Chapman

This is an action for an accounting with reference to certain real estate transactions in which plaintiffs claim to be interested with defendant .as partners, and in which it is alleged large profits were made and appropriated by defendant, who refused to .account. Findings were in favor of defendant upon all the issues, upon which judgment was entered in his favor, and plaintiffs appeal from the judgment upon a ■bill of exceptions.

The pleadings and findings are voluminous, but from the view we take of the questions involved no extended statement of the facts is required.

1. On the question whether the five thousand one hundred and twenty acre tract was bought by Hughes ■for himself, or for joint account of himself and the plaintiffs as copartners and held in trust for the partnership, the court finds “That the defendant and plaintiffs were not at any time the owners or seised in fee of any of the pieces, parcels, or tracts of land described in paragraph 3 of the amended complaint, or .any portion thereof, as copartners. That no portion of *304 any of said land stood at any time in the name of Thomas E. Hughes for the use and benefit of the plaintiffs, and no portion of said…

concurring. — I concur in the order denying a rehearing in this case, but if the opinion of *306 vthe department is to be understood as holding that the lands belonging- to the several parties to the syndicate .agreement became, by virtue of that agreement, partnership property, I desire to state that I do not concur in that view.