(1.) This was a suit for accounts of a partnership entered into between the parties to the suit to ply a machawa for hire. The machawa itself has been sold, and the dispute now ranges about some minor matters in the account. The trial Court came to a decision on those matters. It is contained in what is called a preliminary decree at page 11 of the print. That was not a real preliminary decree, as all the questions in dispute were actually decided, and nothing remained to be done except to make the necessary calculations to give effect to the Court's findings.
(2.) The defendant appealed and the Court came to a different conclusion on certain items of the account, and passed a decree accordingly.
(3.) The plaintiffs have appealed, and the first ground on which they rely is that the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the preliminary decree in an appeal from the final decree. As a matter of fact the decree was not a preliminary decree although the Judge called it so. Consequently that ground of appeal cannot be supported.