Although our rules provide that our review in an equity case such as this requires that the judgment shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, Civil Rule 73.01(d), V.A.M.R., § 510.310, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., our review is in nature de novo, where we make our own findings of fact, weigh the evidence relating thereto, and reach our own conclusions. Hogan v. Krohn, Mo., 318 S.W.2d 163, 167 [1]. Here, there is little disagreement as to the facts surrounding the parting of the partners in this venture in the medical practice.

It is agreed and stipulated by the parties that the "dealer's reserve" now held by the Hamiltons amounts to $29,275.06. It is our duty to review the case upon both the law and the evidence as in actions of an equitable nature. Novak v. Baumann, Mo.Sup., 329 S.W.2d 732; Hogan v. Krohn, Mo.Sup., 318 S.W.2d 163; Baerveldt Honig Const. Co. v. Dye Candy Co., 357 Mo. 1072, 212 S.W.2d 65. We review the action de novo on the record and we must make our own findings of fact, draw our own conclusions of law, and enter or direct the entry of the judgment thus indicated, giving due deference to the referee on matters of conflicting evidence.

s appeal, plaintiff's counsel emphatically assert that the referee's report "stands as a verdict of a jury"; it is said that there was substantial evidence to support the findings and therefore the judgment should not be disturbed on appeal. Counsel also assert that "in an equity case" this court must accord deference to the findings of the referee because he heard the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and in this case obviously believed the plaintiff rather than the defendant. The cases upon which counsel rely (Paisley v. Lucas, 346 Mo. 827, 143 S.W.2d 262; Houchin v. Ward Stores, Mo.App., 167 S.W.2d 650; Craig v. McNichols Furniture Co., Mo.App., 187 S.W. 793, and Gimbel v. Pignero, 62 Mo. 240) were decided without regard to or prior to the adoption of the Civil Code of Procedure and, inferentially if not directly, have been overruled by Baerveldt Honig Construction Co. v. Dye Candy Co., 357 Mo. 1072, 212 S.W.2d 65; Oliver L. Taetz, Inc. v. Groff, 363 Mo. 825, 253 S.W.2d 824, and Hogan v. Krohn, Mo., 318 S.W.2d 163. As these latter cases specifically decided, the review of referred cases (V.A.M.S., Secs. 515.010- 515.230) is governed by V.A.M.S., Sec. 510.310, subd. 4 of the civil code and is anew in this court.

Even though a partnership is dissolved, it has a continued existence until its assets are collected and distributed to creditors and the winding-up of partnership affairs is completed. Hogan v. Krohn, 318 S.W.2d 163, 168 (Mo. 1958). It is thus evident that even though appellants and respondents stopped conducting the business of Stockton Cheese Company as co-owners in 1981, their partnership did not immediately end, but continued to exist by virtue of § 358.300 quoted above, pending the winding-up of the partnership affairs.

Even though this action is governed by the Uniform Partnership Law, Chapter 358, RSMo 1969, adopted by Missouri in 1949, it is basically an equitable proceeding and governed by equitable principles. The factual issues were submitted to a referee whose report was adopted by the trial court (with modifications as above noted) and judgment entered thereon. In such posture, we review this matter de novo upon both the law and the evidence, 68 C.J.S. Partnership § 405, pp. 927-929; Phelps v. Watson-Stillman Company, 365 Mo. 1124, 293 S.W.2d 429, 434-435 (1956); Hogan v. Krohn, 318 S.W.2d 163, 167 (Mo. 1958). Where possible, we must enter final judgment, if there is before us sufficient record and evidence from which we "can perform this function with some degree of confidence."

If we find that it is, we are then to enter such judgment as may seem agreeable to law. Rule 73.01(d); Rule 83.13(c), V.A.M.R.; Hogan v. Krohn, Mo., 318 S.W.2d 163, 167 [1]. To rule the question of the defendant's liability, it is necessary to restate, at the expense of some repetition, the proof bearing on this aspect of the case.