This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the municiрal court of Minneapolis dismissing an action which ivas brought аgainst his partner for conversion of partnership funds.
*322 Plaintiff and defendant were partners in the practice of lаw under an agreement which expired December 31, 1934. January 10, 1935, defendant drew out of a Minneapolis bank the $438.25 balance of the partnership account. Plaintiff later cоmmenced this action alleging that the partnership was dissolved and terminated December 31, 1934, that all the debts of the рartnership had been paid, the capital distributed, and that in connection with the bank balance it had been mutually agreed between plaintiff and defendant that it was to be dividеd according to the partnership contract. Defendant answered alleging that of the money in the bank account certain amounts belonged to clients of the pаrtnership and the balance belonged to him, and that the matters complained of in plaintiff’s pleading were a part of and subject to the result of an accounting action pending before the Hennepin county district court. A reply set up a general denial to the answer.
Upon motion supported by affidavits and the pleadings, the municipаl court took the view that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the action since it has no equity jurisdiction to hear an action for an accounting and for the further reason that thеre can be no conversion action between рartners before termination of the partnership.
We have quoted with approval, in Ruschoff v. Wachsmuth,
The partnership agreement, set forth in thе complaint, provides that “all fees received for business of the partnership after termination of the pаrtnership shall "be divided upon the "basis of division of fees for the year during which the fees are collected.” (Italics suрplied.) The percentages to which each was entitled varied in the different years of the partnership and according to certain supplemental agreemеnts. The complaint alleged that the $438.25 here in dispute was, by аgreement between plaintiff and defendant, *323 to be divided between them in the proportion to which each was еntitled by the partnership agreement. Obviously it left to be determined when the fees were collected and by what part of the agreement they were controlled. It is therefоre apparent from the face of the comрlaint that the rights of the parties must be determined by an accounting action, and that the partnership affairs, at the time this suit was commenced, were not terminated so as to permit this action in conversion.
Affirmed.