Partnership and limitation principles governed minors' rights, accounts, and profit shares after a deceased partner's business was continued.

A partnership arrangement could not bind the deceased partner's minor children because a widow acting on their behalf lacked contractual competence, so the agreement was ineffective against the minors. A suit for dissolution and accounts was not barred by limitation, as it was not a rescission claim and the residuary limitation article applied from the defendant's refusal to pay profits. The joinder objections were only technical and caused no prejudice. The plaintiffs were entitled to accounts, their shares in the firm assets and profits, and a deduction for reasonable managerial remuneration before net profits were calculated.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the alleged partnership arrangement was binding on the minor children of the deceased partner; (ii) whether the suit for dissolution and accounts was barred by limitation; (iii) whether there was any fatal misjoinder of parties or causes of action; and (iv) what relief, including accounts and profit-sharing, followed from the surviving partnership arrangement.

Issue (i): whether the alleged partnership arrangement was binding on the minor children of the deceased partner

Analysis: A widow, acting as such, could not enter into a contract binding her minor children. The arrangement therefore could not create a valid partnership so far as the minors were concerned. The statutory rule governing contractual capacity also prevented the minors' interests from being bound by consent given on their behalf by a person not competent to contract for them. The agreement was accordingly ineffective as a binding contract against the minors.

Conclusion: The alleged partnership was not binding on the minor plaintiffs.

Issue (ii): whether the suit for dissolution and accounts was barred by limitation

Analysis: A suit for dissolution of partnership was not treated as a suit for rescission of contract. In the absence of a specific article governing such a claim, the residuary limitation article applied. Time therefore ran from the point when the defendant refused to pay the plaintiffs any share of profits, and on that basis the suit was within time. The alternative article relied upon by the lower court was inapplicable because the partnership had not already been dissolved.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): whether there was any fatal misjoinder of parties or causes of action

Analysis: The alternative claims were capable of being joined, and any defect in the joinder of parties was only technical and did not affect the merits. No prejudice or substantive bar was shown.

Conclusion: There was no misjoinder warranting interference.

Issue (iv): what relief, including accounts and profit-sharing, followed from the surviving partnership arrangement

Analysis: The defendant carried on the business with the partnership property and had to account to the representatives of the deceased partner for their share of the assets and profits. The minors' entitlement followed from their beneficial interest, while the widow was entitled to her share of profits for the period claimed. A reasonable allowance for the defendant's management of the business was to be deducted before calculating net profits.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for accounts and their respective shares of assets and profits, with deduction for reasonable managerial remuneration.

Final Conclusion: The decree was modified to recognise the plaintiffs' entitlement to the firm assets and profits, the defendant's appeal failed, and the matter stood finally determined with an account to be taken on the specified basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A partnership arrangement cannot bind minors where the person purporting to act for them lacks contractual competence, and in the absence of a specific limitation article, a suit for dissolution of partnership falls under the residuary limitation provision.

---