¶1 This case comes before us upon three exceptions by the defendant, to the report of the referee.
¶2 The first and second are untenable.
¶3 1. Because they grow out of the business of the partnership.
¶4 2. Because they were admitted by the defendant, before the referee, to be proper charges against him.
¶5 The third exception is well founded.
¶6 The English doctrine, that executors, trustees, surviving partners, &c., are not entitled to commissions or compensation for their services, is not suited to this country.
¶7 It is suggested in Boyd v. Hawkins, 2 Dev. Eq., where the cases on this subject are cited and commented upon, by Chief Justice RuefiN, as a reason for the English doctrine, that persons acting in such fiduciary characters are not, in England, practically at any trouble or expense about their trusts, because they manage the whole business through attorneys, &c.
¶8 But it is entirely different here.
¶9 And following the suggestion of Chief Justice RueetN, and the tendency of legislation in this State, providing compensation for executors, administrators, &c., we see no reason why a surviving partner should not be allowed reasonable compensation for his services, in winding up the affairs of the partnership.
¶10 In so far as this exception was overruled, there was error.
¶11 Judgment accordingly.