Account

A detailed statement of the mutual demands in the nature of debit and credit between parties, arising out of contracts or some fiduciary relation; Whit well v. Willard, 1 Mete (Mass.) 216; Blakeley v. Biscoe, 1 Ilempst.

114, Fed. Cas. No. 1S,239; Portsmouth v. Donaldson, 32 Pa. 202, 72 Am. Dec. 782; Turgeon v. Cote, 8S Me. 108, 33 Atl. 787.

A statement of the receipts and payments of an executor, administrator, or other trustee of the estate confided to him. An open account is one in which some term of the contract is not settled by the parties, whether the account consists of one item or many; Sheppard v. Wilkins, 1 Ala. 02: Goodwin v. Hale. 6 Ala. 438; Dunn v. Fleming's Estate, 73 Wis. 545, 11 X. W. TUT. A form of action called also account render, in which such a statement, and the recovery of the balance which thereby ap- In Practice. In Equity. Ji a concurrent with courts of law is taken over matters of account; Posl v. Kimberly.:•. (N. Y.) ITU: Bruce v. Burdet, 1 J. J. h Nelson v. Alii 360; Mc Laren v. Steapp, l Ga grounds: mutual accounts; 18 B dealings so complicated that they cannot be adjusted in a court of law; 1 Sen. & 1 2 II.

L. Cas. 28; Hickman v. (Va.) •;-, Whltwell v. Willard, I 21*;: Cullum v. Bloodgood, 15 Ala.::!; Printup v. Mitchell. 17 Cm. 558, 63 Am. De Kaston v. Paxton, 46 Or. 308, 80 11 1 Am. St. Rep. 871; Mc Mullen I.: v. Strother, 136 Fed. 295, 69 C. « '.

A Chase v. Phosphate Co., 32 App. Div. I X. Y. Supp. 220; the existence of a fidi relation between the parties; 1 Sim. <'h. n. s.

— 573; Massachusetts General Hospital v. Assur. Co., 4 Cray (Mass.i L'127; Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 D. 8. 505, 9 Sup. Ct. 594, 32 L. Ed. 1005. A bill for an account must show by specific allegations one- of these grounds lity; Walker v. Brooks. 125 Mass. 241; and it must appear in the stating part of the bill; a prayer for an account is not sufficient; Bnshnell v. Avery, 121 Mass. lis. In addition to these peculiar grounds of jurisdiction, equity will grant a discovery in cases of account on the general principles regulating di coveries; Knotts v. Tarver, 8 Ala. 743; Wilson v. Mallett, 1 Sandf. (X. Y.i 112; Waller v. Cheever. 3.1 X. IT. 339; Sheridan v. Ferry Co.. 214 Pa. 117. 63 Atl. 418; Sanborn v. Kittredge, 20 Yt. 632, 50 Am. Dec. 58; and will afterwards proceed to grant I full relief in many cases; 6 Yes. 136; Rathbone v. Warren, 10 Johns. iX". Y.) r,s7; Fowle v. Lawrason, 5 ret. (U. SO 495, S L. Ed. 204. But "to say that whenever there is a right of discovery there must be an account allowed is rather reversing the thing. Discovery, on the contrary, is incident to the order to account. The two things are sepal 2 II. L. Cas. 28. The remedy of part owners of a ship for adjustments of accounts between themselves is in equity; Milium v. Guyther, 8 Oill (Md.) 92, 50 Am. Dec. 681: State v. Watts. 7 La. 440. 26 Am. Dec. 507; and so it is when business is carried on upon joint account, whether as partners or not; Clarke v. Pierce, 52 Mich. 157, 17 X. W. 7S0; Coward V. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451, 55 Tac. 1-17. Equitable jurisdiction over accounts applies to the appropriation of payme* Story, Hq.Jur. (8th Bd.) §459; agency; Henderson v. Mc Clure, 2 Mc Cord, Eq. I 8. 0.) 469; Including factors, bailiffs, consignees, receivers, and stewards, where there are mutual or complicated accounts; 9 Beav. ■ H. L. Cas. 28 I where, however, it was held that the relation of banker and customer is not such fiduciary relation as to Story, Eq. Jur. § 4G5; 2 M. & K. GG4; Scott v. Gamble, 9 N. J. Eq. 218; administrators and executors; Adams' Heirs v. Adams, 22 Vt. 50; Stong v. Wilkson, 14 Mo. 116; Fleming v. Mc Kesson. 56 N. C. 316; Colbert v. Daniel, 32 Ala. 314; (luardians, etc.; Moore v. Hood, 9 Rich. Eq. (S. C."> 311, 70 Am. Dec. 210; Johnson v. Miller, 33 Miss. 553; tenants in cowman, joint tenants of real estate or chattels; 4 Ves. 752; 1 Yes. & B. 114; partners; Perkins v. Perkins' Kx'r, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 364; Carter v. Holbrook, 3 Cush. (Mass.) Washburn v. Washburn, 23 Vt. 576; Hough v. Chaffin, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 238; Long v. Majestre, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 305; directors of companies, and similar officers; 1 Y. & C. 326; apportionment of apprentice fees; 2 Bro. C. C. 78;

— or rents; 2 P. Wms. 176, 501; see 1 Story, Eq. Jur. § 4S0; contribution to relieve real estate; 3 Co. 12; 2 Bos. & P. 270; Cheesebrough v. Millard, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 409, 7 Am. Dec. 494; Stevens v. Cooper, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 425, 7 Am. Dec. 499; Taylor v. Porter, 7 Mass. 355; general average; 4 Kay & J. 367; Sturgess v. Cary, 2 Curt. 59, Fed. Cas. No. 13,- 572; between sureties; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. § 492; liens; Skeel v. Spraker, 8 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 182; Patty v. Pease, 8 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 277, 35 Am. Dec. 683; rents and profits between landlord and tenant; 1 Sch. & L. 305; Livingston v. Livingston, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 287, 8 Am. Dec. 562; in case of torts; Bacon, Abr. Accompt, B; a levy; 1 Ves. Sen. 250; 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 285; and in other cases; Mc Clandish v. Edloe, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 330; ivaste; 1 P. Wms. 407; 6 Ves. 88; tithes and moduses; Com. Dig. Chancery (3 C), Distress (M. 13). But equity will not entertain a suit for a * naked account of profits and damages against an infringer of a patent; Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252. 11 Sup. Ct. 334, 34 L. Ed. 923; Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189, 26 L. Ed. 975; nor will an account for infringing a trademark be ordered where the infringer acted in good faith, or the profits were small; Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 179 U. S. 42, 21 Sup. Ct. 16, 45 L. Ed. 77. Neither will an account be ordered merely to establish by testimony the allegations of the bill; Tilden v. Maslin, 5 W. Va. 377; nor when the accounts are all on one side and no discovery is needed; Graham v. Cummings, 208 Pa. 516, 57 Atl. 943. On a bill for an account the right of the defendant to affirmative relief is as broad as that of complainant; Wilcoxon v. Wilcoxon, 111 111. App. 90; even if the answer contains no demand for it; Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wisner, 110 App. Div. 99, 97 N. Y. Supp. 52, affirmed 188 IN. Y. 624, 81 N. E. 1162. A decree for an accounting under a decree persons not then In being, as after-born children, and the latter may be bound by it; as in the case of trustees of land subject to a life tenancy; 2 Vera. 526; Harrison v. Wallton's Ex'r, 95 Va. 721, 30 S. E. 372, 41