case george ball appellant lord Lanesborough and other respondent that may  Mews dig ten one of several partner who be treasurer for the whole enter into  contract with a and afterward fail his estate be vest in trustee though the  contract with a concern the partnership business yet he be not entitle to any  satisfaction out of the treasurer share of the partnership effect but must  come in equal with the rest of his creditor the money due to a upon the  contract not be for wage decree of Lord keeper Harcourt affirm in consequence  of the determination on a former appeal in this cause see ante title agreement  can I a order be make by the court of chancery refer it to a master to take a  account of what be due to the appellant for his salary of S d per hundred for  wire make since he be discharge from the partner be work and in pursuance of  that order the master report that there be due to brown er p he for wire make  to the that of January at the say rate of S d per hundred pound while this  account be take a act of parliament pass whereby all the estate and effect of  clog and Dann be vest in the respondent and several other person for the  purpose of pay their respective debt beside the interest which clog have in  the work as one of the partner he be also constitute perpetual treasurer of  the partnership and therefore the appellant soon after he have obtain the  master report file his bill of revivor against the respondent as stand in  Coggss place for a satisfaction of his say liquidate demand the cause be hear  before the Lord keeper Harcourt on the that of January when it be order that  the former decree and all subsequent order and proceed thereupon shall be  carry into execution and in regard the plaintiff demand be for wage which  ought to have be pay out of the money belong to the say work it be order that  so much money as brown the defendant have receive for the produce of the say  work that do belong to clog or be due to he on the that of January shall be  apply in the first place to the plaintiff satisfaction and if that money shall  not be sufficient the defendant be decree to pay the plaintiff what shall  remain due to he out of the separate estate of clog in proportion with the  other separate creditor and also his cost the defendant be dissatisfy with  this decree apply for and obtain a rehear of the cause on the that of November  when his lordship declare that the act of parliament have consider the estate  of clog and Dann to be but one joint fund for the satisfaction of their or  either of their joint and separate creditor and that the plaintiff debt arise  upon the covenant enter into by clog and his partner the proprietor of the say  brass work and not as wage he ought to come in equal with the rest of the  creditor of clog and Dann or either of they for satisfaction of the money  report due to he from this last decree the plaintiff appeal insist I Pratt S  Dodd that his money be not due from clog and Dann as goldsmith or from clog  mere in his own right but as treasurer to the say partnership nor even in that  capacity upon any separate agreement of his own but on the covenant enter into  by he and other proprietor on behalf of themselves and all the partner of the  say brass work that the S d per hundred be declare by the original decree to  be a reward attend the produce of the say work and be always look upon by the  company as wage or salary and allow as such in their treasurer account and so  consider also by their lordship on the hear of the former appeal that the  present proprietor and partner still reap the full benefit of the appellant  service the work be carry on accord to his method and in a very flourish  condition and the appellant be still oblige by his article and the original  decree to repair again to the work whenever require and to teach the say  company servant during his life and that though the separate estate of clog  shall be liable in the first place as it ought to the satisfaction of the  appellant demand yet the estate of clog and Dann which be vest in the  respondent as trustee for their creditor will not be thereby lessen because  the proprietor and partner of the brass work be oblige to make good the same  to the respondent as they be the representative of clog on the other side it  be argue f page that the original decree be not make against clog as treasurer  of the work but only as he have covenant with the appellant by the article to  pay he the money absolute and not issue out of or depend upon the profit or  loss of the work and as to the pretence that the estate of clog or Dann or  their creditor will not be lessen by payment of the appellant debt it be find  on a mistake for the partner of the brass work be no way oblige to make brown  the same good to the respondent that the word of the act of parliament be  plain positive and express that as well the joint as separate estate of the  say clog and Dann shall be in the first place for the benefit of all and every  the creditor of the say John clog and John Dann and the respective executor  and administrator of such creditor and every of they in proportion to their  several and respective debt just and true due and owe to they from the say  John clog and John Dann upon the that of January until all and every the  creditor or their respective executor or administrator brown er p shall be  full satisfy and pay the full sum of S in the pound for all such debt as be  then real just and true due and owe to the say creditor and therefore it be  insist that the decree of the that of January so far as it give a preference  to the appellant be a repeal of the say act of parliament and that as the  respondent be only trustee for the creditor under that act it will have be a  breach of trust in they to have comply with such a decree which can not have  indemnified they against those creditor they be no party to the suit after  hear counsel on this appeal and due consideration and debate of what be offer  thereupon the question be put whether the say decree or order shall be reverse  which be resolve in the negative it be order and adjudge that the appeal shall  be dismiss and the decree or order therein complain of affirm jour vol p