Barber

I. The plaintiff’s cause of action was not barred by the 339th section of the Code of Civil Procedure.

II. No settlement of the partnership accounts was had between them, and all the partnership affairs had not been adjusted, and the provisions of the 339th section of the Code had not commenced running. ( Gleason v. White, 34 Cal. 358 ; Hill v. Haskin, 42 Cal. 159 ; Miller v. Brigham, 50 Cal. 615 ; Ross v. Cornell, 45 Cal. 133 ; 4 Mylne & Craig, 165—72; Story on Partnership, sec. 221; The Succession of Powell, 14 La. 425 .)

J. H. Me Cune, for Respondent.

1. (a) An attachment was levied May 4th, 1874, and everything belonging to the firm, including materials, machinery, account books, etc., was taken possession of by the Sheriff, under and by virtue of said attachment.

(5) The attachment was released May 19th, and the suit settled by the creditors of the firm meeting and appointing one of their number assignee, who collected the debts due the firm, and paid all the creditors ninety per cent, of their indebtedness.

(c) The property that was taken charge of by the assignee, and disposed of by him, composed all the property that the firm had.

(d) The firm of Barber & Barnes…