JUDGMENT 1. We think that the facts found by the lower Court are that the sale in dispute was effected mostly for raising money to discharge family debts, the comparatively small balance being required to conveniently adjust the shares in a contemplated family partition which took place two days afterwards. We think that, in this state of the facts, the latter- object was also come under the expression "family necessity" which would justify a sale by the managing member. 2. We think the lower Appellate Courts conclusion is, therefore, correct and we dismiss the second appeal with costs.