212; U. S. v. Howland, 4 Wheat. 115; Neves v. Acott, 13 How. 271; Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 499; Johnston v. Roe, 1 McCrary, 162. It

follows from these authorities that unless the jurisdiction of this court can be derived from the constitution and laws of the United States alone, it does not exist.

Sec. 913 of the Revised Statues of the United States declares that the modes of proceeding in equity causes shall be according to the principles, rules and usages which belong to courts of equity, as contradistinguished from courts of law; and this language refers to the principles, rules and usages by which the High Court of Chancery of England was governed at the time the Judiciary Act was passed.

It is very clear, that according to the general principles of equity jurisprudence as administered in England at the time of the passage of the Judiciary Act, and as administered by courts of chancery in this country, except where a different rule is adopted by statute, the holder of a mere possessory interest in land, and not having title thereto, can not maintain a bill for partition. Such a bill must be filed by one having title to a portion of the premises sought to be partitioned: Horncastle v. Charlesworth, 11 Simons Ch. 314; Williams v. Wiggand, 53 Ill. 233; Ross v. Cobb, 48 Ill. 111.

It is not claimed that there is any act of Congress conferring upon this court jurisdiction in equity of a bill for partition brought by the owner of an undivided interest in a mining claim where the legal title to the real estate remains in the United States. It follows that this bill must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If the statutes of the State of Colorado, relied upon by counsel for complainant, confer jurisdiction upon the courts of the State in a case of this character, the complainant must resort to those courts.

1. An agreement between tenants in common of certain ore banks construed so as to exempt them from partition: Coleman v. Grubb, 23 Pa. St. 393; Blewett v. Coleman, 11 M. R. 160.

2. No partition of partnership property, without a dissolution of the partnership. Nisbet v. Nash, 11 M. R. 531,

3. The only practical partition of mines, as a rule, is by sale: Lenfers v. Henke, 5 M. R. 68. The same as to ditches: Lorenz v. Jacobs, 59 Cal. 262.

CRAWSHAY V. MAULE ET AL.

MAULE ET AL. V. CRAWSHAY.

(1 Swanston's Ch. 495. High Court of Chancery, 1818. Before Lord Chan. cellor Eldon.)

General rule as to dissolution. When no term is expressly limited for its duration and there is nothing in the contract to fix it the partnership may be terminated at a moment's notice by either party.

Death terminates a partnership.

1 The purchase of a leasehold interest as part of a stock in trade is not evidence of an agreement of partnership commensurate with the duration of the lease.

2 Trading concern-Mines and iron works operated in connection therewith are not a mere interest in land but a partnership in trade. Construction of devise of mines and iron works.

Manager. The power of the court to appoint a manager of works and mines as a trading concern, pending final decree, stated.

Upon final dissolution of a trading partnership the court will order a sale on motion.

By articles of agreement dated the 31st of July, 1794, between Antony Bacon and Richard Crawshay, Bacon agreed to assign to Crawshay all his interest in certain lands and mines of coal and iron ore, situated at Cyfarthfa in the county of Glamorgan, (of which he, Wm. Crawshay, was then in possession, under three leases for terms of 99 years each, commencing respectively in the years 1763, 1765 and 1768,) subject, after the 29th of September, 1815, to an annual rent of 5,000 pounds, and a payment of 15 shillings a ton on all pig iron annually made on the premises beyond 6,400 tons. Richard Crawshay accordingly took possession of the premises, and carried on iron works there, and in 1801, intending an

1 Phillips v. Reeder, 11 M. R. 419.

2 Wren v. Kirton, 2 M. R. 408; Williams v. Attenborough, Id. 410; Dudley v. Warde, 6 M. R. 34.

3 Wilmington Co. v. Allen, 9 M. R. 106; Roberts v. Eberhardt, 11 M. R. 301.

extension of the works and the erection of new furnaces, it was agreed between him and Bacon that the payment of 15 shillings a ton beyond 6,400 tons should cease at 10,700 tons. Disputes having arisen on the subject of that agreement in 1808, Richard Crawshay filed a bill to compel specific performance. The decree pronounced in March, 1810, directed Bacon to execute to Richard Crawshay an underlease of the premises, for all the time which he, or the trustees under his marriage settlement, had therein, except the last day, subject to the yearly payments stipulated.

Richard Crawshay being seized and possessed of a considerable real and personal estate, including the iron works at Cyfarthfa, and the buildings and machinery thereon, and a leasehold wharf at Cardiff, used for shipping iron, by his will dated the 26th of September, 1809, after giving among other legacies £100,000 to his son, William Crawshay, gave to Joseph Bailey £25,000 "to be transferred from my account on the ledger to his, intended as a capital, for him to become a partner, with my executor, of one fourth share in the trade of all those works, so long as the lease endures, with the principal and profits therefrom to be his own forever." He then gave to Benjamin Hall, Esq., and his wife, of Abercarne, and to their heirs forever, all the residue of his estate, real and personal, and appointed Mr. Hall sole executor. By a codicil, dated the 4th of May, 1810, the testator gave to his son, William Cra shay, "three eighth shares of my concerns at this iron work, and of the premises at Cardiff, so the partnership will stand at my demise; William Crawshay three eighths, Benjamin Hall three eighths, Joseph Bailey two eighths." The testator died on the 27th of June, 1810; Mr. Hall proved his will, and William Crawshay, Hall and Bailey took possession of the iron works, and carried them on as copartners in the shares bequeathed to them, under the firm of Crawshay, Hall & Bailey, but without any articles of copartnership. In October, 1812, William Crawshay purchased the share of Bailey for £30,000, and from that time the works were conducted by William Crawshay and Hall, till the death of the latter under the firm of Crawshay and Hall. No written articles of copartnership were ever executed or prepared between them; but they verbally agreed that the future capital of the

concern should be £160,000, which consisted of an imaginary or estimated value of the whole of the partnership property; (£100,000 standing to the credit of William Crawshay, in respect to his five eighth parts, and £30,000 to the credit of Mr. Hall, in respect to his three eighth parts); and that the books should be balanced on the 31st of March in each year, and the annual profits drawn out by William Crawshay and Hall, in proportion to their shares.

No underlease having been executed in the life of Crawshay, by indenture of the 21st of May, 1814, Bacon and his trustees, in obedience to the decree of 1810, assigned to Hall, his executors, etc., all the premises, for the residue of he respective terms, except the last day of each, subject to the annual rent of £5,000 and the payment of 158. a ton on all pig iron made yearly on the premises above 6,400 tons, and not exceeding 10,700 tons; and by a deed dated the 1st of June, 1814, and in dorsed on the assignment, Hall declared that he would stand possessed of the premises, as to three eighth parts in trust for himself, and as to five eighth parts in trust for William Crawshay; and Ill and William Crawshay entered into covenants for payment of their respective proportions of rent and for mutual indemnity.

By indenture dated the 23d of May, 1814, Bacon, in consideration of £32,500, paid three eighths by Hall, and five eighths by William Crawshay, assigned to Joseph Kaye, his executors, etc., in trust for Hall and Crawshay, in the proportion of three eighths to the former and five eighths to the latter, the rent of 158. per ton on iron, then due or to become due. By another indenture of the same date, Bacon, in consideration of £62,500, assi: ned to Kaye in trust for William Crawshay his reversionary interest in the premises, and the annual rent of £5,000.

On the 1st of June, 1814, Bailey, in execution of the agreement of October, 1812, assigned to William Crawshay his share in the partnership property. On the 31st of July, 1817, Mr. Hall died, leaving four sons (the eldest of the age of fifteen years) and a daughter. By his will, dated the 8th of the same month, he devised to George Maule, John Llewellin and Joseph Kaye all his freehold, copyhold and leasehold estates, (except trust and mortgage estates, and the estates in which he

VOL. XI-15