The opinion
Pee Curiam:
There is but a single question in this case: Is J. K. Lindsey, the plaintiff, entitled to compensation for his services as a partner ?
It is conceded that there was no express contract that he should be paid for such services, and there is no principle better settled than that the law will not imply a contract in such cases. The reason is that the partner is but attending to his own affairs. This rule is inexorable; as much so as that between parent and child. Were it otherwise, we might have a contest between the partners upon the settlement of every partnership account, as to the value of their respective services. It is true this principle may work hardship in particular cases; almost every general rule does, but that is a weak argument against the soundness of the rule. When the co-partnership agreement contemplates that one partner shall manage the business, or do more than his share of the work, it is easy to provide for his compensation in the agreement itself; and if no such stipulation is then made, as before said, the law will not imply one. Even where a liquidating or suriving partner settles up the business, it has been repeatedly ¡eld that he is not entitled to compensation for doing so, Ithough, in such case, he performs all the services: Beatty v. *640 Wray, 19 Pa. 516 ; Brown v. McFarland, 41 Pa. 129 ; Gyger’s App., 62 Pa. 73 ; Brown’s App., 89 Pa. 139 .
Judgment affirmed.