Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/698

 WILKINBON V. TILDEN. 683 �fare of New Orleans — which city is so dependent on commerce — should be gratified to find that the money that the city bas the legal right to exact from commerce for facilities furnished is to be devoted to the furnishing of still further facilities and increased protection. •There can be no doubt that on such a busy levee as that of New Orleans, -wharfingers, signal officers, etc., and a police force, are nec- essary for the benefit of commerce, and without which all would be turmoil and confusion. �As for the electrio-light System, while opinions may vary as to its success and usefulness, the city bas a right to try it in place of other lights, and it is to be hoped the experiment will be snccessful. That the complainant does not load or unload at the wharves at night, and therefore does not want any light there, can fumish no rule as to other parties who may desire to nse the wharves at night. That the whole levee is to be lighted, and perhaps the river and city get a share, js also a vain objection. �Under the conclusions reaehed, the application for injunction must be denied, and the outstanding restraining order be dissolved. And it is so ordered. ���WiLKiNSON, Assignee, etc., v. Tilden.* {Circuit Court, S. B. JSeiB Yorh. November 3, 1681.) > �1. Partnbbbhip— AccouNTma. �An accounting between partners cannot be had on afBdavits on an interloc- utory motion, but must be had in the orderly progress of a suit. �2. Samb — Injcnction. �A temporary injunction may be granted, pending a suit for an accounting, to prevent one partner by a sale of the partnership property from changing the statusoi the other partners in respect to it, where the injury resulting ffom such sale could not be remedied. �U. S. V. DvMth, 1 Dill. 469, 474, cited and approved. �In Equity. �G. BUss and R, M. Sherman, for plaintiff. �F. N. Bangs and F. E. Smith, for defendant* �BiiATCHFORD, C^ J. On all the papers before me I do not think it can be said that there was not a partnership between Wetmore and the defendant which continued until the interest of Wetmore passed to the plaintiff, or that there is not a subsisting relation between the. �*Keported by S. Nelson Whlte, Esq., of the New York bar. ��� �