After dissolution either partner may settle outstanding accounts,1 and may complete the performance of contracts previously entered into,2 but he cannot bind his partners on new contracts,3 and he cannot give notes,4 even in renewal of a preexisting firm debt,5 or deliver a note previously signed,6 or bind his partners by a contract of indorsement,7 or extend limitations by a new promise.8 Pre-existing debts are not discharged by dissolution. Thus dissolution does not discharge liability on a lease.0 The managing partner after dissolution may incur debts for expenses necessary to winding up the business and he is entitled to be reimbursed therefor.10

78 Am. St. Rep. 712; 56 N. E. 875.

11 Peacey v. Peacey, 27 Ala. 683; Tucker v. Murphey, 114 Ga. 662; 40 S. E. 836; Gillen v. Peters, 39 Kan. 489; 18 Pac. 613; Ham v. Hill, 29 Mo. 275; Miller v. Bailey, 19 Or. 539; 25 Pac. 27.

1 Western Stage Co. v. Walker, 2 Ia. 504; 65 Am. Dec. 789; Gordon v. Albert, 168 Mass. 150; 46 N. E. 423; Riggen v. Investment Co., 31 Or. 35; 47 Pac. 923. Either partner has a right to possession of assets. Gray v. Green, 142 N. Y. 316; 40 Am. St. Rep. 596; 37 N. E. 124.

2 Western Stage Co. v. Walker, 2 Ia. 504; 65 Am. Dec. 789; Page v. Wolcott, 15 Gray (Mass.) 536.

3 Bass Dry Goods Co. v. Mfg. Co., 116 Ga. 176; 42 S. E. 415; Richard v. Moulton, 109 La. 465; 33 So. 563; Evangelical Synod v. Schoen-eich, 143 Mo. 652; 45 S. W. 647; Graves v. Bank, 49 Neb. 437; 68 N. W. 612 (especially for individual debts) ; Palmer v. Dodge, 4 O. S. 21; 62 Am. Dec. 271.

4 Potter v. Tolbert, 113 Mich. 486; 71 N. W. 849; Smith v. Sheldon, 35 Mich. 42; 24 Am. Rep. 529.

5 Harwell v. Mfg. Co., 123 Ala. 460; 26 So. 501; Perrin v. Keene, 19 Me. 355; 36 Am. Dec. 759; White v. Tudor, 24 Tex. 639: 76 Am. Dec. 126.

6 Merrit v. Pollys, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 355; Robb v. Mudge, 14 Gray (Mass.) 534; Gale v. Miller, 54 N. Y. 536; Woodworth v. Downer, 13 Vt. 522; 37 Am. Dec. 611. Contra, he may renew notes. Meyran v. Abel, 189 Pa. St. 215; 69 Am. St. Rep. 806; 42 Atl. 122.

7 Whitworth v. Ballard, 56 Ind. 279; Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn. 396; Fellows v. Wyman, 33 N. H. 351; Dana v. Conant, 30 Vt. 246.

8 Mayberry v. Willoughby, 5 Neb. 368; 25 Am. Rep. 491; Shoemaker v. Benedict, 11 N. Y. 176; 62 Am. Dec. 95; Kerper v. Wood, 48 O. S. 613; 15 L. R. A. 656; 29 N. E. 501; Bush v. Stowell, 71 Pa. St. 208; 10 Am. Rep. 694. Contra, that he can extend limitations by a new promise. Cody v. Shepard, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 400; 22 Am. Dee. 379; Vinal v. Burrill. 16 Pick. (Mass.) 401; Mills v. Hyde, 19 Vt. 59; 46 Am. Dec. 177: Wheelock v. Doolittle. 18 Vt. 440; 46 Am. Dec 163.