CJorttfU Slam ^rljool IGtbtatg KF1375.R8T" ""'"'""' """^ V.I ^''lUlimllllfllliliiS °' P^'''"8''ship, including 3 1924 019 204 845 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019204845 THE MODERN LAW of PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A FULL CONSIDERATION OF JOINT ADVENTURES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, AND JOINT STOCK COMPANIES, TOGETHER WITH A TREATMENT OF THE UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT SCOTT ROWLEY »*. OF THE TOLEDO, OHIO, BAR ASSISTED BY THE PUBLISHERS' EDITORIAL STAFF IN TWO VOLUMES VOLUME I INDIANAPOLIS THE BOBBS-MERRILL COMPANY PUBLISHERS Copyright 1916 By The Bobbs-Merrill Company TO MY ^R^JxilER, JUDGE ARTHUR E. ROWLEY, THESE VOLUMES ARE DEDICATED IN RECOGNITION OF HIS HIGH STANDING AS A CITIZEN, . LAWYER AND JURIST. PREFACE No complete separate text on the Law of Partnership has been published for many years. During that time there have been great developments in the law bearing on the subject; most con- spicuous among which may be mentioned the recent drafting of the Uniform Partnership Act by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the adoption of that act by the legislatures of some of the states. The father of classified Partnership Law, Mr. Justice Lindley, produced many years ago, a work which, from the standpoint of merit, will probably never be surpassed, and which has, to a large extent, been followed in outline by later writers on the subject. It has seemed to the author of this work, however, that changes in the law call for a new and distinctive classifica- tion, in many particulars, and he has endeavored to meet this need by changing the old classification when he thought it advis- able, and adopting it where conditions have not required a change, and incorporating therein the newer and prevailing law. All the authorities have been thoroughly examined. Where there are conflicting rules, the reasons for each have been dis- cussed. Full space has been given to the reasoning upon which most of the rules are based, for it is thought that a text of this character is of much greater value than one which merely states the rules. The Uniform Partnership Act, which is bound to be of great importance to the practitioner, has been treated in all its separate provisions, under the appropriate headings in the outline, and each of its .provisions compared with the present holdings of the cases upon that particular phase of the law. A complete set of partnership forms has been compiled. The aim has been to make a modern work on the subject, treating all its phases, whereby the practicing lawyer may not only secure a full treatment in the text, but will also be enabled from the cita- tions to make a thorough selection of cases from his own and other states. The author rests under a deep sense of obligation to Mr. Au- reliuSvGale Pheasant and the publishers' editorial staff for the great assistance they have rendered him in the preparation of these volumes. The high character and usefulness of these serv- ices are gratefully and un"eservedly acknowledged by the author. Scott Rowley. Toledo, Ohio, April 15, 1916. TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME ONE CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY AND HISTORICAL Section , ' Page 1. Earliest partnerships 1 2. Babylonian law 2 3. Jewish law 4 4. Roman law : S 5. Chinese law 6 6. Partnership and the law merchant 6 7. Early English law 8 8. Later developments in English law 9 9. Codification ' 10 10. American Uniform Partnership Act 11 11. Scope of Uniform Partnership Act 14 12. General view of Uniform Partnership Act and changes made by it in existing partnership law 14 13. Uniform Partnership Act as considered in succeeding chapters 17 CHAPTER II DEFINITIONS Section Page 25. Definitions generally 19 26. Difficulty of definitions 23 27. Partnership liability the real question 24 28. General aspects of partnership liability 25 CHAPTER III ANALYSIS AND TESTS OF PARTNERSHIP Section / Page 35. Tests of partnership in general 29 36. English law — Test of profit sharing — Bloxham v. Pell 30 2iJ. English test of profit sharing — Young v. Axtell 31 38. English test of profit sharing — Grace v. Smith 32 39. English test of profit sharing — Waugh v. Carver 33 40. Criticism of Waugh v. Carver 35 41. Net and gross profits 38 42. Test of sharing profits and losses 39 43. Test of intention — Cox v. Hickman 40 44. No necessity in Cox v. Hickman for test of intention 43 45. Change of English law — Bullen v. Sharp 43 46. Doctrine of intention — Mollwo v. The Court of Wards 45 47. Criticism of test of intention 45 48. English partnership act 46 vii VIU TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 49. Test of estoppel 46 50. Summary of English law , 48 51. American law — Test of profit sharing 48 52. The early rule 49 53. The Pennsylvania rule 50 54. The New York rule SI 55. The Indiana rule 51 56. Other American cases holding the profit sharing test 52 57. American cases opposing net profits rule 53 58. The net profit rule criticized — Eastman v. Clark 53 59. Creditors do not rely on profits — Eastman v. Clark. S3 60. Right to a preference or to an account should not make a creditor a partner — Eastman v. Clark 54 61. The usury argument fallacious — Eastman v. Clark 55 62. The net profit rule not needed to prevent fraud — Eastman v. Clark. . 55 63. Argument as to one sharing profits bearing burden fallacious — East- man V. Clark 57 64. Rule not needed to reach an ostensible partner— Eastman v. Clark. . 58 65. Intention test followed — Beecher v. Bush 60 66. Intention test followed — Chaff raix v. Lafitte 61 67. Common ownership of profits in joint business — Meehan v. Valentine 63 ^ 68. Other American cases opposing net profit rule 64 ~ 69. Sharing profits as such 65 70. Sharing profits but not losses 66 71. Sharing profits and losses 67 72. Sharing profits and losses held insufficient to constitute a partnership 68 72. Sharing losses only 69 74. Exceptions to rule of profit sharing as test of partnership— In general 69 75. Exceptions — Sharing of profits as compensation for services 71 76. Sharing profits as compensation eo nomine 76 77. Sharing profits as fee or commission 77 78. Sharing profits as a royalty ; 78 79. Profit sharing as payment of rental 78 80.. Profit sharing as interest 80 81. Sharing gross receipts 82 82. Right to demand accounting 83 83. Modified statement of profit-sharing test 83 84. Test of profit sharing — The Uniform Partnership act 85 85. Test of mutual agency 87 86. The principal trader test 90 87. Intention test in England 91 88. Intention test in America — Polk v. Buchanan 92 89. Later American cases on intention as test 93 90. Intention test of partnership under civil law 97 91. Test of partnership liability arising by estoppel generally. 98 92. Nature of act and conduct creating estoppel'. 99 93. Reliance on the holding out 101 94. Right of subrogation of ostensible partner 102 95. Creditor must be misled by acts or misrepresentations 102 96. Time of making representation 103 97. Mere belief of creditor 103 98. Attempted limited partnership 104 99. Estoppel — Former partnership 104 100. Partnership under agreement to incorporate 104 101 Estoppel — Uniform Partnership Act 105 102. Summary of tests ; 106 103. Summary — Question of law or fact 106 104. Summary — Profit sharing evidence of a partnership — Estoppel 110 TABLE OF CONTENTS IX CHAPTER IV ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE OF A PARTNERSHIP Section Page 110. Essential elements 113 111. Sharing of profits 114 112. Sharing of losses 115 113. Intention 115 114. Mutual agency 116 lis. Community of interest 116 116. Nature— A trust relation 118 117. Partnership as a distinct entity 118 118. Partnership held not to be an entity 119 119. Partnership held to be an entity 121 120. Entity — Change of firm 123 121. Entity— The true view 123 122. Entity — Codes of other nations 127 123. Entity— Uniform Partnership Act 128 124. Distinction between partnership and joint purchase 129 125. Partnership distinguished from joint tenancy and tenancy in common 130 126. Distinction between partnership and relation of landlord and tenant 131 127. Distinction between partnership and corporation 132 128. Distinction between partnership and trust '. 133 CHAPTER V KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS Section Page 135. Partners 135 136. General partners 135 137. Special partners 136 138. Nominal or ostensible partners 136 139. Dormant or secret partners 137 140. Silent partners 140 141. Kinds of partnerships 140 142. Universal partnerships 140 143. General partnerships - • ■ • 141 144. Special or particular partnerships 141 145. Classification loosely used . . '. 142 146. Limited partnerships 143 147. Joint stock companies • 144 148. Partnership associations 146 149. Subpartnerships ' 147 150. Rights and liabilities of subpartners inter sese 149 151. Trading and nontrading partnerships ISO 152. Mining partnerships 153 153. Creation and dissolution of mining partnerships 155 154. Legal and illegal partnerships 156 155. Defective incorporations 157 156. Unincorporated associations 160 157. Clubs and societies 16} 158. Partnership by representation 161 159. Joint ownership as partnership 164 160. Joint adventure 164 X TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER VI purposes and subject-matter Section Page 165. Purpose must be for gain 166 166. Association for purpose other than pecuniary profit 167 167. Voluntary associations for mutual relief 168 168. Partnership may exist as to single transaction 169 169. Partnership for dealing in real estate 170 170. Illegal purpose or business 173 171. Grounds of illegality 174 172. Sharing profits of crime 174 173. Offenses against morality or public welfare 176 174. Partnership in public office 178 175. Effect of illegality generally — Accounting to partner 179 176. Effect of illegality^-Severable contract 180 177. Effect of illegality — Partner required to turn over proceeds of illegal transaction 180 CHAPTER VII WHO MAY BE PARTNERS Section Page 185. Generally 182 186. Aliens 183 187. Felons and convicts 185 188. Infants 186 189. Insane persons ■ 192 190. Married women 193 191. Husband and wife 195 192. Partnership as partner 197 193. Corporation — As a general rule, can not be partner 197 194. Theory that corporation may enter into partnership — Uniform Part- nership Act 200 195. Corporation held liable as partner 202 196. Corporation held liable as partner — Illustrations 203 197. Corporation as co-owner not held liable as partner 20S 198. Tena:nts in common as partners 206 199. Authority of agent to make his principal a member of a partnership 206 200. Partners not qualified to take part in firm business requiring license 207 201. Delectus personarum — Choice of partners 208 CHAPTER VIII PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION Section Page 210. How relation is formed 210 211. Articles of partnership 211 212. Verbal contract 212 213. Implied contract 213 214. Mutual assent 214 215. Consideration 215 216. Examples of agreements held to constitute a partnership 217 217. Cases in which relation was not created 221 TABLE OF CONTENTS XI Section _ Page 218. Creation of partnership for dealing in real estate — Verbal agreement — Statute of frauds 224 219. Cases distinguished — How contract may be taken out of statute. . . 228 220. Partnership agreements between carriers 230 221. Parties to executory partnership agreement 232 222. Partnership agreement induced by fraud 234 223. When relation begins 236 224. Duration of relation 237 225. Renewal or continuation 238 CHAPTER IX PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY ON DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION Section Page 230. Partnership liability of corporation before complete organization... 240 231. Incorporation defective 242 232. Capital stock not paid 245 233. Failure to file certificate of incorporation 247 234. Increase of capital stock without filing certificate 248 235. Failure to comply with statutory requirements — Effect 249 236. Extent of stockholders' liability under statutes 250 237. Stockholders of de facto corporations not liable — Certificates con- clusive 251 238. Estoppel of creditor contracting with corporation 253 239. Incorporation incomplete — Illustrations of liability 256 240. No effort to incorporate — Partnership liability 258 241. Adventurers not liable as partners 260 242. Partnership liability as between associates themselves 261 243. Ineffectual organization — When creditor may ignore 263 244. Partnership liability of promoters and corporators 263 245. Conflicting theories of partnership liability of corporators 265 246. Pretended officers liable as partners 267 247. Partnership liability where incorporatipn is for unauthorized business 268 248. Corporation organized under void or unconstitutionallaw 270 249. Corporation is organized in one state to do business in another state 270 250. Liability for ultra vires acts 272 251. Partnership liability imposed by statute 276 252. Partnership liability imposed by charter 276 253. Effect of dealing with a corporation under belief that it was a part- nership 277 254. Liability as partners — Burden of proof 279 CHAPTER X firm name powers of firm as a whole Section _ Page 260. Firm name — Not essential 281 261. Firm name — Choice, display, failure to choose 283 262. Statutory regulation of choice of firm name and registration of part- ners 285 263. What is a fictitious or assumed name within the statutes 288 264. Validity of contract under assumed name in violation of statute 289 265. Use of firm name 292 266. Unfair competition by use of firm name 296 267. _Scope of partnership in general 298 Xn TABLE OF CONTENTS Section " Page 268. General powers of partnership as a whole 299 • 269. Partnerships as parties to deeds 300 270. Assumption by firm of partner's individual debts 302 CHAPTER XI PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL AND PROPERTY Section Page 275. Definition of "capital" and "property" 305 276. Partnership property obtained with partnership funds 308 277. Property owned by partner used in firm business 313 278. Property acquired in exercise of partnership rights 315 279. Patents and trade-marks 315 280. Partnership property — Uniform Partnership Act 316 281. When real estate is partnership property 317 282. Intention 319 283. Title in partners as individuals 321 284. Title in firm name ; 322 285. Land purchased by partnership dealing in real estate 323 286. When real estate is partnership property — Summary 324 287. Partnership real estate — Uniform Partnership Act 324 288. Equitable conversion of partnership realty into personalty — English rule 325 289. Equitable conversion — American rule 326 290. Equitable conversion — Various statements of American rule — Effect and limits 328 291. Interest of partner in firm property ; 333 292. Interest of partner in firm property further considered 338 293. Tenancy in partnership — Uniform Partnership Act 340 294. Possession of firm property 342 295. Proportionate shares of partners : 343 296. Dower and homestead rights in partnership real estate 344 297. Right to exemptions in partnership property 347 298. Insurance of partnership property — Insurable interest 349 299. Insurance — Ownership clause in policy — Transfers by and between partners 350 300. Guaranty insurance — Identity of the insured — Partnership 353 301. Mortgage of partnership real estate 354 302. Mortgage by one partner — Notice of partnership equities 357 303. Mortgage of partner's separate property to secure firm debt 359 304. Mortgage of partnership personal property 361 305. Conveyance of partnership real estate — Uniform Partnership Act. . . 363 306. Taxation of partnership property 364 307. Transfer of property from partnership to partner 366 CHAPTER xn GOOD WILL Section " Page 315. In general — Defined 370 316. Sale of good will in absence of restrictive covenant 372 317. Retiring partner soliciting old customers — English rule 373 318. Soliciting old customers — American holdings 375 319. Cases holding old customers may be solicited 376 320. Agreements by partners not to compete 378 321. Breach of contract by entering employ of another 380 TABLE OF CONTENTS Xlll Section Page 322. Sale of good will at involuntary sale ■. 381 323. Personal skill not good will 382 324. Taxation of good will — Assessment in condemnation proceedings . . . 382 325. Action on good will alone 382 326. Rights of surviving partner in good will '383 327. Receiverships to save good will 384 328. Implied disposal of good will by sale of place oi business 385 329. Firm name as part of good will ' 386 330. Partnership rights in trade secret 388 331. Good will and professional partnerships , 389 CHAPTER XIII RIGHTS OF PARTNERS INTER SESE Section Page 340. In general 391 341. Utmost good faith— A right 392 342. Good faith — Partnership a trust relation 393 343. Right to share profits 395 344. Right to participate in management — Exclusion from management. . 395 345. Rights in firm property < 397 346. Right to information about business 398 347. Right to benefit of information received by partner 398 348. Right to conduct other business 399 349. Right to reimbursement for expenses 399 350. Right to compensation for services for firm 401 351. Compensation where services are unequal 404 352. Compensation for services after dissolution 407 353. Compensation to surviving partner 409 354. Implied contract for compensation 412 355. Compensation for services rendered in other capacity than partner 414 356. Partner failing or refusing to perform services — Misconduct 415 357. Repayment of capital 417 353. Repayment of advances 419 359. Right of partner to interest in general 421 360. Right to interest on capital 422 361. Right to interest on advances 425 362. Right to interest on balance 427 363. When partner is chargeable with interest on debts owing by iiim to the firm 429 364. Right_ to contribution , 429 365. Contribution — Limit 434 366. Right to indemnity from loss caused by copartner 435 367. Right to subrogation 436 368. Right to sue firm or copartner for negligence as to individual prop- erty 437 369. Right to keeping of accounts and accounting 439 370. Arbitration of differences between partners 441 371. Partner's lien 441 CHAPTER XIV DUTIES AND LIABILITIES OF PARTNERS INTER SESE Sfctjon Page 380. In general 448 381. Good faith, a duty— When required 449 XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 382. Negligence 451 383. Bad judgment 4S2 384. Fraud as to firm or copartner 453 385. Duty to conform to partnership agreement ■ 454 386. Construction of partnership agreement 455 387. Duty to devote time and skill to business 457 388. Duty to keep partnership accounts 458 389. Duty not to secure personal benefits rightfully belonging to firm. . . . 458 390. Purchase by partner of claim or title against partnership or partner 461 391. Diversion of profits from copartner 462 392. Secret use of partnership funds 463 393. Use of influence or information 465 394. Renewing firm lease or other contract in individual name 466 395. Secret commissions 468 396. Duty not to conduct competing business 468 397. Partnership in different firms 473 398. Dealings between partner and firm 474 399. Dealings between copartners 475 400. Good faith required in partner's purchase of copartner's interest. .. . 476 401. Duty to share outlays and losses "T. 478 402. Duty to consult partner on firm matters 480 403. Duty to estate of copartner 480 404. Liability for torts 481 405. Criminal liability of partner for embezzlement or larceny of firm property, or forgery of firm name 481 CHAPTER XV POWER OF PARTNER TO BIND FIRM IN CONTRACT Section Page 410. In general 485 411. Authority of partner based on agency 485 412. Kind of partnership as affecting partner's authority 487 413. Scope of business 489 414. Partnership customs and usages as affecting partner's authority. . . . 490 415. What contracts require consent of all partners , 491 416. Power of a majority in partnership matters 493 417. Powers of managing partner 496 418. Restrictions of partner's authority '. . . 498 419. Liability of firm on p|irtner's individual contracts 500 420. Contracts between firms having common partner 501 421. Power to sign firm name 502 422. Power to execute instrument under seal 504 423. Power to incur firm debt 507, 424. Power to borrow money 508 425. Power to make negotiable paper 511 426. Power to make negotiable paper — Nontrading partnerships 515 427. Indorsement of note as accommodation or surety 520 428. Presumptions as to firm notes given by one partner 520 429. Bona fide purchasers 521 430. Power of one partner to transfer firm negotiable paper 523 431. Fraudulent transfer j 524 432. What will put purchaser of partnership paper on inquiry 525 433. Firm liability on notes of individual partner 527 434. Notes as discharging debt 529 435. Power to give note for individual debt 530 436. Power to make sealed note. 531 TABLE OF CONTENTS XV Section Page 437. Form of signature — Alteration or renewal of note , 532 438. Powers after dissolution 533 439. Power as to presentment and protest 533 440. Power to mortgage firm property 533 441. Mortgage to secure partner's individual debt 538 442. Bona fide holders of mortgage on partnership real estate 540 443. Power to pledge firm property 541 444. Power to sell firm property 542 445. Power to purchase property 546 446. Power to hire or lease property for firm 548 447. Power to insure firm property 549 448. Power to appoint agents '. 550 449. Power to employ servants 551 450. Power to collect and pay debts 553 451. Power to make releases, to settle and compromise 555 452. Power to alter contracts 556 453. Power to make acknowledgment or affidavit 556 454. Power to make contract of guaranty or suretyship or bond 557 455. Power to pay individual debts with firm assets 560 456. Power to institute litigation 564 457. Power to confess judgment 565 458. Power to make assignment for benefit of creditors 566 459. Power to submit to arbitration 569 460. Submission to arbitration by consent 570 461. Ratification of submission 571 462. What constitutes arbitration 573 463. Power over partnership real estate 573 464. Rights and powers of dormant partner as to contracts 573 465. Acts creating individual liability 574 466. Admissions and representations by partner 575 467. Admissions made after dissolution 577 468. Admissions after dissolution as taking firm debt out of statute of limitations 579 469. Notice to partner 580 470. Notice of authority of partner as affecting rights of third parties. . . . 584 471. Ratification of acts of partner 585 472. Ratification by receipt of benefits 587 473. Ratification by failure to repudiate 589 474. Ratification by retiring partner 590 475. Estoppel 591 476. Estoppel — Reliance of third party 595 V CHAPTER XVI LIABILITY OF PARTNERS TO THIRD PERSONS Section Page 485. In general — Scope of chapter 597 486. Contracts binding upon partnership 598 . 487. Apparent scope of partner's authority 605 488. Nature of liability of partner in contract 607 489. Joint contract and several contracts distinguished 607 490. Liability of joint obligors 608 491. Release of one joint debtor releases all 609 492. Effect of death of joint contractor 612 493. Actions on joint and joint and several contracts 613 494. Statutory modifications 616 xvi table of contents Section Page 495. Liability of partners on firm contract 619 496. Further of partnership liability — Modifications of rule 620 497. Extent of partnership liability in contract 628 498. Commencement and termination of partnership liability .'... 629 499. Judgment against or settlement with one partner as releasing all 630 500. Liability of dormant partner 633 501. Right of creditor to recover on firm negotiable paper 635 502. Actions and other legal measures against partnerships (iil 503. Liability in tort — In general 637 504. Liability for torts of agents and servants 639 505. Liability of joint tort-feasors — Generally 640 506. Nature of partnership liability in tort 642 507. Judgment against one partner or release of one partner releases all 643 508. Fraudulent misrepresentations 644 509. Negligence 647 510. Trespass 650 511. Conversion 650 512. Wilful and malicious torts 651 513. Libel and slander 653 514. Torts in collection of debts 654 515. Acts against positive law 655 516. Property wrongfully obtained or held 656 517. Misapplication of trust funds 657 518. Liability of partners under criminal laws 660 CHAPTER XVII APPLICATION OF PARTNERSHIP ASSETS Section Page 525. In general 663 526. Creditors have no lien on partnership assets 666 527. Application of assets by partners 669 528. Application of firm assets by partners to individual debts 670 529. Mortgage of firm property by partners 673 530. Assignment by partners for benefit of creditors 676 531. Transfer of property to partner or new firm 677 532. Individual assets of partner 680 533. Application of assets of partnership by court 681 534. Rights of partnership creditors in partnership assets 682 ' 535. Rights of partnership creditors in assets of individual partners 683 536. Rights of creditors of individual partners 688 537. Rights of partner as firm creditor 690 538. Rights of partners or firm as creditors of individual partner 692 539. Rights of creditors of different firms having common partner 693 540. Priority of creditors on change of membership 693 541. Priority of creditors in cases of ostensible partnership 694 CHAPTER XVIII CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP Section Page 550. Change of membership — In general 696 551. Transfer of partner's interest to copartner 698 552. Transfer of partner's interest to third party 699 553. Firm name — Good will— Competition by retiring partner 701 TABLE OF CONTENTS XVll Section Page 554. Rights of retiring' partner in assets of old firm 702 555. Rights of continuing partner and new firm in assets of old firm 704 556. Liability of retiring partner for obligations of old firm 70S 557. Assumption of debts of old firm 706 558. Retiring partner as surety on obligations of old firm 707 559. Liability of continuing partners or new firm for obligations of old firm 712 560. Liability under- Uniform Partnership Act of persons continuing busi- ness 716 561. Liability of incoming partner for obligations of old firm 718 562. Novation — Application of payments 720 563. Liability of retiring partner for new firm's obligations 722 564. Liability to retiring partner on breach of agreement to assume firm debts 724 CHAPTER XIX DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP Section Page 570. In general 728 571. Nature and grounds — Uniform Partnership Act 728 572. Expiration of term 730 573. Express will of one partner in partnership for indefinite term 730 574. Express will of all partners 733 575. By expulsion of partner 735 576. By express will of one partner in contravention of agreement • 736 577. By event making partnership unlawful — War 739 578. Marriage of a woman partner 741 579. By death of a partner 744 580. By bankruptcy 748 581. Levy of attachment or execution sale 749 582. By judicial decree and by operation of law — Generally 750 583. Dissolution for insanity 753 584. Dissolution for other incapacity of partner 756 585. Dissolution for conduct prejudicially affecting carrying on of busi- ness 757 586. For wilful or persistent breach of partnership agreement 758 587. When further concerted action impracticable 760 588. When business can only be carried on at a loss 763 589. For fraud in inception of relation 765 590. Annulment of partnership 765 591. Dissolution by transfer of partner's interest 767 592. Status of partnership after dissolution 771 593. Powers of partners after dissolution — Generally 773 594. Notice of dissolution 775 595. Uniform Partnership Act as to powers after dissolution and charac- ter of notice , _ 777 596. Character of notice acquired and persons entitled to notice 779 597. Dissolution terminates contract of agency ._ 786 598. Powers of partner to administer firm affairs 787 599. Some general powers and disqualifications of partner after dissolu- tion 788 600. Admissions of partner after dissolution 790 601. Power over firm property 792 602.. Power to collect, pay, or compromise firm debt 794 603. Power to make new contracts 795 XVlll TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 604. Powers as to negotiable paper 797 605. Authorization of giving of negotiable paper! 799 606. Note given after dissolution as discharge of debt 802 607. Liquidating partner , 803 608. Holding out as partner after dissolution 805 TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections — ^Vol. I, Aas V. Benham (1891), 2 Ch. 244 277, 342, 348, 389, 393, 396, 653, 654 Abadie v. Frechede. 22 La. Ann. -'23 902 Abbe V. Clark, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 238 291, 796 Abbot V. Johnson, 32 N. H. 9 415, 416, 573, 586 Abbott V. Andersen, 265 111. 285 118, 706 V. Dexter, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 108 461 V. Jackson, 43 Ark. 212 190 V. Omaha Smelting &c. Co., 4 Nebr. 416 155, 231, 235, 238, 239, 240, 243, 245, 253, 254, 965 V. Pearson, 130 Mass. 191 912, 918 V. Smith, 2 W. BI. 947 826 Abbott's Appeal, In re, 50 Pa. St. 234 276, 281, 624 Abel V. Sutton, 3 Esp, 108 604 Abell V. Phillips, 11 Ky. L. 913 6/7 Abels V. Westervelt. 24 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 284 820 Abendroth v. Van Dolsen, 131 U. S. 66 499, 706, 1008, 1011, 1015, 1020, 1031, 1036 Aberdeen R. Co. v. Blakie, 1 Macq. H. L. 461 381 Abernathy v. Latimore, 19 Ohio 286 121, 796 V. Moses, 11 Ala. 381 290, 626, 627 Abingtou Dairy Co. v. Reynolds, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 632 1020 Abpt V. Miller, S Johns. L. (N. Car.) 32 486 Abraham v. Hall, 59 Ala. 386 512 Abrahams v. Beneke, 155 App. Div. 525 728 Ach V. Barnes, 107 Ky. 219 594, 596 Acher v. Burrall, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 606 831 Acheson v. Miller, 2 Ohio St. 203 364 Acker, Merrall, &c. Co. T. McGaw, 144 Fed. 864 318 Ackley v. Staehlin, 56 Mo. 558 ,371 Acme Copying Co. v. McLure, 41 111. App. 397 850, 858 Acme Harvester Co. V. Craver, 110 111. App. 413 328 Acree v. Commonwealth, 13 Bush (Ky.) 353 518 Adam v. Musson, 37 III. App. 501 1007, 1020 V. Newbigging, 13 App. Cas. 308 222, 775 Adams v. Adams, 7 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y ) 292 553 V. Albert, 155 N. Y. 356 563 V. Ashman, 203 Pa. St. 536 469 V. Atkinson, 158 Ala. 225 675 V. Bankart, 1 C. M. & R. 681 460 V. Beall, 67 Md. 53 188 V. Brown, 16 Ohio St. 75 261 V. Brownson, 1 Tyler (Vt.) 452 888 V. Carmony, 44 Ind. App. 291 582, 607, 715, 718 V. Carter, 53 Ga. 160 126 V. Church, 42 Ore. 270 118, 284, 624 V. Deckers Lumber Co., 202 Fed. 48 422, 694 V. Empire Laundry Mach. Co., 52 Hun (N. Y.) 610 955 V. Funk, 53 111. 219 727, 751, 756, 760 §S 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Adams V. Gaubert, 69 111. 585 725 V. Gordon, 98 III. 598 672 V. Hackett, 7 Cal. 187 722 V. Hannah, 97 Ga. 515 722 V. Haskell, 6 Cal. 113 728 V. Hubbard, 221 Pa. 511 371, 671, 675 V. Hunter, 42 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 205 820 V. James L. Leeds Co., 195 Pa. St. 70 291, 457 V. Kable, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 384 294, 344 V. Long, 114 III. App. 277 426, 451 V. Marsteller. 70 Ind. 381 634 V. May, 27 Fed. 907 119, 795, 806, 816 V. Morrison, 113 N. Y. 152 910 V. Outhouse, 45 N. Y. 318 389 V. Powers, 82 Va. 612 834 V. Reid, 56 Ga. 214 434 V. Ringo, 79 Ky. 211 351, 677 V. Shewalter, 139 Ind. 178 586, 850 V. Sturges, 55 111. 468 516 V. Taylor, 14 Ark. 62 607, 718 V. Thornton, 82 Ala. 260 4b8 V. Ward, 26 Ark. 135 598, 617, 638 V. Warren (Ala.), 11 So. 754 350 V. Willimantic Linen Co., 46 Conn, 320 555 V. Woods. 8 Cal. 152 722 Adams Express Co. v. Harris, 120 Ind. 73 84» V. Schofield, 111 Ky. 833 1045, 1046, 1058 Adams Oil Co. v. Christmas, 101 Ky. 564 469 Adamson v. Guild, 177 Mass. 331 103, 767 V. Jarvis, 4 Bing. 66 364 Addams v. Tutton, 39 Pa. St. 447 576, 753, 768, 770 Addison v. Burckmyer, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 498 371 V. Overend, 6 T. R. 766 796, 805 Adee v. Cornell, 25 Hun (N. Y.) 78 889 V. Cornell, 93 N. Y. 572 458 Adickes v. Allison, 21 S. Car. 245 817 Adkins v. Arthur, 33 Tex. 431 . 561, 826 Adkinson v. Dent, 5 Ky. L. (abstract) 118 360 Adler v. Cloud, 42 S. Car. 272 903 V. Foster, 39 Mich. 87 606 Adoue V. Wettermark, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 585 831 Adrian Knitting Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 145 Mich. 323 99 Advance Realty Co. V. Nichols, 126 Minn. 267 994 Aehle v. Brand, 176 Mo. 395 231, 879, 878 .ffitna Ins. Co. v. Bank of Wilcox, 48 Nebr. 544 75 V. Wires, 28 Vt. 93 367, 558 ^tna Life Ins. Co. v. Sellers, 154 Ind. 370 189 African M. E. Church v. New Orleans, 15 La. Ann. 441 242 Agace, Ex parte, 2 Cox Ch. 312 466 Agar V. Macklew, 1 Eng. Ch. 418 370 A. G. Crosby Co., In re, 199 Fed. 344 954 Ageloff V. Lakin, 115 N. Y. S. 1082 89, 848 Agnew V. Montgomery, 72 Nebr. 9 75 V. Omaha Nat. Bank, 69 Nebr. 654 903 A. Graf Distilling Co. v. Wilson, 172 Mo. App. 612 72, 89, 825, 901 XIX XX TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Keeler, 44 Conn. 161 912, 916 Ahl V. Ahl? 186 Pa. St. 99 668, 766 Ah Lep V. Gong Choy, 13 Ore. 20S 419, 486, 494 Ahnert v. Zaun, 40 Wis. 622 186 Aiken v. Ogilvie, 12 La. Ann. 353 382, 383 V. Steiner, 98 Ala. 355 297 Aikins v. Piper, 15 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 581 599 Ainey's Appeal, 2 Penny. (Pa.) 192 716 Airey v. Borham, 29 Beav. 620 354, 667, 715 Alters V. Lord, 67 Wash. 179 902 Akhurst v. Jackson, 1 Swanst. 85 386, 555 Akin V. Van Wirt, 124 App. Div. 83 558, 834 Alabama &c. Co. v. Reynolds, 85 Ala. 19 901 Alabama Coal Min. Co. v. Brainard, 35 Ala. 476 430 Alabama Fertilizer Co. v. Reynolds, 79 Ala. 497 73, 77, 104, 215, 445, 486, 901 Alaska Banking & Safe Deposit Co. v. Simmons, 67 Wash. 673 570, 834 V. Van Wyck, 146 App. Div. 5 86 Albery V. Geis, 1 Cal. App. 381 731 Albietz V. Mellon, 37 Pa. St. 367 429 Albion Life Assur. Soc, In re, 16 Ch. D. 83 666, 670 Albrecht V. Diamon, 125 Minn. 283 721 Albright v. Lafayette &c. Sav. Assn., 102 Pa. St. 411 238 Albro V. Lawson, 17 B. Mon. (Ky.) 642 811 Alcorn v. Adams Express Co., 148 Ky. 352 220 Aldecoa V. Warner, 16 Philippine 423 659, 675, 715, 717, 733 Alder v. Fouracre, 3 Swanst. 489 394, 446 Alderson v. Pope, 1 Camp, 404n 418, 476. 912 Alderton r. Williams, 139 Mich. 296 160, 976, 981 Aldrich v. Mathias, 167 111. App. 589 716 V. Robinson, 2 Haw. 606 624, 625, 627 V. Wallace, 8 Dana (Ky.) 287 291, 831 Aldridge, In re, [1894] 2 Ch. 97 364, 637, 670 Aldridge v. Elerick, 1 Kans. App. 306 529 Alexander, Ex parte, 1 Glyn. & J. 409; 2 Glyn. & J. 275 555 Alexander v. Alexander, 85 Va. 353 457 ' V. Barker, 64 Kans. 396 177 V. Burus, 6 La. Ann. 704 831 V. Collins, 2 Ind. App. 176 811 V. Coulter, 2 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 494 631 V. Gorman, 15 R. I. 421 535 V. Harkins, 120 N. Car. 452 563 V. Jones, 90 Ala. 474 742 V. Kimbro, 49 Miss. 529 276, 624, 628 V. King, 87 Ala. 642 742 V. Lewis, 47 Tex. 481 224, 579, 615, 638 V. McGinn, 3 Watts (Pa.) 220 806 V. McPeck, 189 Mass. 34 559, 564 V. Morgan, 31 Ohio St. 546 578 V. Mulhall, 1 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 764 459 V. State, 56 Ga. 478 508 V. Stern, 41 Tex. 193 817 Alexander, Succession of, 130 La. 7 744 Alexandria Bank v. Mandeville, 1 Cranch C. C. 575 464 Alexandria Min. &c. Co. v. Painter, 1 Ind. App. 587 848 Alford V. Thompson, 5 Ark. 347 861 Alkire v. Kahia, 123 111. 496 276 Allan V. McHeffey, 5 Nova Scotia 120 981, 982 Allcott V. Strong, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 323 562, 600 Allegheny Nat. Bank v. Bailey, 147 Pa. St. Ill -238, 242, 1022 Allemania Fire Ins. Co. v. Peck, 133 III. 220 299 Allen, In re, 41 Minn. 430 146, 530, 1020, 1025, 1033 Allen V. Allen, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 387 858 V. Atchison, 26 Tex. 616 559 V. Berryhill, 27 Iowa 534 189 V. Blanchard, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 631 635 V. Center Valley Co., 21 Conn. 130 307, 526, 531 V. Cheever, 61 N. H. 32 451 V. Coit, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 318 369, 878 V. Cooley, 53 S. Car. 414 554, 556, 558, 564, 760 V. Davids, 70 S. Car. 260 119, 848 V. Davis, 13 Ark. 28 765 V. Erie City Bank, 57 Pa. St. 129 742 V. Farrington, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 526 450 V. Fleck, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 507 265 V. French, 180 Mass. 487 967 V. Frumet Min. &c. Co., 73 Mo. 688 954 V. Grissom, 90 N. Car. 90 526 V. Hawley,, 6 Fla. 142 276, 371, 666. 716, 721, 722 V. Hill, 16 Cal. 113 616 V. Huclson, 78 111. App. 376 77, 83 V. Kilbre, 4 Madd. 464 787 V. Leighton, 87 Maine 206 506, 51S V. Logan, 96 Mo. 591 591, 592 V. Long, 80 Tex. 261 1045 v. Mason, 17 III. App. 318 430 V. Meyer (Tex. Civ. App.). 65 S. W. 645 296, 472 V. Morgan, 24 Tenn. (5 Humph.) 624 268 V. Nashville Second Nat. Bank, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 558 622 v. Owens, 2 Speers (S. Car.) 170 497 V. Restrain, 11 S. & R. (Pa.) 362 910 v. Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 327 252 V. State, 34 Tex. 230 518 V. Thrall, 10 Vt. 255 307 V. Wells, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 450 292, 533, 820 V. Withrow, 110 U. S. 119 623 V. Woonsocket Co., 11 R. I. 288 194, 195, 718 AUendorph v. Wheeler, 101 N. Y. 649 558 Allen's Appeal, In re, 125 Pa. St. 544 353, 637, 638 Alley V. Bowen-Merrill Co., 76 Ark. 4 4I2, 426, 445 Allin V. Shadburne, 1 Dana (Ky.) 68 490 Allis v. Day, 13 Minn. 199 820, 835 Allison V. Abendroth, 108 N. Y. 470 1025 v. Davidson, 17 N. Car. 79 278, 291, 593 Allison Bros. Co. v. Hart, S6 Hun (N. Y.) 282 862 Allstan v. Contee, 4 Harr. & J. (Md.) 351 834 Alpaugh V. Savage (N. J.), 19 Atl. 380 371, 554 Alpers V. Schammel, 75 Ca!. 590 847 Alsop V. Central Tr. Co., 100 Ky. 375 852 V. Mather, 8 Conn. 584 158, 639 Alston V. Rowles, 13 Fla. 117 631 Alter V. Berghaus, 8 Watts (Pa.) 77 912 Altgelt V. Alamo Nat. Bank, 98 Tex. ^ 252 75, 158 V. Sullivan (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 333 632 Althen V. Vreeland (N. J.), 36 Atl. 479 318 Altimus V. Elliott, 2 Pa. 62 987 Altman v. Altman, 5 Daly (N. Y.) 436 677 Altoona Sanitary Milk Co. v. Arm- strong, 38 Pa. Super. Ct. 350 1055 Alvord V. Smith, 22 Mass. 232 550, 1055 Amarillo Commercial Co. v, Chicago &c, R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 377 265, 796 TABLE OF CASES XXI [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Amarillo Nat. Bank v. Harrell (Tex. Civ. App.), 159 S. W. 858 617 Ambler v. Bolton, L. R. 14 Eq. 427 723 V. Bradley, 6 Vt. 119 79, 126 V. Whipple, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 546 585, 769 Amend V. Becker, 37 Misc. 496 496 American Bank v, Campbell, 34 Mo, App. 45 861 American Bank Note Co. v. Edson, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 84 389, 394 American Bonding Co. T. Fults, 157 Mo. App. 553 486, 500 V. State, 40 Ind. App. 559 617 American Box Mach. Co, v, Crosman, 61 Fed. 888 1031 American Cent. R. Co. v. Miles, 52 111. 174 796, 803 American Cotton College v. Atlanta Newspaper Union, 138 Ga. App. 147 91, 876, 887, 891, 896, 908 American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Georgia Const. &c. Co., 87 Ga. 651 425, 430, 454, 472 American Ice Co. v. Meckel, 109 App. Div. (N. Y.) 93 320, 321 American Iron Mt. Co. v. Evans, 27 Mo. 552 _ 888 American Ins. Co. v. Coster, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 323 144 American Linen Thread Co. v. Norten-^ dyke, 24 N. Y. 550 596 American Mirror &c. Co. V. Bulkley, 107 Mich. 447 232, 237, 238 American Nat. Bank v. Thornburron, 109 Mo. App. 639 281 American Radiator Co. v. Kinnear, 56 Wash. 210 231 American Salt Go. v. Heidenheimer, 80 Tex. 344 237, 238 American Seeding Mach. Co. v. Holz- bauer, 117 Minn. 278 . 834 V. John Conklin's Sons Co., 64 Misc. (N. Y.) 652 75, 79, 80, 908 American Steam Laundry Co. v. Ham- burg-Bremen Fire Ins, Co., 121 Tenn, 13 299 American Steel &e. Co, v. Coover, 27 Okla. 131 690 V. Coover, 25 Am. Bkr. R. 58 685, 687 American Tube & Iron Co., Appeal of, 118 Pa. St. 436 1051 American Waltham Watch Co. v. United States Watch Co., 173 Mass. 85 266 Ames V. Ames, 37 Fed. 30 276, 281 v. Ames, 113 Minn. 137 359, 360 V. Downing, 1 Bradf. Sur. (N. Y.) 321 353, 597, 637, 641, 667, 1002, 1003, 1027, 1035, 1036, 1055 Amidown v. Osgood, 24 Vt. 278 596, 608 Amsinck V. Bean, 22 Wall, (Q, S.) 395 580, 698, 708 Anable v, Conklin, 25 N. Y. 470 854 V, Forest &c. Steam Engine Co., 16 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 286 847 V, McDonald Land & Min, Co., 144 Mo. App. 303 451, 719' Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. Butte & Boston Min. Co., 17 Mont. 519 1048 Anderson v. Ackerman, 88 Ind. 481 644 v. Anderson, 24 Utah 497 675 v. Anderson, 25 Beav. 190 587, 773 V. Beebe, 22 Kans. 768 677 V. Birdsall, 19 La. 441 836 V. Branstrom, 173 Mich. 157 174 V. Evansville Brewing Assn., 49 Ind, App, 403 847 V. Clayton, 39 Utah 343 417, 486, 594 V, Goodwin, 125 Ga. 663 284, 617 V, Henshaw, 2 Day (Conn.) 272 499, 606, 862 V, Lemon, 8 N. Y, 236 389, 390 V, Martindale, 1 East 497 493, 798 Anderson V, Morris, 10 Ky. L, (abstract) 544 371 V. Norton, IS Lea (Tenn,) 14 424, 592, 620 V. Pollard, 62 Ga. 46 835, 836 V. Powell, 44 Iowa 20 176, 655, 656, 721 V. Robertson, 32 Miss. 241 496 V. Ross, 14 Ont. L. Rep. 683 321 V. Stewart, 108 Md. 340 496 V. Stone, 24 111. App. 342 1002, 1029, 1055 V. Taylor, 37 N. Car. 420 350, 352 V. Thompson, 51 La. Ann. 727 238 V. Tompkins, 1 Brock. 456 444 V. Wallace, 2 Molloy 540 720 V. Walsh, 189 N. Y. 159 253 V. Weber, 148 N. Y. S. 133 980 V. Weston, 6 Bing. (N. Cas.) 296 599, 604 V. Whitlock. 2 Bush. (Ky.) 398 170, 341, 389, 652 V. Wilson, 142 Iowa 158 121, 265, 496, 826 Andrade v. San Francisco Superior Court, 75 Cal. 459 716 Andres v. Morgan, 62 Ohio St. 236 954, 960, 962 Andrews, Ex parte, 25 Ch. D. 505 538 Andrews, In re, 27 Am. Bkr. R. 116 704 Andrews v. Andrews, 3 Bradf. Sur. (N. Y.) 99 668 V. Brace, 154 Mich. 126 1055 v. Brown, 21 Ala. 437 290, 296, 598, 626 V. Clark, 5 Nebr. (Unof.) 361 475 V. De Forest, 22 App. Div. 132 508 V. Ennis, 16 Tex. 45 817 v. Garstin, 10 Com. Bench (U. S.) 444 590 V. Keith, 34 Ala. 722 371, 830, 831 V. Mann, 31 Miss. 322 371, 554 V. Mundy, 36 W. Va. 22 820 V. Mitchell [1905], A. C. 78 575 V. New Orleans Brewing Assn., 74 Miss. 362 177 V. Planters' Bank, 7 Smed, & M. (Miss.) 192 454, 461 V. Schott, 10 Pa. St. 47 1014, 1018, 1019, 1027, 1035, 1036 V. Stinson, 254 111. Ill 579, 618, 631, 638, 657, 675 Andrews Bros. Co. v. Youngstown Coke Co., Ltd., 86 Fed. 585 148 Andrew's Succession, 16 La. Ann. 197 722 Andriessen's Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 303 590, 718, 773, 775 Angell V. Lawton, 76 N. Y. 540 991 Angier v, Weber, 14 Allen (Mass.) 211 320, 787 Angle V. Mississippi & M. R. Co., 9 Iowa 487 597 Anglesea Colliery Co., In re, L. R. 2 Eq. 379 275, 357 Anglo-American Packing &c. Co. v. Tur- ner Casing Co., 34 Kans. 340 817, 818 A. N. Kellogg Newspaper Co. v. Far- rell, 88 Mo. 594 72, 79, 103 Annaud v. Tupper, 21 Nova Scotia, 11 981 Annon v. Brown, 65 W. Va. 34 990 Anonymous, 2 Kay & J. 441 583, 587 Anthony v. Wheatons, 7 R. I. 490 344 Antigo v. Larsen (Wis.), 132 N. W, 610 605 Appleby, Ex parte, 2 Deac, 482 809 Appleby V. Brown, 24 N. Y. 143 716, 774 Appleton V. Smith, 24 Wis. 331 897 Apsey, Ex parte, 3 Bro. C. C. 265 486 Aram v. Edwards, 9 Idaho 333 716 Arbouin, Ex parte, 1 De Gex. 359 541 Archer v. Barry, 23 Ky. L, 12 282, 727, 729 xxu TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] ArchiJ^ald v. De IJsle, 25 Can. Sup. Ct. 1 984 V. McNerhanie, 29 Can. Sup. Ct. 564 218 Arden v. Sharpe. 2 Esp. 524 435 V. Tucker, 4 Barn. & Aid. 815 200 Argall V. Smith, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 435 1012 Arick's Succession, 22 La. Ann. 501 119, 472, 473 Armistead v. Cocke, 62 Miss. 198 820 V. Spring, 1 Rob. (La.) 567 398, 727, 914 Armor v. Frey, 253 Mo. 447 626 Armour v. Ward, 78 Vt. 60 826 Armstrong v. Bitner, 71 Md. 118 393, 553 V. Fahnestock. 19 Md. 58 574 V. Fisher, 34 Am. Bkr. 701 687 V. Hayward, 6 Cal. 183 ' 489 V. Henderson, 99 Va. 234 ■ 990, 992 V. Henley, 182 Mo. App. 320 603 V. HoUen, 58 Ore. 534 275, 358, 650, 744 V. Hurst. 39 S. Car. 498" ,^ 530 V. King (Tex. 1910), 130 S. W. 629 . 93 V. Lewis, 4 Mo. & S. 1 655 V. Poole, 30 W. Va. 666 826 V. Robinson, 5 Gill. & J. (Md.) 412 265, 422, 454, 459, 461, 795, 796 V. Stearns. 156 Mich. 597 1004 V. Toler, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 258 655 Arnheim v. Gordon, 21 Cal. App. 754 744 Arnold v. Angell, 62 N. Y. 508 731, 861 V. Arnold, 90 N. Y. 580 719, 754 V. Brown", 24 Pick. (Mass.) 89 444, 580, 586, 591 V. Camp, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 409 434, 499 V. Conklin, 96 III. App. 373 100 V. Danziger, 30 Fed. 898 1026 V. Greene, IS R. I. 348 819 V. Hagerman, 45 N. J. Eq. 186 307, 371, 400, 525, 528, 531, 832 V. Hamer, Freera. Ch. (Miss.) 509 536 V. Hart, 176 111. 442 599 V. Morris, 7 Daly (N. Y.) 498 500, 810 V. Nichols, 64 N. Y. 117 270, 558, 809 V. Sinclair, 12 Mont. 248 850, 902 V. Stevenson, 2 Nev. 234 422, 444 V. Wainwright, 6 Minn. 358 290, 291, 371, 624, 625 Arquimbo V. Hillier, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct 253 149 Arthur v. Sire, 105 App. Div. 454 659 V. Weston, 22 Mo. 378 1059 Artisans Bank v. Treadwell, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 553 1030, 1032, 1037 Artman v. Ferguson, 73 Mich. 146 191 Arundell v. Bell, 52 L. J. Ch. 537 276. 331 Asbestos Mfg. &c. Co. v. Lennig-Rap- ple Engineering Co., 26 Cal. App. 177 603, 806 Ash f. Guie, 97 Pa. St. 493 166, 245 V. Werner, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 39 559, 561, 564 Ashbrook V. Ashbrook, 16 Ky. L. 593 360, 361, 668 Ashby V. Shaw. 82 Mo. 76 900 Ashenfelter v. Williams, 12 Colo. App. 345 825 Ashley v. Dowling, 203 Mass. 311 486, 496, 1045, 1047, 1049, 1053, 1057 V. Sholars, 22 La. Ann. 442 764 V. Williams, 17 Ore. 441 731, 876 Ashton V. Robinson, L. R. 20 Eq. 25 276 Ashurst V. Mason, L. R. 20 Eq. 225 3b4 Ashworth v. Munn, 15 Ch. Div. 363 289 V. Stanwix, 3 El. & El. 701 509 Askew V. Silman, 95 Ga. 678 563, 596 V. Springer, 111 111. 662 350, 718 Aspinall v. London &c. R. Co., 11 Hare 325 • 581 Aspinwall v. 'Williams, 1 Ohio 84 83, 223, 260 Assong V. Shounghing, 1 Hawaii 186 455 Atchison v. Jones, 8 Ky. L. (abstract) 259 621 Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Grant, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 674 220 Atchison Sav. Bank v. Templar, 26 Fed. 580 818 Atherton v. Cochran, 11 Ky. L. 185 350, 351, 364, 668, 674 V. Tilton, 44 N. H. 452 75 V. Whitcomb, 66 Vt. 447 361, 362, 363 Atkins V. Hunt, 14 N. H. 205 221 V. Prescott, 10 N. H. 120 820 V. Saxton, 77 N. Y. 195 292, 820, 831 Atkinson v. Cash, 79 111. 53 858 v. Hewlett, 11 Ky. L. (abstract) 364 473 V. Mackreth, L. R. 2 Eq. 570 517 V. Rogers, 14 La. Ann. 633 716 Atlantic Glass Co. v. Paulk. 83 Ala. 404 • 121, 513 Atlantic Refining Co. v. Mengel, 6 Pa. ' Dist. 223 603 Atlantic State Bank of Brooklyn v. Savery, 82 N. Y. 291 469 Attaway v. St. Louis Third Nat. Bank, 15 Mo. App. 578 389 Attorney General v. Burges, Bunb. R. 223 506, 518 V. Fishmongers Co., Cr. & Ph. 1 364 V. Hubbuck, 13 Q. B. Div. 275 289 V. McVichie, 138 Mich. 387 1054 V. Mercantile Co., 121 Mass. 524 1046 V. Stranyforth, Bunb. 97 515, 518 Attwater v. Fowler, 1 Hall (N. Y.) 180 741 Attwood v. Rattenbury, 6 Moore 579 847 Atwater v. Fowler, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 417 675, 718 Atwood V. Gillett, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 206 580, 600 V. Impson, 20 N. J. Eq. 150 832 V. Lockhart, 4 McLean (U. S.) 350 558, 561 V. Meredith, 37 Miss. 635 214, 536, 813 V. Peregoy, 22 Nebr. 238 887 V. Smith, 11 Ala. 894 675 Aubert v. Maze, 2 Bos. & P. 371 364 Aubin V. Holt, 2 K. & J. 66 564, 779 Auerbach, In re, 23 Utah 529 598, 617 Augsbury v. Flower, 68 N. Y. 619 675 Auld V. Butcher, 2 Kans. 135 725 Auley V. Osterman, 65 Wis. 118 530 Ault V. Goodrich, 4 Russ. 430 599 Aultman v. Fuller, 53 Iowa 60 831, 897 V. Shelton, 90 Iowa 288 452, 486 Aultman &c. Co. v. Webber, 4.111. App. 427 854 Ault Woodenware Co. v. Baker, 26 Ind. App. 374 126 Aurora Bank v. Oliver, 62 Mo. App. . 390 ""^ 193 Austin V. Appling, 88 Ga. 54 594, 825, 826, 923 . V. Beall, 167 Ala. 426 848 V. Boys, 24 Beav. 598 331, 561 V. Da Rocha, 23 La. Ann. 44 664 V. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571 596 V. Jackson, 11 Ch. Div. 942 732 V. Neil, 62 N. J. L. 462 79 V. Seligman, 21 Blatchf. (U. S.) 506 558 V. Tecumseh Nat. Bank, 49 Nebr. 412 953, 954, 960 v. Thomson, 45 N. H. 113 166 v. Walsh, 2 Mass. 401 804, 835 v. Williams, 2 Ohio 61 2^3, 260 Auten V. Ellingwood, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 359 276. Autrey V. Frieze, 59 Ala. 587 126 V. Linn (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S. W. 197 ' 504 Averill v. Loucks. 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 19 276 V. Loucks, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 470 303, 367, 442, 470, 537 Avery v. Craig, 173 Mass. 110 573 TABLE OF CASES XXUl [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Avery V. Everett. 110 N. Y. 317 187 V. Fisher, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 508 188 V. Myers, 60 Miss. 367 639 V. Eowell, 59 Wis. 82 454 Avritt V. Russell, 22 Ky. L. 752 295, 674 Axe V. Tolbert, 179 Mich. 556 263 Axton V. Kentucky Bottlers Supply Co., 159 Ky. 51 366, 389, 391, 592, 768 Ayer v. Ayer, 41 Vt. 346 448, 586, 593, 602 Ayrault V. Chamberlin, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 83 559, 809 Ayres v. Chicago &c, R. Co., 52 Iowa 478 599 V. Gallup, 44 Mich. 13 558, 561, 809 Azbill V. Wathen (Ky.), 115 S. W. 756 342 Azel V. Betz, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 188 294, 759 B Babb V. Mosby, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 105 364. 389, 591, 675 V. Reed, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 151 167 Babcock v. Brashear, 19 La. 404 835 V. Farwell, 245 111. 14 492 V. Read, 99 N. Y. 609 218 V. Stewart, 58 Pa. St. 179 411, 559, 561 ' T. Swartwout, 145 App. Div. 203 675 Baby v. Davenport, 3 U: C. Q. B. 54 461 Baca V. Ramos, 10 La. 417 554 Bach, In re, 12 N. Y. S. 712 353, 637 Bach V. State Ins. Co., 64 Iowa 595 601 Bachman v. Einhorn, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 391 850 Bachurst v. Clinkard, 1 Show. 173 292 Backhouse v. Hall, 6 B. & S. 507 118 Backus r. Fobes, 20 N. Y. 204 557 V. Murphy, 39 Pa. St. 397 525 V. Taylor, 84 Ind. 503 596, 926 Bacon v. Christian (Ind.), Ill N. E. 628 55, 241, 242 V. Engstrom, 129 Minn. 229 721 V. Green, 36 Fla. 325 826 V. Hutchings. 5 Bush (Ky.) 595 437, 603 V. Kendall, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 123 822 V. Marshall, 37 Iowa 581 771 Badeley v. Consolidated Bank, L. R. 38 Ch. Div. 238 103, 104 'Badger v. Daenicke, 56 Wis. 678 802 Badham v. Williams, 86 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 191 673 Baer v. Wilkinson, 35 W. Va. 422, 14 S E 1 531 820 Bagby &c. Co. v. Rivers, 87 Md. 400 ' 553 Bagel V. Miller [1903], 2 K. B. 212 630, 635 Bagley v. Brack (Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. W. 247 592 v. Smith, 10 N. Y. 489 576, 753, 768, 769 Bagnetto v. Bagnetto, 51 La. Ann. 1200 722 Bagshaw v. Parker, 10 Beav. 532 583 Bailey, In re, 187 Pa. St. 381 277 Bailey v. Clark, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 372 54, 63, 73, 149, 486 V. Ferguson, 39 III. App. 91 767 V. Ford, 13 Sim. 495 588 V. Griffith, 40 U. C. Q. B. 418 556, 558 V. Hornthal, 154 N. Y. 648 1014. 1023, 1028, 1034 V. Sibley Quarry Co., 166 Mich. 321 174 V. Starke, 6 Ark. 191 743, 746, 774 V. Weed, 36 App. Div. 611 218 Baily v. Brounfield, 20 Pa. St. 41 367 Bain V. Clinton Loan Assn., 112 N. Car. 248 1059 V. Wilson, 10 Ohio St. 14 596 Bainbridge, In re, L. R. 8 Ch. Div. 218 304 Bainbridge v. Burton, 2 Beav. 539 719 Baird v. Baird, 21 N. Car. 524 389, 390, 757 Baird / V. Planque, 1 Fost. & Fin. 344 907 V. Sheehan, 38 App. Div. (N. Y.) 7 173 Baird's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 725 1045 Baker v. Baker, 161 111 App. 430 214, 902 V. Baltimore Safe Deposit &c. Co., 90 Md. 744 631, 670 v. Backus, 32 111. 79 232 v. Brown, 151 N. Car. 12 342, 766 V. Cummings, 4 App. Cas. (D. C.) 230 347, 351, 381, 400, 718 DP), 59 S. W. 59 596, 861 Bonney v. Stoughton, 122 111. 536 718 Bon?aU y! Conly, 44 'Pa. St. 442 297 Bonsanquet v. Wray, 6 Taunt. 597 742 Bonville v. BonviUe, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 414 ''' V. Bonville, 35 Beav. 129 "2 Booher v. Perrilf, 140 Ind. 529^^_ ^^^_ ^^^ Booker v. Kirkpatrick, 26 Gra^t.^CVa.^) ^^^ XXX TABLE OF CASES [Seferences are to sections— Vol. I, |§ 1-608; Vol. 11, §§ 615-1195.]_ Boon V. Moss, 70 N. Y. 465 328 V. Turner, 96 Mo. App. 635 902 Boor V. Lowery, 103 Ind. 468 467, 509, 600, 888, 890 Boorum v. Ray, 72 Ind. 151 806, 820 Boosalis V. Stevenson, 62 Minn. 193 847 Booth V. Bunce, 33 N. V. 139 954, 967, 968 V. Campbell, 15 Md. 569 491 V. Campbell, 37 Md. 522 232, 234 V. Farmers' &c. Nat. Bank, 74 N. Y. 228 367, 390, 450, 499 V. Gamble-Robinson, 139 Cal. 175 817 V. Hunt, 69 Fed. 220 1031 V. Parkes, Beatty, 444 631, 636 V. Parks, 1 Molloy 465 638 V. Smith, 79 Hun 384 721 V. Wonderly, 36 N. J. L. 250 240, 965 Boothe V. Summit Coal Mining Co., 72 Wash. 679 351, 732 Eopp V. Fox, 63 111. 540 276, 290, 296, 624, 627, 628 Boqua V. -Marshall, 88 Ark. 373 391, 652, 976, 978, 985, 994 Borah v. O'Niell, 116 La. 672 581, 850 V. O'Niell, 121 La. 733 729, 732 Boreing v. Wilson, 33 Ky. L. 14 85, 89, 104, 361, 362, 363 Borland's Appeal (Pa.), 83 Atl. 110 718 Boro V. Hams, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 36 832 Bosanquet, Ex oarte, 1 DeCiex 432 440 Boskowitz V. Nickel, 97 Cal. 19 729 Boston Acid Mfg. Co. v. Moring, 81 Mass. 211 1054 Boston & A. R, Co. v. Pearson, 128 Mass. 445 1001, 1046, 1053 Boston &c. Smelting Co. v. Smith, 13 R. L 27 85, 103, 104 Boston Foundry Co. v. Whiteman, 31 R. L 88 503, 506, 508 Bostwick V. Champion, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 571 503 Boswell V. Dunning, 5 Harr. (Del.) 231 847 V. Green, 25 N. J. L. 390 444 Bosworth V. Hopkins, 85 Wis. 50 276, 301 V. West, 68 Ga. 825 825 Botham v. Keefer, 2 Ont. App. 595 733 Botsford V. Kleinhans, 29 Mjch. 332 556, 557 V. Van Riper, 33 Nev. 156 976, 978, 979 Bott V. Stoner, Penny. (Pa.) 154 861 Bottomley v. Nuttall, 5 C. B. (N. S.) . 122 499 Bouch V. Sproule, 12 App. Cas. 385 275 Boudreaux v. Martinez, 25 La. Ann. 167 486, 500, 922 Boughner v. Black, 83 Ky. 521 659 Bouland V. Carpin, 27 S. Car. 235 725 Bourdillon v. Roche, 27 L. J. Ch. 681 517 Bourgeois v. Bustanoby, 78 Misc. Rep. 404 92 Bourn v. Epperson, 136 Mo. App. 571 96 Bourne, In re (1906), 2 Ch. 427 620 Bourne v. Wooldridge, 10 B. Hon, (Ky.) 492 371 Boutelle v. Smith, 116 Mass. Ill 320, 321 Bouton V. Bouton, 42 flow. Pr. (N. Y.) 11 730 Bovee v. De Jong, 22 S. Dak. 163 262, 264 Bovill V. Hammond, 6 B. & C. 149 748 Bowen v. Argall, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 496 1007, 1008, 1009, 1015, 1033, 1034 V. Billings, 13 Nebr. 439 624, 826 V. Crow, 16 Nebr. 556 496 V. Hastings, 47 Wis. 232 493 V. Rutherford, 60 111. 41 213 910 Bower V. Douglass, 25 Ga. 714 593 Bowers v. Cobb, 31 Fed. 678 837 V. Still, 49 Pa. St. 65 499 V. Whittle, 63 N. H. 147 320 Bowie V. Maddox, 29 Ga. 285 907 Bowin V. Sutherlin, 44 Ala. 278 817, 818 Bowker v. Bradford, 140 Mass. .521 191 V. Burdekin, 12 L. J. Exc. 329 422 V. Smith, 48 N. H. Ill 496, 533, 630, 832 V. Torrey, 211 Mass. 282 966 Bowler v. Blair, 6 Ky. L. (abstract) 666 290 V. Huston, 30 Grat. (Va.) 266 593 Bowles V. Biffles (Okla.), 151 Pae. 193 570 Bowling V. Dobyns, 5 Dana (Ky.) 434 362, 668 Bowman v. Bailey, 20 S. Car. 550 290, 296 V. Bailey, 10 Vt. 170 75, 79 V. Blanton, 141 Ky. 407 71, 596 V. Cecil Bank, 3 Grant (Pa.) 33 454 V. Floyd, 3 Allen (Mass.) 76 262, 632 V. McGregor, 6 Wash. 118 829 V. O'Reilly, 31 Miss. 261 772 V. Saigling (Tex. Civ. App.), Ill S. W. 1082 979 V. Spalding, 8 Ky. L. (abstract) 691 371, 531, 559 Bowsher v. Watkins, 1 Russ. & M. 277 657 Bowyer v. Anderson, 2 Leigh (Va.) 550 79 83 V. Knapp, 15 W. Va. 277 499 Bowzer v. Stoughton, 119 111. 47 743 Boxler v. Buchanan, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 435 789 Boyce v. Burchard, 21 Ga. 74 789 V. Coster, 4 Strob. Eq. (S. Car.) 25 281, 290, 291, 371, 537, 623 Boyd V. Agricultural Ins. Co., 20 Colo. App. 28 706 V. American Carbon Black Co., 182 Pa. St. 206 193, 196 V. Arnold, 103 Ark. 105 528 V. Barclay, 1 Ala. 34 655 V. Boyd, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 57 719 V. Foot, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 110 727, 858, 861 V. McCann, 10 Md. 118 596, 608 V. Munro, 32 S. Car. 249 718 V. Mynatt, 4 Ala. 79 386, 586, 717, 747 V. Platner, 5 Mont. 226 796 V. Plumb, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 309 454 V. Tabb, 5 Ky. L. (abstract) 516 350 V. Tabb, 7 Ky. L. (abstract) 225 573 V. Thompson, 153 Pa. St. 78 422, 425, 436, 457, 888 V. Watson, 101 Iowa 214 449 V. Webster, 58 N. H. 336 622, 804, 835 Boyer v. Anderson, 2 Leigh (Va.) 550 79 V. Berryman, 123 Ind. 451 189 Boyers v. Elliott, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 204 276, 624 Boyington v. Van Etten, 62 Ark. 63 237 Boykin v. Maddrey, 114 N. Car. 89 822 V. Watson, 1 Const. Tr. (S. Car.) 157 492 Boyle V. Boyle, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 570 633 v. Hardy, 28 Mo. 390 726 V. Musser, 77 Minn. 153 603 Boyle's Estate, In re. Tuck. (N. Y.) 4 191 Boynton v. Page, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 425 294, 531 Bozon V. Farlow, 1 Mer. 459 778 Bracken v. Dillon, 64 Ga. 243 498, 561, 809 V. Kennedy, 4 111. 558 651, 716, 741, 773', 850 V. March, 4 Mo. 74 486, 500 Brackenridge v. Claridge (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 1005 77 Brackett v. Cuitningham, 44 Minn. 498 912 Bradbury v. Barnes, 19 Cal. 120 291, 364, 450 TABLE OF CASES XXXI [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Bradbury V. Dickens, 27 Beav. 53 787 V. Smith, 21 Maine 117 275, 276, 291, 357, 670 Braddock v. Hinchman, 78 N. J. Eq. 270 , 988 Bradford v. Kimberly, 3 Johns Ch. (N. Y.) 431 350, 355 V. Montgomery' Furniture Co., 115 Tenn. 610 ' 316 V. National Benefit Association, 26 App. D. C. 268 1045 V. Peckhara, 9 R. I. 250 320 V. Prescott, 85 Maine 482 489, 491 V. Spyker, 32 Ala. 134 718 V. Taylor, 61 Tex. 508 425 V. Toney, 30 Ark. 763 496 Bradley v. Bischel, 81 Iowa 80 530 V. Brigham, 137 Mass. 545 , 359, 668 V. Brigham, 144 Mass. 181 631 V. Burwell, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 61 492 V. Chamberlin, 16 Vt. 613 , 225, 352, 667 V. Ely, 24 Ind. App. 2 75, 83, 103 V. Harkness, 26 Cal. 69 104, 125, 591, 850 V. Linn, 19 III. App. 322 425 V. Richardson, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 343 555 V. Ward, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 190 849 V. Webb, 53 Maine 462 715 V. White, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 303 69, 75, 88 V. WoliT, 40 Misc. 592 990 Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. Pollock, 104 Ala. 402 418, 486 V. South Pub. Co., 17 N. Y. S. 587 953 Bradly v. Jennings, 201 Pa. 473 650, 657, 717 Bradshaw v. Apperson, 36 Tex. 133 486, 500 Bradwell v. Weeks, 13 Johns (N. Y.) 1 186 Brady v. Colhoun, 1 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 140 124, 984, 994 V. Conway, 3 Wkly. Notes Cas. '(Pa.) 110 291 f. Erlanger, 149 N. Y. S. 929 977, 978 V. Hill, 1 Mo. 315 467, 600 V. Kreuger, 8 S. Dak. 464 296 V. Yost. 6 Idaho 273 173 Bragg V. (5eddes, 93 111. 39 574 V. Patterson, 85 Ala. 233 666 Brainerd v. Bertram, 5 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 102 801 V. Dunning, 30 N. Y. 211 510 Braithwaite v. Aiken, 1 N. Dak. 475 83 V. Britain, 1 Keen 206 630, 836 Braley v. Goddard, 49 Maine 115 900 Bramah v. Roberts, 3 Bing. N. Cas. 963 , 426 Branagan v. Buckman, 67 Misc. 242 166 Branch v: Cooper, 82 Ga. 512 767 V. Doane, 17 (Jonn. 402 825 V. Wiseman, 51 Ind. 1 292, 831 Brand v. Sandground, 85 L. T. Rep. • (N. S.) 517 722 Brandagee v. Cleary, 152 N. Y. S. 628 826 Brande v. Bond, 63 Wis. 140 820 Brandon v. Connor, 117 Ga. 759 77, 79, 83 V. Nesbit, .6 T. R. 28 186 Brandt v. Edwards, 91 Minn. SOS 669, 672 V. Salomonson, 17 Cal. App. 395 850, 861 V. Shepard, 39 Minn. 454 862 Branner v. Nichols, 61 Kans. 356 627 Brannon v. Hursell, 112 Mass. 63 891 Brann's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 414 275 Brannum v. Wertheimer-Swartz Shoe Co., 117 Ala. 601 558 Brasfield v. French, 59 Miss. 632 639 Brashear v. Dwight, 2 La. Ann. 403 596 Brasher v. Cortlandt, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 400 364 Brasier v. Hudson, 9 Sim. 1 450 Brass &c. Works v. Payne, 50 Ohio St. 115 318, 328, 329, 553 Brjiun V. Woollacott, 129 Cal. 107 847 Brautigam v. Dean, 85 N. J. L. 549 953 Braxton v. State, 25 Ind. 82 492, 836 Bray v. Farwell, 81 N. Y. 600 1046, 1052, 1053 V. Seligman, 75 Mo. 31 533 V. Tromont, 6 Madd. 5 149 Brayley v. Goff, 40 Iowa 76 602 Brayton v. Sherman, 45 App. Div. (N. Y ^ 58 276 531 Brazee v. Woods, 35 Tex. 302 564^ 760 Brealsford v. Meade, 1 Yeates (Pa.) 488 820 Breaux v. LeBlanc, 50 La. Ann. 228 342, 583, 586 Breck v. Blair, 129 Mass. 127 291 Breckenridge v. Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 236 189 V. Shrieve, 4 Dana (Ky.) 375 151, 435 BredhofI v. Lepman, 181 111. App. 247 594, 854, 876, 901 Bredow v. Mutual Sav. Inst., 28 Mo. 181 808 Breed v. Judd, 1 Gray (Mass.) 455 188 Breen v. Arnold, 157 Wis. 528 124 V. Richardson, 6 Colo. 605 301, 440, 620, 623, 626, 628 Breeze v. International Banking Cor- poration, 25 Cal. App. 437 470, 825 Breinig v. Sparrow, 39 Ind. App. 455 55, 89, 95, 195 Brem v. Allison, 68 N. Car. 412 886 Breman Sav. Bank v. Branch-Crookes Saw Co., 104 Mo. 425 75, 541, 960 Bremner v. Leavitt, 109 Cal. 130 850 Brennan v. Pardridge, 67 Mich. 449 878 Brenner v. Brenner, 9 Pa. Dist. 511 717 V. Carter, 10 Pa. Dist. 457 668 V. Carter, 203 Pa. 75 360, 362, 363, 729 V. Hirsche, 69 Miss. 309 579, 820 Brent v. Davis, 9 Md. 217 418, 504 Brenton v. Thompson, 20 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 133 554, 820' Breslin v. Brown, 24 Ohio St. 565 172, 215 Bresse v. Griffith, 24 Ont. 492 598 Brett V. Beckwith, 3 Jur. (N. S.) 31 642, 836 Brew V. Cochran, 141 Fed. 459 715, 719 V. Hastings, 196 Pa. 222 224, 579, 615 V. Hastings, 206 Pa. 155 718 Brewer v. Abernathy, 159 N. Car. 283 265 V. Browne, 68 Ala. 210 276, 289, 290, 296, 444, 624, 625, 627, 628, 718, 878 V. CIropp, 10 Wash. 136 218 V. Johnson, 87 Ark. 641 357, 556, 665, 669, 671 V. Swartz, 83 Mo. App. 451 716 V. Worthington, 10 Allen (Mass.) 329 564 V. Wright, 25 Nebr. 305 449 V. Yorke, 46 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 289 659 Brewing v. Berryman, 15 N. B. 515 510 Brewster, Ex parte, 22 L. J. Bankr. 62 675 Brewster v. Hammet, 4 Conn. 540 292 823, 829 V. Hardeman, Dudley (Ga.) 138 467, 486, 593 V. Mott, 5 III. 378 371, 455 V. Reel, 74 Iowa 506 371, 455 Breyfogle v. Bowman, 157 Ky. 62 384, 601, 926 XXXll TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Briar Hill Coal Co. v. Atlas Works, 146 Pa. St. 290 1051 Brick, In re, 4 Fed. 804 706 Brickett v. Downs, 163 Mass. 70 307, 455, 487 Brickhouse v. Hunter, 4 Hen. & Mun. (Va.) 363 727, 914 Bridenbecker v. Mason, 16 How. Fr. (N. Y.) 203 457 Bridge v. Gray, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 55 467 V. McCulIough, 27 Ala. 661 534, 630 V. Payson, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 210 811 V. Swain, 3 Eedf. Sur. (N. Y.) 487 630, 808 Bridgeport Trust Co.'s Appeal, 77 Conn. 657 937 Bridges v. Mitchell, Gilb. 224 v 718 V. Sprague &c. Iron Co., 57 Maine 543 79 Brien v. Harriman, 1 Tenn. Ch. 467 586, 588, 667 Briere v. Searls, 126 Wis. 347 71 V. Taylor, 126 Wis. 347 732 Brierly v. Cripps, 7 C. & P. 709 715, 727 Briggs V. Boynton, 212 Mass. 5 994 V. Briggs, 15 N. Y. 471 563 V. James H. Rice Co., 83 111. App. 618 210 V. Smith, 4 Daly (N. Y.) 110 449 V. United States, 143 U. S. 346 186 V. Weidmann Cooperage Co., 3 N. Y. S. 813 573 Brigham v. Dana, 29 Vt. 1 83, 349, 673, 675, 881, 882, 900 Brigham v. Smith, 3 Grant. Err. & App. (U. C.) 46 657 Brigham-Hopkins Co. v. Gross, 107 Fed. 769 835, 836 V. Gross, 20 Wash. 218 835, 836 V. Gross, 30 Wash. 277 808, 835, 836 Bright V. Buhr, 11 Ky. L. 579 297 V. Carter, 117 Wis. 631 399 V. Sampson, 20 Tex. 21 818 Brinegar v. Griffin, 2 La. Ann. 154 716 Brink v. New Amsterdam F. Ins. Co., 5 Rob. (N. Y.) 104 461 Brinkley Car Works &c. Co. v. Curf- man, 136 Iowa 476 235, 237 Bririley v. Kupper, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 179 772 Brinsmead v, Harrison, L. E. 7 C. P. 547 507 Brisban v. Boyd, 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 17 596, 600, 927 Bristol V. Sprague, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 423 604 Bristol Bank &o. Co. v. Jonesboro Bank- ing Trust Co., 101 Tenn. 545 526, 967 Brite v. Guy, 28 Ky. L. 57 424, British Homes Assur. Corp. v. Pater- son (1902), 2 Ch. (Engd.) 404 508, 561 Britton v. Britton, 19 Ind. App. 638 890 Broadbent, Ex parte, 4 Deac. & C. 3 440 Broaddus v. Evans, 63 N. Car. 633 455 Broadfoot v. Fraser, 73 Vt. 313 295, 674 V. Rowe, 14 Ky. L. 895 808 Broadnax v. Thomason, 1 La. Ann. 382 831 Brobston v. Penniman, 97 Ga. 527 455 Brock V. Bateman, 25 Ohio St. 609 535, 696 V. Brock, 116 Pa. St. 109 276 Brockman v. Aulger, 12 111. 277 730 Broda v. Greenwald, 66 Ala. 538 733 Brodeck v. Farnum, 11 Wash. 565 491 Broderick v. Beaupre, 40 Minn. 379 718 Broeg V. Pool, 22 Ky. L. 1354 ' 732 Bromley v. Elliot, 38 N. H. 287 62, 63, 83, 139, 418, 486, 897, 922, 923 - Bronx Metal Bed Co. v. Wallerstein, 84 N. Y. S. 924 556, 557 Brooke v. Day, 129 Ga. 694 231, 237, 238, 240 ,. Evans, 5 Watts (Pa.) 196 498, 528, 559 Brooke V. Filer, 35 Ind. 402 186 V. Tucker, 149 Ala. 96 71, 721 V. Washington, 8 Grat. (Va.) 248 276, 418, 445, 486, 919 Brooklyn Trust Co. v. McCutchen, 215 Fed. 952 315, 326, 660, 729 Brookmire v. Rosa, 34 Nebr. 227 796, 863 Brooks V. Bonner (Tex. Civ. App.), 149 S. W. 564 953 V. Brooks, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 12 644, 835 V. Lovelace, 6 Ky. Law 367 418 V. Mclntyre, 4 Mich. 316 817, 826 v. Marbury, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 78 621 V. Martin, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 70 177, 389, 400, 655, 656, 674, 763 V. Ratcliff, 33 N. Car. 321 826 Brooks-Waterfield Co. v. Jackson, 21 Ky. L. 854 425, 433, 470, 486, 487 Broopi V. Broom, 3 Myl. & K. 443 289, 623, 626 Brotherton v. Gilchrist, 144 Mich. 274 25, 65, 85, 475 Brougham v. Balfour, 3 U. C. C. P. 72 803, 834 Broughton v. Broughton, 44 L. J. Ch. 526 633 V. Manchester Waterworks, 3 B. & Aid. 1 426 V. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 266 960 V. Sumner, 80 Mo. App. 386 420, 425 Brower v. Nellis, 6 Ind. App. 323 493 Brown, In re, 106 La. 486 240 Brown, Matter of, 3 Edw. (N. Y.) 384 728 Brown v. Agnew, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 235 651, 666, 754 V. Allen, 35 Iowa 306 804, 335 V. Atlanta R. Co., 113 Ga. 462 237 V. Bamberger, 110 Ala. 342 474, 604, 605, 607 V. Beecher, 120 Pa. St. 590 290 V. Belches, 1 Wash. (Va.) 9 811, 819 V. Bostian, 6 Jones L. (N. Car.) 1 796 V. Brown, 175 Mich. 442 657, 902 *. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 155 S. W. 551 465, 889 V. Chancellor, 61 Tex. 437 118, 578, 604, 605 V. Clark, 14 Pa. St. 469 603, 607 V. Cook, 3 N. H. 64 897 V. Crandall, 11 Conn. 92 910 V. Cruce, 44 Okla. 192 237 V. Dale, 9 Ch. Div. 78 674 V. Davis, 6 Duer. (N. Y.) 549 558, 1029 V. Delano, 12 Mass. 370 186 V. De Tastet, 1 Jac. 284 353, 637, 641 V. Douglas, 10 Law Journal 14 630 V. Farnham, 53 Minn. 499 861 V. Finch, 63 Hun 235 721 V. First Nat. Bank, 35 Okla 726 413, 473, 825, 919 V. Fitch, 33 N. J. L. 418 496 V. Foster, 137 Mich. 35 503 V. Foster, 41 S. Car. 118 594, 596 V. Gordon, 16 Beav. 302 562, 630, 836 V. Grady, 6 B. C. 190 218 V. Gray, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 563 722 V. Hadley, 43 Kans. 267 769 V. Harklerode, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 19 677 V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 117 Mass. 479 188, 447 V. Haven, 37 Vt. 439 834 V. Haynes, 59 N. Car. 49 435 V. Hiatts, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 177 186 V. Hicks, 8 Fed. 155 588 V. Hicks, 24 Fed. 811 75 V. Higginbotham, 5 Leigh (Va.) 583 83, 599, 615, 898, 920 V. Hutchinson, 2 Q. B. 126 831 V. Jaquette, 94 Pa. St. 113 126 TABLE OF CASES XXXIU [References are to sections — ^Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Brown V. Jewett, 18 N. H. 230 190, 578 V. Kennedy, 12 Colo. 235 371 V. Lawrence, 5 Conn. 397 260, 451 V. Leonard, 2 Chit. 120 476, 906 V. McFarland, 41 Pa. St. 129 „ , 637, 661, 667 V. Marsh, 7 Vt. 320 491 V. Miller, 11 Colo. 431 531 V. Morrill, 45 Minn. 483 276, 301 V. Oakshot, 24 Beav. 254 276 V. O'Brien, 4 Nebr. 195 276, 389 V. Orr, 110 Va. 1 366, 392 V. Perkins, 2 Hare 540 346 V. Pettit, 178 Pa. St. 17 432, 455 V. Pickard, 4 Utah 292 260 V. Rains, 53 Iowa 81 910 V. Schackelford, 53 Mo. 122 361, 389, 392. 652 V. Slee, 103 U. S. 828 635 V. Spencer, 163 Cal. 589 218 V V. Spohr, 87 App. Div. 522 398 V. Tapscott, 9 X. J. Exch. 139 651, 749 V. Torver, Minor (Ala.), 370 430 V. Turner, 15 Ala. 832 439 v., Watson, 66 Mich. 223 620, 622 Brown Chemical Co. v. Atkinson, 91 N. Car. 389 888 Browne v. Scull, 27 Pa. Super. Ct. 513 659 Brownell v. Steere, 128 111. 209 351, 364, 381, 667, 729 Browning v. Browning, 5 Newfoundl. 161 (1887) 727 V. Cover, 108 Pa. 595 294 V. Grady, 10 Ala. 999 499 V. Kelly, 124 Ala. 645 267 V. Marvin, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 547 796 Brownlee v. Allen, 21 Mo. 123 897 V. Lobenstein (Tenn.), 42 S. W. 467 486, 496, 813 Brown's Appeal, In re, 17 Pa. St. 480 291 Brown's Appeal, In re, 89 Pa. St. 139 359, 362, 607, 636, 641 Brownson v. Metcalf, 1 Handy (Ohio) 188 795, 796, 863 Broyles v. McCoy, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 602 244, 1059 Brozee v. Poyntz, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 178 436 Brubaker v. Robinson, 3 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 295 757 Bruce V. Driggs, 25 How. Pr. (N. V.) 71 254 V. Hastings, 41 Vt. 380 218 V. Ross, 18 La. 341 586 Bruen v. Kansas City &c. Fair Assn., 40 Mo. App. 425 83 V. Marquand, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 58 451 Bruett V. F. C. Austin Drainage Exca- vator Co., 174 Fed. 668 118, 121, 265, 795 Bruffett V. Great Western R. Co., 25 111. 353 953 Brum V. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 16 Fed. 140 953 Brundage v. Mellon, 5 N. D. 72 508 Brundred v. Muzzy, 25 N. J. L. 268 897 V. Rice, 49 Ohio St. 640 968 Bruner v. Jacobson, 115 Minn. 425 725 929 V. Moore (1904), 1 Ch. 305 ' 221 Bruns v. Heise, 101 Md. 163 715 v. Spalding, 90 Md. 349 650, 657 Brunson v. McLendon, 98 Ala. 568 602 V. Morgan, 76 Ala. 593 265 Brunswick v. Slowman, 8 C. B. 617 510 Brush v. Jay, 50 Hun 446 ' 721 v. Jay, 113 N. Y. 482 728 Brutton v. Burton, 1 Chit. 707 457 Bry V. Cook, 15 La. Ann. 493 929 Bryan v. Bickford, 140 Mass. 31 1056 V. Henderson, 88 Tenn. 23 556, 558 V. Landon, 5 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 594, 364 Bryan V. Thompson Pub. Co., 258 Mo. 187 977 Bryant v. Fitzsimmons, 106 Md. 421 124 V. Hawkins, 47 Mo. 410 599 v.^ Hunter, 6 Bush (Ky.) 75 276, 535 V. Lord, 19 Minn. 396 604 V. Phillips, 189 Mo. App. 278 802, 861, 924 V. Simoneau, 51 111. 324 820 V. Warden, 2 Exch. 479 472 Bryce V. Davidson, 25 U. C. Q. B. 371 553 V. Joynt, 63 Cal. 375 918 Bryden v. Taylor, 2 Har. & J. (Md.) 396 910 Brydges v. Branfill, 6 Jur. 310 508, 517 Bryer v. Weston, 16 Maine 261 886, 887 Buard v. Lemie, 12 Rob. (La.) 243 593 Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 165 276, 288, 290, 296, 301, 535, 537, 624, 626, 627 Buchanan v. Buckler, 8 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 617 425, 604 V. Clark, 10 Grat. (Va.) 164 367, 556 V. Comstock, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 568 721 V. Curry, 19 John. (N. Y.) 137 459, 577 V. Edwards (Tex. Civ. App.), 51 S. W. 33 897 V. Mechanics' Loan &c. Inst,, 84 Md. 430 398 v. Meisser. 105 111. 638 371 V. Mitchell, 8 Ohio Dec. 437 291 v. Peoples Bank (Tenn.), 57 S. W. 207 433 V. Scandia Plow Co., 6 Colo. App. 34 457 Buchoz v. Grandjean. 1 Mich. 367 459 Buck V. Alley, 145 N. Y. 488 1008, 1011, 1013, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1026, 1055 V. Mosley, 24 Miss. 170 371, 415, 455 v. Smith, 2 Colo. 500 857 V. Smith, 29 Mich. 166 573, 773, 778, 785 V. Winn, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 320 289 Buckhan v. Singleton, 10 Mo. 405 675 Buckhause, In re, 2 Lowell (U. S.) 331 398 Buckingham v. Burgess, 3 McLean (U. S.) 364 905 V. Chicago First Nat. Bank, 131 Fed. 192 277, 694, 697 V. Ludlum, 29 N. J. Eq. 345 359, 362 V. Ludlum, 37 N. J. Eq. 137 836 V. Oliver, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 129 489 Buckle V. Her, 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 214 146 Buckley v. Barber, 6 Exch. 164 292 V. Buckley, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 43 276, 624, 626, 627 V. Carlisle, 2 Cal. 420 294, 759 V. Dingman. 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 289 1027 V. Doig, 188 N. Y. 238 218, 282, 285, 289, 623, 628 V. Garrett, 47 Pa. St. 204 299 V. Kelly, 70 Conn. 411 601, 607, 729, 850 V. Lincoln Trust Co., 72 Misc. 218 432 Buckmaster v. Grundy, 8 111. 626 984, 986 Bucknam v. Barnum, IS Cpnn. 67 898 Buckner v. Lee, 8 Ga. 285 79, 83, 4.^3 v. Ries, 34 Mo. 357 754 Buck Stove Co. v. Johnson, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 282 367, 529 Buddie V. Willson, 6 T. R. 369 812 Budeke v. Ratterman, 2 Tenn. Ch. 459 727, 914 Buell V. Rope, 6 App. Div. 113 967 Buettner v. Steinbrecher, 91 Iowa 588 424, 425, 471, 472 Buffalo &c. R. Co. v. Cary, 26 N. Y. 75 155, 231, 240 Buffalo City Bank v. Howard, 35 N. Y. 500 604 XXXIV TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Buffalo Milling Co. v. Lewisburg Dairy Co., 20 Am. Bkr. R. 279 686 Buffkin V. Eason, 110 N. Car. 264 855 Bufford V. Ashcroft, 72 Wis. 104 364, 667, 668 BufTum V. Buffum,. 49 Maine 108 281, 290, 371, 624, 626, 627 Bufkin V. Boyce, 104 Ind. S3 721 Buford V. Ashcroft, 72 Tex. 104 361 V. Lewis, 87 Ark. 412 80, 104 V. Neely, 17 N. Car. 481 350, 352, 353, 591, 637, 657 V. Speed, 11 Bush (Ky.) 338 186 Buic V. Kennedy, 164 N. Car. 290 81, 275 278, 357, 666, 670, 671, 673 Bulchart v. Dresser, 10 Hare 453 618 V. Dresser, 4 De G., M. & G. 542 620 Bulfinch V. Winchenbach, 3 Allen (Mass.) 161 75, 820 Bulger V. Rosa, 119 N. Y. 459 526, 531, 554, 825 Bulkley v. Marks. 15 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 454 1035 Bull V. Coe, 77 Cal. 54 744, 745, 749, 767 V. Harris, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 195 301 V. Schuberth, 2 Md. 38 877 Bullard v. Hascall, 25 Mich. 132 399 Bullard v. Kinney, 10 Cal. 60 1049 Bullen V. Sharp, L. R. 1 C. P. 86 45, 62, 63,, 83, 87 Bullock V. Ashley, 90 111. 102 357, 671 V. Bemis, 51 Hun (N. Y.) 637 359 730 V. Crockett, 3 Giiford 507 ' 659 V. Hubbard, 23 Cal. 495 191, 194, 534, 820 V. Williams, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 33 440 Bumgarner v. First Nat. Bank (W- Va.), 74 S. E. 996 830 Bumpass v Webb, 1 Stew: (Ala) 19 , 651, 743, 747, 749 Bumpus V. Turgen, 98 Maine 550 455, 796 Bunce v. Pratt, 56 Minn. 8 825 Bundy v. Youmans, 44 Mich. 376 631, 729 Bunn V. Guy, 4 East 190 331 V. Timberlake, l04 Ala. 263 511 Bunnell v. Taintor 4 Conn. 568 218 Bunton v. Dunn, 54 Maine 152 564, 746 Burbank v. Farnham (Mass.), 108 N. E. 492 238 V. Haas, 9 La. Ann. 528 90S V. Oglesby, 35 La. Ann. 1201 766 Burchard v. Boyce, 21 Ga. 6 661, 719 Burchell v. Voght, 35 App. Div. 190 369, 414 V. Voght, 164 N. Y. 602 424, 486 V. Wilde (1900), 1 Ch. 551 553, 599 Burchinell v. Koon, 8 Colo. App. 463 601, 620 V. Koon, 25 Coto. 59 620 Burckhardt v. Burckhardt, 36 Ohio St. 261 318 Burden V. Burden, 1 Ves. & B. 170 349, 352, 353, 637 V. Cross, 33 Tex. 685 265 V. Howard, 2 N. Brunsw. Eq. 461 721 Burdett v. Greer, 63 W. Va. 515 434, 467, 499, 592, 600 Burdick, In re, 79 Misc. 167 631, 836, 926 Burditt V. Grew, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 108 718, 855 Bu-don V. Barkus, 4 De G., F. & J. 42 276, 358, 728, 729 Burgan v. Lyell, 2 Mich. 102 448. 449, 466, 486 Burgen V. Dwinal, 11 Ark. 314 848 Burger v. Robinson, 81 Misc. 678 357, 665, 671 Burgess v. American Bond &c. Co., 103 Maine 378 849 Burgess V. Atkins, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 337 291, 820, 830 V. Badger, 124 111. 288 350, 351, 354, 364, 386, 576, 586, 666, 674 V. Badger, 83 Hun 488 637, 667 V. Burgess, 3 De Gex, M. & G. 896 261 V. Deierling, 113 Mo. App. 383 294, 295, 400 V. Patterson, 139 Ky. 547 513 Burgher v. Burgher, 12 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 95 360, 362, 363 Burgoyne v. Ohio Life Ins. & Trust Co., 5 Ohio St. 586 492 Burgwin v. Hostler, 1 N. Car. 167 836 Burgwyn v. Jones, 113 Va. 511 218 Burhans v. Jefferson, 76 Fed. 25 741, 743 V. Kelly, 49 Hun (N. Y.) 610 530, 602 Burk V. Burk (Ky.), 128 S. W. 315 669 Burkhardt v. Walsh, 49 App. Div. 634 659, 715, 902 Burke v. Concord R. Co., 61 N. H. 160 193 V. Flood, 1 Fed. 541 655 V. Fuller, 41 La. Ann. 740 732 V. Lincoln-Valentine Co., 28 Misc. 202 . 960 , V. Mountain Timber Co., 224 Fed. 591 454 V. Parke, 5 W. Va. 122 ,717 V. Roper, 79 Ala. 138 773 Burkhardt v, Burkhardt, 5 Ohio Dec. 185 318, 553 V. Yates, -161 Mass. 591 471 Burks V. Parker (Ala.), 68 So. 271 717 Burleigh V. Bevin, 22 Misc. 38 748, 990 V. Parton, 21 Tex. 585 461 V. White, 70 Maine 130 364 Burley v. Brown, 73 Kans. 780 675 V. Harris, 8 N. H. 233 741, 767, 774 Burlington & Mo. River R. Co. v. Dick, 7 Nebr. 242 121, 796 Burnand v. Nerot, 2 , Bligh. (N. S.) 215 626 Burnap V. Haskins Steam-Engine Co., 127 Mass. 586 232 Burnell y. Hunt. 5 Jur. 650 Q. B. 39 V. Weld, 59 Maine 423 555 Burnes v. Pennell, 2 H. L. Cas. 497 1046 Burnet V. Hope, 9 Ont. 10 618, 619 Burnett V. Eufaula &c. Ins. Co., 46 Ala. 11 299 V. Menifee, 4 Ark. 140 826 V. Snyder, 43 N. Y. Super. Ct. 238 149 V. Snyder, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 577 149 V. Snyder, 76 N. Y. 344 80, 103, 149 1047 V. Snyder, 81 N. Y. 550 149, 192, 899 V. Sullivan, 5^ Tex. 535 819 Burney v. Boone, 32 Ala. 486 564, 760 V. Savannah Grocery Co., 98 Ga. 711 191, 578 Burnham v. Hopkinson, 17 N. H. 259 761 v. Kidwell, -113 111. 425 189 V. Lutz, 8 Kans. App. 361 861 V. Whittier, 5 N. H. 334 430, 803 Burnley v. Rice, 18 Tex. 481 103, 260, 421, 426, 486, 911 Burns v. Beck, 83 Ga. 471 236 V. Hall, 3 N. J. L. 539 265 V. Hall, 3 N. J. L. 984 795 V. Harris, 67 N. Car. 140 297 V. McKenzie, 23 Cal. 101 467, 600 V. Niagara &c. Power Co., 145 App. Div. 280 75, 77 V. Nottingham, 60 111. 531 741 V. Pillsbury, 17 N. H. 66 562 V. Rosenstein, 135 U. S. 449 728 V. Rowland, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 368 449 V. Russell (Tex. Civ. App.), 146 S. ., W. 707 285, 413, 652 Burnside v. Merrick, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 537 281, 290, 303, 624, 626 V. Savier, 6 Ore. 154 672, 773 TABLE OF CASES XXXV CEeferences are to sections — Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, S§ 615-1195.] Burr V. Byers, 10 Ark. 398 912 V. De La Vergne, 102 N. Y. 415 277. 389, 395 V. Mathers, 51 Mo. App. 470 457 V. Williams, 20 Ark. 171 468, 592, 604, 605 Burress v. Blair, 61 Mo. 133 659 Burritt v. Dickson 8 Cal. 113 469, 475 Burrough's Appeal, In re, 26 Pa. St. 264 433 733 Burrows v. Leech, 116 Mich. 32 ' 420 V. Williams, 52 Wash. 278 675 Eurson v. Stone, 135 Ga. 115 604 Burstall v. Baptist, 21 Wkly. Rep. 4S5 602 Burt V. Collins, 64 Cal. xvii 419 V. Laplace, 114 La. 489 1020 V. Lathrop, 52 Mich. 106 111, 157, 166 Burton v. Bostwick, Brayt. (Vt.) 195 854 V. Goodspeed, 69 111. '237 75 V. Issitt, 5 B. & Aid. 267 467, 888 V. Wookey, 3 Mad. & Geld. 367 381, 652 Burtus V. Tisdall, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 571 528 Burwell v. Cawood, 2 How. (U. S.) 560 579, 638, 639 V. Mandeville, 2 How. (U. S.) 550 579, 615 V. Springiield, 15 Ala. 273 371 Bury V. Allen, 1 Coll. 589 215, 659, 665 Busbey v. Hamiter, 131 La. 118 902 Busby V. Chenault, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 554 538 V. Eoohs, 72 Ark. 657 451, 455, 800 Busfield V. Wheeler, 14 Allen (Mass.) 139 803, 834 Bush V. Bush, 33 Kans. 556 511 V. Clark, 127 Mass. Ill 644 V. Guion, 6 La. Ann. 797 389, 664 V. Linthicum, 59 Md. 344 188, 587 V. McCarty Co., 127 Ga. 308 596 V. Stamper, 22 Ky. L. 1592 725 V. Stowell, 71 Pa. St. 208 600, 927 Bushby v. Berkeley, 135 App. Div. 443 574, 731 V. Berkeley, 153 App. Div. 742 659 Bush Co. V. Gibbons, 87 App. Div. (N. Y.) 576 531 Bushnell v. Consolidated &c. Mach. Co., 138 111. 67 210, 238, 242, 244, 882, 96S Butchart v. Dresser, 4 DeG., M. & G. 542 593, 721 Butcher, Ex parte, 13 Ch. Div. 465 642 Butler V. Agnew, 9 Cal. App. 327 177 V. American Toy Co., 46 Conn. 136 191, 193, 195, 597, 638 V. Beech, 55 Cal. 28 727 V. Birkey, 13 Ohio St. 514 367, 556, 558 V. Burleson, 16 Vt. 176 331 V. Butler, 164 111. 171 349 V. Cornwall Iron Co., 22 Conn. 335 912 V. Delafield, 1 Cal. App. 367 806 V. Frank, 7 Ga. App. 65S 191 V. Henry, 48 Ark. 551 561, 878 V. Hinckley, 17 Colo. 523 475 y. Prentiss, 158 N. Y. 49 384 V. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 42 405 V. Stocking, 8 N. Y. 408 487, 878 V. Walker, 80 111. 345 232, 234 Butler Paper Co. v. Cleveland, 220 111. 128 238, 246 Butler Sav. Bank v. Osborne, 159 Pa. St. 10 125, 210 Butner v. Lemly, 58 N. Car. 148 350, 355 Butte &c. Co. V. Wallace, 59 Conn. 336 889 910 Butterfield v. Beardsley, 28 Mich. 412 ' 1047, 1049, 1055, 1059 V. Lathrop, 71 Pa. St. 225 81 Butts V. Cooper, 152 Ala. 375 218, 624, 625 V. Genung, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 254 836 V. Tiffany, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 95 486 Buxton V. Edwards, 134 Mass. 567 593 V. Lister, 3 Atk. 383 778 1 Buzard v. First Nat Bank, 67 Tex. 83 76 V. McAnulty, 77 Tex. 438 221 Buzzard v. Jolly (Tex.), 6 S. W. 422 910 Byara v. Bickford, 140 Mass. 31 265, 1056 Byassee v. Evans, 143 Ky. 415 729 Bybee v. Hawkett, 12 Fed. 149 149, 152 Byers v. Dobey, 1 H. Bl. 236 496 V. Coleman, 46 Fed. ,224 943 V. Schlupe, 51 Ohio St. 300 811, 816 V. Van Deusen, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 268 677 v. Weeks, 105 Mo. App. 72 657 Byington v. Gaff, 44 111. 510 260 V. Woodward, 9 Iowa 360 861, 876, 878 Bynum v. Clark, 125 N. Car. 352 594, 967 Byrd v. Fox, 8 Mo. 574 215, 746, 748, 754 V. Gasquet, Hempst. (U. S.) 261 854 v. Pe'rry, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 378 301, 440 Byrne v. Byrne, 94 Cal. 576 743 V. Hooper, 2 Rob. (La.) 229 466 Byrne Hammer Dry Goods Co. v. Wil- lis-Dunn Co., 23 S. Dak. 221 953, 968 Byron v. Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co., 3 DeG. & J. 123 . 416 Caddick v. Skidmore, 2 DeG. & J. 52 218 Cadwallader v. Blair, 18 Iowa 420 559 V. Kroesen, 22 Md. 200 455, 487 Cadwell v. Shaw, 4 Mont. Q. B. 246 433 Cady V. Kyle, 47 Mo. 346 888 V. Shepherd, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 400 301, 422, 440, 600, 888 V. Smith, 12 Nebr. 628 796 Cahn V. Gottschalk, 16 N. Y. St. 818 262 Cain V. Dietz, 3 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 612 622 Caine v. McLane, 1 Cranch (C. C.) 351 796- Cain Lumber Co. v. Standard Dry Kiln Co., 108 Ala. 346 221, 857, 889 Calder v. Creditors, 47 La. Ann. 346 281, 371, 444, 535, 912 V. Crowley, 74 Wis. 157 275 v. Rutherford, 3 Brod. & B. 302 , 630, 808 Caldicott V. Griffiths, 1 C. L. R. 715 166 Caldwell v. Bloomington Mfg. Co., 17 Nebr. 489 528 V. Davis, 10 Colo. 481 342, 381, 400, 775 V. Devinney, 4 Cin. Wkly. Law Bui. 117 796 V. Hawkins, 73 Mo. 450 716, 836 V. Lang, 31 Ky. L. 237 732 V. Leiber, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 483 276, 350, 351, 383, 387, 556, 661, 674, 727, 732, 914 V. Miller, 127 Pa. St. 442 69 V. Parmer, 56 Ala. 405 276, 626 V. Scott, 54 N. H. 414 455, 531, 559 v. Sithens, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 99 260, 437 V. Stileman, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 212 630 Caldwell Banking &c. Co. v. Porter, 52 Ore. 318 371, 455 Calhoun v. Bank of Greenwood, 42 S. Car. 357 536 Calkins v. Smith, 48 N. Y. 614 805 V. Worth, 215 111. 78 978 Callahan v. Heinz, 20 Ind. App, 359 417, 458 Callanan v. KeesvUle &c. R. Co.,' 48 Misc. (N. Y.) 476 617, 835 Callaway v. Pearson, 139 Ga. 540 760 V. Woodward, 28 Mo. App. 320 419 Callender v. Robinson, 96 Pa. St. 454 500 Calloway v. Tate, 1 Hen. & M. (Va.) 9 727 Calumet Paper Co. v. Stotts Inv. Co., 96 Iowa 147 961 Calvert v. Idaho Stage Co., 25 Ore. 412 193, 197 V. Marlow, 6 Ala. 337 743 v. Miller, 94 N. Car. 600 635 V. Newberger, 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 184 . 264 XXXVl TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Calvit V. Markham, 3 How. (Miss.) 343 742 Camblat v. Tupery, 2 La. Ann. 10 929 Cambre v. Lasseigne, 134 La. 94 398 Cambridge University v. Baldwin, 5 Mees. & W. 580 118 Camelo, In re, 195 Fed. 632 706 Cameron v. Bickford, 11 Ont. App. 52 767 V. Blackman, 39 Mich. 108 454 V. Cameron, 1 N. J. App. 24 623 V. First Nat. Bank (Tex.), 34 S. W. 178 195, 196, 1053 V. First Nat. Bank, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 309 382, 1057 V. Francisco, 26 Ohio St. 190 350, 352, 353, 637 V. M'Murray, 17 Dunlop 1142 346 V. Peters, 8 Ont. W. R. 359 357, 671 V. Stevenson, 12 U. C. C. P. 389 580 V. Watson, 10 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 64 401, 727 Cammack v. Johnson, 2 N. J. Eq. 163 486, 535, 828 Camp, In re, 91 Fed. 745 704 Camp V. Grant, 21 Conn. 41 496, S35, 630, 836 V. Mayer, 47 Ga. 414 534 V. S. W. Bacon Fruit Co., 117 Ga. 149 265 V. United States, 15 Ct. CI. 469 160, 975 Campbell v. Bane, 119 Mich. 40 398 V. Blanke, 13 Kans. 62 847 V. Booth, 8 Md. 107 489 V. Bowen, 49 Ga. 417 418 V. Burnett, 120 Md. 214 715 V. Campbell, 30 N. J. Eq. 415 290, 296, 627 V. Campbell, 16 N. Y. S. 165 329, 675 V. Campbell, 7 CI. & F. 166 364, 366, 385, 747 V. Campbell Co., 117 La. 402 249 V. Clark, 101 Fed. 972 718, 850 V. Colorado Coal &c. Co., 9 Colo. 60 119, 539 V. Coquard, 16 Mo. App. 552 732 V. Coquard, 93 Mo. 474 668 V. Dent, 54 Mo. 325 899 V. Dotson, 149 Ky. 824 343 V. Farley, 18 Ont. Pr. 97 630 V. Farmers &c. Bank, 49 Nebr. 143 530, 953, 960 V. Floyd, 153 Pa. St. 84 558, 562, 598 V. Hart, 118 La. 871 617 V. Hastings, 29 Ark. 512 475, 889, 905, 908, 910 V. Huffines, 151 N. Car. 262 92, 421, 475, 486 V. Lacock, 40 Pa. St. 448 558 V. Mathews, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 551 450 V. Northwest Eckington Imp. Co., 229 U. S. 561 216, 666 V. Offutt, 151 Ky. 229 174 V. Pence, 118 Ind. 313 418 V. Rich Oil Co., 29 Ky. L. 716 788 V. Sherman, 49 Mich. 534 876 V. Stewart, 34 111. 151 364 V. Wallace, 12 N. H. 362 811 V. Wallace, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 433 835 V. Zabriskie, 8 N. J; Eq. 738 858 Campbellsville Lumber Co. v. Bradlee, 96 Ky. 494 599 Canada v. Barksdale, 84 Va. 742 169 V. Barksdale, 76 Va. 899 881 Canadian Bank v. ^arks, 19 Ont. 450 562, 809 Candee v. Baker, 131 App., Div. (N. Y.) 641 587, 850 V. Smith. 93 N. Y. 349 493 Candler v. Stange, 53 Mich. 479 661 Cane v. Battle, 3 La. Ann. 642 579 V. Macdonald, 9 Brit. Col. 297 654, 661, 721 CanReld v. Gregory, 66 Conn. 9 241 V. Hard, 6 Conn. 180 579, 617, 850 v. Johnson, 144 Pa. St. 61 486, 769 Cannon v. Brush Elec. Co.. 96 Md. 446 103 V. Copeland, 43 Ala. 201 371, 718, 719 V. Lindsey, 85 Ala. 198 455, 601, 602 V. Wildman, 28 Conn. 472 450, 451 V. Windsor, 1 Houst. (Del.) 143 187 Cant V. Reed, 24 Tex. 46 635 Cantara v. Blackwell, 14 Wash. 294 882 Canton Bridge Co. v. Eaton Rapids, 107 Mich. 613 897, 900 Capecci v. Alladio, 8 Wash. 637 719 Capen v. Barrows, 1 Gray (Mass.) 376 747, 753 Cape Sable Co.'s Case, 3 Bland Ch. (Md.) 606 583, 591, 962 Cape's Case, 2 DeG., M. & G. 573 1046 Capital Food Co. v. Globe Coal Co., 142 Iowa 134 357, 358, 496, 671, 827 Caplen v. Cox, 42 Tex. App. 297 222, 356, 775 Capps V. Hastings Prospecting Co., 40 Nebr. 470 253 Capria's Estate, In re, 151 N. Y. S. 385 617 Caraway v. Citizens' Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 506 424, 486 Card V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 4 Mo. App. 424 299 Cardington First Nat. Bank v. Stiles, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct. 532 826 Carey, In re, 39 Solicitor's Jour. 541 967 Carey v. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571 190 v. Marshall, 67 N. J. L. 236 476 Carfrae *. Vanbuskirk, 1 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 539 861 Cargill V. Corby, 15 Mo. 425 486 Carhart v. Brown, 86 Tex. 425 349 V. Killough, 1 White & W. Tex. App. Cir. Cas., § 112 1022 Carico v. Moore, 4 Ind. App. 20 261, 796, 811 Carillon V. Thomas, 6 Mo. App. 574 291, 831 Caris V. Nimmons, 92 Mo. App. 66 466 Carithers v. Jarrell, 20 Ga. 842 294 Carl V. Knott, 16 Iowa 379 767 Carlen v. Drury, 1 Ves. & B. 154, 158 650, 721, 773 Carleton, In re, 115 Fed. 246 685, 691 Carley v. Jenkins, 46 Vt. 721 448, 449 Carliu v. Donegan, 15 Kans. 495 381, 382, 723, 850 Carlisle v. McAlester, 3 Ind. Ter. 164 820 V. Mulhern, 19 Mo. 56 276 Carlisle Gas &c. Co. v. Carlisle Bor- ough, 218 Pa. 554 291 Carlon v. RufEner, 12 W. Va. 297 817, 819, 826 Carloon v. Baker, 36 Mont. 486 496 , Carlton v. Coffin, 27 Vt. 496 910 V. Cone (Colo. App.), 146 Pac. 789 417 v. Cummins, 51 Ind. 478 573, 659 V. Grissom, 98 Ga. 118 847, 861 Carlyle v. Plumer, 11 Wis. 96 888 Carmichael v. Evans [1904], 1 Ch. 486 575, 585 v. Greer, 55 Ga. 116 905, 908 V. Sharp, 1 Ont. 381 732 Came v. McLane, 1 Cranch (C. C.) 351 796 Carnegie v. Hulbert, 10 U. S. App. 454 795 Carothers v. Alexander, 74 Tex. 309 956 Carpenter v. Camp, 39 La. Ann. 1024 727, 912, 914, 915 v. Greenop, 74 Mich. 664 265, 741, 744 V. Hathaway, 87 Cal. 434 360, 672, 674 V. Lennave, 166 Mich. 610 75 V. St. Clair Cir. Judge, 122 Mich. 323 719 Carper v. Hawkins, 8 W. Va. 291 534, 731 TABLE OF CASES XXXVU [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Carr v. Catlin, 1? Kans. 393 634 V. Hertz, 54 N. J. Eq. 127 418 V. Woods, 11 Rob. (La.) 95 604, 60S V. Wright, 1 Wyo. 157 888 Carrere v. Spofford, 46 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 294 630, 808, 83S V. Whaley, 17 S. Car. 595 661 Carrie v. Cloverdale Banking &c. Co., 90 Cal. 84 444 Carrier v. Cameron, 31 Mich. 373 852 Carrington v. Ford, 4 Cranch C. C. 231 861 Carroll v. Alston, 1 S. Car. 7 579, 641 V. Campbell, 110 Mo. 557 803 V. Corbitt, 57 Ala. 579 491 V. Eccles, 17 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 529 718 V. Evans, 27 Tex. 262 580, 591, 718, 723 ■ V. Sharp, 67 Misc. (N. Y.) 254 558 Carruthers V. Ardagh, 20 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 579 499 Carse v. Reticker, 95 Iowa 25 190 Carsey v. Swan, 150 Ky. 473 92 Carsley v. Lindsay, 14 Cal. 390 677 Carson v. Byers, 67 Iowa 606 421, 486 V. Culver, 78 Mo. Apjp. 597 825 V. J. L. Mott Iron Works (Va.), 84 S. E. 12 919 V. Robertson, Chase (U. S.) 475 815 Carstens v. Frye-Bruhn &c, Co., 1 Alaska 140 861 Carter v. Beaman, 51 N. Car. 44 371, 453 V. Bradley, 58 111. 101 650 V. Carter, 28 111. App. 340 73 V. Chicago &c. R, Co., 146 Iowa 201 220 V. Christie, 57 Kans. 492 716 V. Connell, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 392 499 V. Currie, 5 Call (Va.) 158 815, 83S V. Douglass, 2 Ala. 499 910 V. Flexper, 92 Ky. 400 290, 620, 623 V. Galloway, 36 La. Ann. 473 415 V. Holbrook, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 331 855 V. Home, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 7 389 V. Lipsey, 70 (3a. 417 517, 579 V. Long, 125 Ala. 280 489 V. McClure, 98 Tenn. 109 147, 540, 579, 1047 V. McManus, 15 La. Ann. 641 633 V. Mitchell, 94 Ky. 261 433 V. Pomeroy, 30 Ind. 438 474, 605 V. Producers' Oil Co., 164 Pa. St. 463 1053 V. Producers' Oil Co., 182 Pa. St. 551 148, 1051 V. Roland, 53 Tex. 540 201, 581, 832 V. Samuel Hano Co., 72 N. H. 549 232 V. Steele, 83 Mo. App. 211 425 V. Whalley, 1 B. & Ad. 11 594 V. Young, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 210 579 Carter-Battle Grocer Co. V. Jackson, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 353 1012 Carver v. Dows, 40 III. 374 435, 445 Carver Gin &e. Co. v. Bannon, 85 Tenn. 712 270, 304, 307, 525, 527, 528, 529 ■Carvin V. Bates, 10 La. Ann. 756 292 Cary v. Daihoit Constr. Co., 126 Fed. 584 721 V. Simmons, 87 Ala. 524 718 v. Simpson, 15 Ga. App. 280 825, 887, 889, 895 V. Western Union Tel. Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.) 610 173 V. Williams, 1 Duer (N. Y.) 667 762 Cascaden v. Dunbar, 157 Fed. 62 219 Casco Bank v. Hills, 16 Maine 155 607, 608 Case V. Abeel, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 393 389 V. Baldwin, 136 Mass. 90 882 v. Beauregard, .1 Woods (U. S.) 125 517 V. Beauregard, 99 V. S. 119 270, 371, 528 V. Ellis, 4 Ind. App. 224 270, 528, 558 v. McGill, 69 N. J. Eq. 354 536 V. Seger, 4 Wash. 492 218, 623 Casey v. Brush, 2 Caines (N. Y.) 293 741 V. Carver, 42 111. 225 371, 473 Cash V. Earnshaw, 66 111. 402 576, 582, 58/ V. Powell, 55 N. J. Eq. 826 775 Cashin v. Pliter, 168 Mich. 386 264 Cashman v. Lawson, 175 N. Y. 488 449 Casky v. Casky, 5 Ky. L. (abstract) 769 290, 584 Caspla V. Kugelman, 13 App. Div. (N. Y.) 428 1022, 1023, 1034 V. Vasquez, 164 N. Y. 608 1022 Cass V. Sutherland, 98 Wis. 551 967 Cassels v. Stewart, 6 App. Cas. 64 393, 550 Cassidy v. Hall, 97 N. Y. 159 75, 80, 475 v. Metcalf, 1 Mo. App. 593 553 V. Saline (Jounty Bank, 14 Okla. 532 825 Castle V. BuUard, 23 How. (U. S.) 172 511 V. Graham, 180 N. Y. 553 262, 263 V. Marks, 50 App. Div. (N. Y.) 320 601 V. Reynolds, 10 Watts (Pa.) 51 618, 635 Castro V. Geil, 110 Cal. 292 189 Caswell V. Cooper, 18 111. 532 743 V. Hazard, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 230 329 Catchpole v. Ambergate &c. K. Co., 1 El. & BI. Ill 575 Catlin V. Gilder, 3 Ala. 536 411 Caton, In re, 26 U. C. C. P. 308 528, 531 Catron v. Shepherd, 8 Nebr. 308 276, 389 Catskill Bank v. GIray, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 471 79, 193, 195, 196 V. Stall, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 364 454 Catt v. Howard, 3 Stark. 3 888 Causler v. Wharton, 62 Ala. 358 210, 276, 289, 718, 882 Causten v. Barnette, 49 Wash. 659 386 V. Burke, 2 Har. & G. (Md.) 295 750, 767 Cavanaugh v. Salisbury, 22 Utah 465 414, 486 Cavander v. Bulteel, L. R. 9 Ch. 79 371 Caviness v. Black (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 712 ■ 301, 440 Cayton v. Hardy, 27 Mo. 536 267, 444 V. Walker, 10 Cal. 450 675, 717 Cazeau v. Faget, 11 Rob. (La.) 10 731 C. D. Smith Drug Co. v. Saunders, 70 - Mo. App. 221 362 Ceballos, In re, 161 Fed. 445 685, 687, 691 Cedarberg v. Guernsey, 12 S. Dak. 77 126 Central City Sav. Bank v. Walker, 66 N. Y. 424 103, 210, 213, 241, 245, 882, 884 Central Nat. Bank v. Frye, 148 Mass. 498 420, 596 V. Sheldon, 86 Kans. 460 231 Central Ohio Natural Gas &c. Co. v. Capital City Dairy Co., 60 Ohio St. 96 951, 963 Central Ohio Salt Co. v. Guthrie, 35 Ohio St. 666 170, 172 Central R. &c. Co. v. Smith, 76 Ala. 572 . 193, 194, 877, 893, 910 Central Trust Co. v. Respass, 112 Ky. 606 176, 635, 655, 656 Chace v. Higgins, 1 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 229 602 Chadsey v. Harrison, 11 111. 151 416, 675 Chaffe V. Ludeling, 27 La. Ann. 607 245, 253, 965 V. Jones, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 250 121 V. Rentfroe, 32 Ga. 477 882, 887, 895 Chaffraix v. Lafitte, 30 La. Ann. 631 40, 66, 75, 90, 900 V. Price, 29 La. Ann. 176 881, 897 Chalmers v. Chalmers, 81 Cal. 81 382, 850 Chamberlain v. Dow, 10 Mich. 319 594 995 v. Sawyers, 17 Ky. L. 716 35o| 357 v. Stone, 24 Ga, 310 474, 605 XXXVlll TABLE CF CASES' [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Chamberlain Bankine House v. Noyes, 3 Nebr. (uuoff.) 550 795, 847 Charaberlin v. Chamberlin, 44 N. V. Sup. Ct. 116 389, 446 V. Fisher, 117 Mich. 428 887 V. Hite, 5 Watts (Pa.) 373 796, 802 Chambers v. Chambers, 11 Ky. L. 25 672 V. Clearwater, 40 N. Y. (1 Keyes) 310 510 V. Crook, 42 Ala. 171 659 V. Grout, 63 Iowa 342 880 V. Howell, 11 Beav. 6 631 V. Ker, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 373 462 V. Livermore, 15 Mich. 381 778 V. Mittnacht, 23 S. Dak. 449 391, 981, 988 Chamblee v. Davie, 88 Ga. 205 491 Champion v. Bostwick, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 175 52, 276, 506, 901 V. Williams, 2 Ohio Dec. 388 579, 850 V. Wilson. 64 Ga. 184 861 Champlin v. Tilley, 3 Dajr (Conn.) 303 914 Chandler, In re, 185 Fed. 1006 694 Chandler v. Higgins, 109 111. 602 367, 558 V. Tessup, 132 Ind. 351 276, 624 V. Keith, 42 Iowa 99 1059 V. Lincoln, 52 111. 74 832 V. Sherman, 16 Fla. 99 291, 369, 424, 486, 487, 729, 732 V. Wynne, 85 Ala. 301 650 Channel t. Fassit, 16 Ohio 166 149, 150, 214 Chapin v. Brown (Cal.), 34 Pac. 525 562 V. Chapin (Mass.), 36 N. E. 746 658, 664 V. Cherry, 243 Mo. 375 25, 214, 411, 876, 902 V. Clemitson, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 311 390, 450 V. Streeter, 124 U. S. 360 381, 389, 764, 942 Chapline v. Conant, 3 W. Va. 507 69, 75, 79, 83 Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677 795, 1046 V. Beckington, 3 Q. B. 703 837 V. Chapinan, 13 R. I. 680 717 V. Chapman, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 382 173 V. Devereux, 32 Vt. 616 83, 418, 486 V. Durant, 10 Mass. 47 434, 499 V. Evans, 44 Miss. 113 398, 472, 742 v. Hughes, 104 Cal. 302 103, 281, 591 v. Lipscomb, 18 S. Car. 222 897 V. Newell 14 Ont. Pr. 208 732 Chappel V. Brockway, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 157 320 V. Chappell,, 125 App. Div. (N. Y.) 127 276, 716, 850 V. Cox, 18 Md. 513 829 V. 'GriiEth, 50 J. P. 86 599 Chappie VI Cadell, Jac. 537 415 V. Davis, 10 Ind. App. 404 445, 486 Chardon v. Oliphant, 3 Brev. (S. Car.) 183 600 Charles v. Eshleman, S Colo. 107 152, 448 Charleson v. McGraw, 3 Wash. Ter. 344 371 Charlton v. Newcastle &c S. C^.. 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1096 193 V. Poulter, 19 Ves. 148n 787 V. Sloan, 76 Iowa 288 366, 383, 387 Charman v. Henshaw, 15 Gray (Mass.) 293 895 V. McLane, 1 Ore. 339 454 Chase v. Angell, 148 Mich. 1 219, 296, 728, 757 V. Barrett. 4 Paige (N. Y.) 148 88, 213 V. Bean, 58 N. H. 183 455 V. Brundage, 58 Ohio St. 517 499 V. Buhl Iron Works, 55 Mich. 139 371, 450, 45S V. Garvin, 19 Maine 211 400, 756, 773, 774, 775 v. Kendall, 6 Ind. 304 603 Chase V. Lord, 77 N. Y. 1 232, 254 V. Scott, 33 Iowa 309 591, 601 V. Steel, 9 Cal. 64 529, 534 V. Stevens, 19 N. H. 465 825 V. Tuttle, 55 Conn. 455 961 V. Vaughan, 30 Maine. 557, 562 412 Chase's Patent Elev. Co. v. Boston Tow-boat Co., 152 Mass. 428 232 Chateau v. Singla, 114 Cal. 91 173, 655 Chater v. Maclean, 3 Eq^ Rep. 375 722 Chatham Nat. Bank v. Gardner, 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 135 98, 1020 Chaves v. Linan, 2 P. I. 12 733 Cheap v. Gramond, 4 B. & Aid. 663 39, 41 Cheatham v. Pearce, 89 Tenn. 668 866 Cheeseman v. Sturges, 19 N. Y. Super. Ct. 520 537 v. Sturges, 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 246 772 v. Wiggins, 1 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 595 579, 657, 659 Cheesman V. Price, 35 Beav. 142 586 Cheetham V. Crook, 1 McClell. & Y. 307 836 Cheever v. Lamar, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 130 I 668, 727, 914 v. Pittsburg &c. E. Co., 28 App. Div. (N. Y.) 81 432 Cheeves v. Anders, 87 Tex. 287 298 Chemical Nat. Bank v. Meyer, 92 Fed. 896 121, 702 Chemung Canal Bank v. Bradner, 44 H. Y. 680 604 Cheney v. Newberry, 67 Cal. 126 264 Chenowith v. Chamberlin, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 60 454 Cherry Lake Turpentine Co. v. Lanier Armstrong Co., 10 Ga. App. 339 421, 486 Chesapeake &c. R. Co. v. Stock, 104 Va. 97 220 Chessher v. Clamp, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 350 532 Chester v. Dickerson, 54 N. Y. 1 160, 169, 218, 444, 486, 508, 975, 976 V. Jumel, 125 N. Y. 237 668 Cheuvront v. Horner, 62 W. Va. 476 177 Chicago V. Garrity, 7 111. App. 474 324 Chicago &c. Bank v. Kinnare, 174 111. 358 920 Chicago &c. E. Co. v. Hoyt, 1 111. App. 374 415 V. Miller, 91 Mich. 166 968 V. Mulford, 162 111. 522 193 V. Wabash R. Co., 61 Fed. 993 172 Chicago Bldg. &c. Co. v. Butler, 139 Ga. 816 924 Chicago Lumber Co. V. Ashworth, 26 Kans. 212 265 Chicago Stamping Co. v. Bignall, 54 111. App. 312 854 Chicago Trust & Savings Bank v. Kin- nare, 174 111. 358 424, 475 Chicago University v. Emmert, 108 Iowa 500 ' 854 Chick V. Robinson, 95 Fed. 619 146, 888^912, 914, 1011, 1016 Chidsey v. Porter, 21 Pa. St. 390 918 Chilberg v. Jones, 3 Wash. 530 982, 994 Child v. O'Rourke, 122 App. Div. (N. Y.) 325 "^ 715 V. Swain, 69 Ind. 230 753, 770, 850 Childers v. Neely, 47 W. Va. 70 152, 153, 385, 731, 1048 Childress V. Emory, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 642 430 Childs V. Hurd, 32 W. Va. 66 239 V. Hyde, 10 Iowa 294 808, 835 v. Pellett, 102 Mich. 558 424, 531, 535, 554 V. Walker, 2 Allen (Mass.) 259 553 Chilton V. (iroome (N. Car.), 84 S. W. 1038 384 Chipley v. Keaton, 65 N. Car. 534 371 Chipman, In re, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 217 820 TABLE OF CASES XXXIX [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Chippendale, Ex parte, 4 DeG., M. & G. 19 359, 361, 364, 365 Chisholm v. Cowles, 42 Ala. 179 103, 877 Chissum v. Dewes, 5 Kuss. 29 328 Chittenden v. German-American Bank, 27 Minn. 143 301, 440, 444 V. Witbeck, 50 Mich. 401 158, 394, 632, 661 Choate v. O'Neal, 57 Ark. 299 716 Choctaw Lumber Co.> v. Gilmore, 11 Okla. 462 264 Choppin V. Wilson, 27 La. Ann. 444 581, 721, 830 Choteau V. Raitt. 20 Ohio St. 132 796, 798, 897 Chouteau v. Barlow, 110 U. S. 238 672 ■ V. Goddin, 39 Mo. 229 448 Chretien v. Giron, 115 La. 24 602 Christ V. Firestone, 7 Pa. Cas. 376 444 Christen v. Ruhlman, 22 La. Ann. 570 291, 531 Christian V. Bowman, 49 Minn. 99 238 V. Crocker, 25 Ark. 327 126 V. Ellis, 1 Grat. (Va.) 396 534, 537 v. Illinois Malleable Iron Co., 92 III. App. 320 497 Christian &c. Grocery Co. v. Fruitdale Lumber Co., 121 Ala. 340 253 V. Hill, 122 Ala. 490 364, 668 Christie v. Bowne, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 107 233 V. Clark, 16 Up. Can. C. P. 544 331 Christman v. Baurichter, 31 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 68 665, 666, 672 Christy v. Donegan, 83 Mo. 374 634 V. Sherman, 10 Iowa 535 828 Christy's Appeal, 92 Pa. St. 157 773 Chuck, Ex parte, 8 Bine. 469 39 Church V. Adams, 37 Ore. 355 276, 282, 659 V. Callihan, 49 Nebr. 542 847 V. Church Cementico Co., 75 Minn. 85 953 V. First Nat. Bank, 87 111. 68 773, 824 V. Knox, 2 Conn. 514 292, 820, 830, 831 V. Odell. 100 Minn. 98 975, 978, 982 v.. Sparrow, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 223 424 Churchill v. Proctor, 31 Minn. 129 529 Churtonv. Douglas, Johns. 174 315, 316, 329, 553, 787 Cilley V. Huse, 40 N. H. 358 V. Van Patten, 58 Mich. 404 . 764 Cincinnati N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Citi- zens' Nat. Bank, 11 Ohio Dec. 50 1047 Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Hulvershorn, 31 Ohio C. C. 444 ^, _ 262, 264 Cinnamond v. Greenlee, 10 Mo. 578 749 Cirkel V. Croswell, 36 Minn. 323 907, 908 Ciscel V. Wheatley, 27 Wis. 618 730 Citizens' Bank v. Bank of Commerce, 80 Kans. 205 , 1055 V. Williams, 59 Hun (N. Y.) 617 820 V. Williams, 128 N. Y. 77 529 Citizens' Commercial &c. Bank v. Piatt, 135 Mich. 267 „, 417 Citizens' Fire &c. Co. v. Doll, 35 Md. 89 275, 299 Citizens' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ligon, 59 Miss. 305 , 158, 615, 639, 836 Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Hine, 49 Conn. 236 83, 897, 901 V. Johnson, 79 Iowa 290 301, 304, 440, 442, 453 V. Mitchell, 24 Okla. 488 176, 177 V. Riddell, SO Hun (N. Y.) 600 530 V. Wehrle, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 535 526 V. Weston, 162 N. Y. 113 596 Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Blakesley, 42 Ohio St. 645 432 City Bank v. Dearborn, 20 N. Y. 244 893 City Bank's Appeal, 54 Conn. 269 825 City Contracting & Bldg. Co., In re, 30 Am. Bkr. R. 133 70S City Nat. Bank v. Phelps, 97 N. Y. 44 599 V. Stone, 131 Mich. 588 214, 639 City Safe Deposit &c. Co. v. Cahn, 102 Md. 530 1030 Claflin V. Ambrose, 37 Fla. 78 281, 371, 455 V. Behr, 89 Ala. 503 630 V. Bennett, 51 Fed. 693 371, 433, 675 V. Godfrey, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 1 983 V. Hoover, 20 Mo. App. 314 421 V. Ostrom, 54 N. Y. 581 434, 499, 558 Clagett V. Kilbourne, 1 Black (U, S.) 346 169, 292, 623, 624, 832, 1047, 1049. 1056 Claiborne v. Creditors, 18 La. 501 291, 601 Clap,' In re, 2 Lowell (U. S.) 168 389, 642 Clap, In re, 2 Lowell (U. S.) 226 557, 606 Clapp V. Adams, 143 Iowa 697 371 V. Clapp, 10 N. Y. St. 733 722 V. Lacey, 35 Conn. 463 1000, 1002, 1003, 1020, 1024, 1028, 1034, 1036 V. Rogers, 12 N. Y. 283 563 V. Upson, 12 Wis. 492 596 Clark, In re, Fed. Cas. No. 2798 689 Clark V. Alice, 3 Har. (Del.) 80 534 V. Allen, 34 Iowa 190 444 V. Ball, 34 Colo. 223 418, 503, 825 V. Barnes, 72 Iowa 563 81 V. Bickers, 9 Jur. 678 639 V. Billings, 59 Ind. 508 • 557 V. Brown, 83 Cal. 181 716 V. Cable, 21 Mo. 223 493 V. Carr, 45 III. App. 469 550, 555, 591 V. Clark (Miss.), 17 So. 510 674 V. Clark, 8 Victorian L. R. Eq. 303 381 V. Cullen, 9 Q. B. Div. 355 826, 832 V. Gushing, 52 Cal. 617 831 V. Dunlap, 2 Ind. 551 847 V. Emery, 58 W. Va. 637 86, 89, 168, 169 V. Fleischmann, 81 Nebr. 445 617, 626, 628 V. Fletcher, 96 Pa. St. 416 922, 923 V. Gallaher, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 541 731 V. Gridley, 41 Cal. 119 729 V. Hall, 54 Nebr. 479 731 V. Holmes, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 148 813 V. Houghton, 12 Gray (Mass.) 38 260 V. Howe, 23 Maine 560 804, 835 V. Huffaker, 26 Mo. 264 888 V. Hyman, 55 Iowa 14 454, 471 V. Johnson, 7 Ala. App. 507 535, 826, 827 V. Johnson, 90 Pa. St. 442 445 V. Tones, 87 Ala. 474 806, 848, 876, 878 V. Kensell, Wright (Ohio) 480 847, 861 V. Lauman, 63 111. App. 132 450 V. Leach, 32 Beav. 14 575 V. Lyman, 8 Vt. 290 829 V. Lyster, 155 Fed. 513 282 V. McClelland, 2 Grant (Pa.) 31 555 V. Mallory, 83 111. App. 488 489, 491 V. Miller, 4 Wend. (N. ,Y.) 628 796, 798 V. Mills, 36 Kans. 393 741 V. Mitchell, 35 Nev. 447 218 V. Patterson, 158 Mass. 388 419 V. Pierce, 74 Mich. 638 360 V. Rawson, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 135 490 T. Reed, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 446 1053 V. Reed, 31 Leg. Int.- (Pa.) 413 607 V. Richardson, 17 Ky. L. 514 238 V. Rives, 33 Mo. 579 443 V. Rumsey, 59 App. Div. 435 104, 168 V. Sidway, 142 U. S. 682 104, 124, 168, 169 V. Smith, 52 Vt. 529 81 V. Taylor, 68 Ala. 453 901 V. Taylor, 68 Iowa 519 557 V. Truitt, 183 111. 239 778 V. Van Riemsdyk, 9 Cranch (U. S.) 153 888 V. Warden, 10 Nebr. 87 360 V. Wick, 25 Ore. 446 847 V. Wilson, 23 Manitoba 10 772 xl TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. 11, !§ 615-1195.] Clarke v. Central S. &c. Co., SO Fed. 338 249 V. Farrell, 80 Ga. 622 371 V. Hart, 6 H. L. Cas. 633 575, 717 V. Hogeman, 13 W. Va. 718 444 V. Jones, 1 Rob. (La.) 78 467, 600, '603 V. Milliken, 70 Misc. (N. Y.) 492 706 V. Mills, 36 Kans. 393 364. 651, 716, 748 V. Morey, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 68 186 V. North, 135 N. Y. S. 422 901 V. State Valley R. Co., 136 Pa. St. 408 416 V. Wallace, 1 N. Dak. 404 454 Clarke &c. Co. v. Brown, 77 Ga. 606 177 Clark's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 142 275 Clarkson, Ex parte, 4 Deac. & C. 56 554 V. Carter, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 84 798 V. Whitaker, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 483 769, 981 Clasgens Co. v. Silber, 93 Wis. 579 558, 559 Class V. Marshall, 33 Wkly. Rep. 409. 728 Clausen v. Head, 110 Wis. 405 238 V. Puvogel, 114 App. Div. (N. Y.) 455 352, 353, 633, 637 Clay V. Douglas County, 88 Nebr. 363 306, 939 V. Field, 138 U. S. 464 641 V. Field, 34 Fed. 375 617, 620, 626 V. Freeman, 118 U. S. 97 169, 290, 292, 296, 626, 627, 718 V. Greenwood, 35 Nebr. 736 440 V. Grubbs, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 222 747 Clayburg v. Ford, 3 111. App. 542 265, 817 Clayton v. Davett (N. J. Eq.), 38 Atl. 308 364, 651, 666 V. May, .68 Ga. 27 497 V. Roberts, 84 Ga. 149 832 Clayton's Case, 1 Meriv. 572 562, 622 Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 25 193 Cleather v. Twisden, 28 Ch. D. 340 503, 511 Cleaton v. Emery, 49 Mo. App. 345 965 Clegg V. Edmondson, 4 DeG., M. & G. / 787 394 V. Edmondson, 22 Beav. 125 446 V. Fishwick, 1 Hall & T. 390 446, 657 719 V. Hamilton &c. Grange Co., 61 Iowa 121 231, 239, 240 Cleghorn v. Columbus Ins. Bank, 9. Ga. 319 533 832 Cleland v. Applegate, 8 Ind. App. 499 ' 918 Clemens v. Crane, 234 III. 215 70, 80, 729 Clement v. British-American Assur. Co., 141 Mass. 298 486 V. Brush, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 180 422 V. Clement, 69 Wis. 599 468, 600, 604, 926, 927 V. Ditterline, 11 Ky. L. 294 354, 356, 667 V. Foster, 38 N. Car. 213 526 V. Hadlock, 13 N. H. 186 81 Clement Nat. Bank v. Connelly (Vt.), 90 Atl. 794 425, 427 Clements v. Hall, 2 DeG. & J. 173 394, 446, 638 V. Jessup, 36 N. J. Eq. 569 275, 528, 531, 820, 830 V. Miller, 13 N. Dak. 176 493 V. Mitchell, 59 N. Car. 171 882 V. Mitchell, 62 N. Car. 3 727 V. Norris, 47 L. J. Ch. 546 415 Clementson v. Beatty, 1 Cranch (C. C.) 178 811 Cleve V. Bickerdike, 5 Quebec Pr. 391 593 Cleveland v. Anderson, 2 Willson Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), 146 103 V. Battle, 68 Tex. Ill 820 V. Farrar, 4 Brews. (Pa.) 27 990 , V. Woodward, 15 Vt. 302 810, 811, 813 Cleveland Nat. Bank v. Bryant (Tenn.), 54 S. W. 73 531 Cleveland Paper Co. v. Courier Co., 67 Mich. 152 195 Cleverdon, In re, 4 Ont. App, Rep. 185 361, 362 Clifford V. Timms (1908), A. C. 12 585 Clift V. Barrow, 108 N. Y. 187 103, 215 V. Moses, 112 N. Y. 426 415, 835 V. Stockdon, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 215 673 Clifton V. Clark, 83 Miss. 446 .618, 637 V. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.), 20 S. W. 1005 489, 491 V. Howard, 89 Mo. 192 72, 900 Cline V. Caldwell, 4 La. 137 75 Clink V. Carpenter, 122 Mich. 681 671, 731 Clinton v. Winnard, 135 111. App. 274 856 Clinton Bridge &c. Works v. First Nat. Bank, 103 Wis. 117 79, 216 Clinton Loan Assn. v. Ferrell, 114 N. Car. 301 . 718 Clinton Novelty Iron Works v. Neiting, 134 Iowa 311 231 Clipperton v. Spettigue, 15 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 269 454 Clippinger v. Starr, 130 Mich. 463 471, 473 Close V. Flesher, 8 Misc. (N. Y.) 299 316, 319 V. O'Brien, 135 Iowa 305 284 V. Potter, 155 N. Y. 145 232 Clouch V. Moyer, 23 Kans. 404 651 Clough, In re, 31 Ch. D. 324 620, 631 Cloutman v. (Joncord, 163 Mass. 444 306, 940 Clute V. Potter, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 199 766 Coakley v. Hazlewood, 21 Ky. L. 40 353, 637 v. Weil, 47 Md. 277 270, 444, 527, 528 Coates V. Coates, 6 Madd. 287 779 Cobb V. Abbott, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 289 504, 509 V. Benedict, 27 Colo. 342 559 V. Cole, 44 Minn. 278 773 V. Cole, 51 Minn. 48 675 V. Hartenstein (UtahJ, 152 Pac. 424 617 V. Illinois Central R. Co., 38 Iowa 601 420 V. Martin, 32 Okla. 588 91, 570, 727, 743, 767, 878, 879, 887, 902 V. Sparr, 153 111. App. 92 417 Cobble V. Farmers' Bank, 63 Ohio St. 528 262, 264, 796 V. Tomlinson, 50 Ind. 550 579 Coburn v. Raymond, 76 Conn. 484 189 Cochran v. Anderson County Nat. Bank, 83 Ky. 36 139, 168, 486 V. Bartle, 91 Mo. 636 677 V. Cunningham, 16 Ala. 448 824, 888 V. Hirsch, 6 Ohio Dec. 41 263 V. Hume, 8 Mackey (D. C.) 517 469 V. Perry, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 262 550, 552, 591 Cochrane v. Allen, 58 N. H. 250 675 Cock V. Bailey, 146 Pa. St. 328 1008, 1020 V. Carson, 45 Tex. 429 635 Cockburn v. Thompson, 6 Ves. Jr. 321 815 Cocke V. Evans, 9 Verg. (Tenn.) 287 210, 275, 747 . V. Upshaw, 6 Munf. (Va.) 464 500 Cockerell v. Barber, 2 Russ. Ch. 585 637 Cockerham v. Bosley, 52 La. Ann. 65 -■ 617, 620, 631, 726 Cockley v. Brucker, 54 Ohio St. 214 576, 733 Cockrell V. Thompson, 85 Mo. 510 364, 741, 754 Codding, In re, 9 Fed. 849 289, 627, 826 Coddington v. Hunt, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 595 596 V. Idell, 29 N. J. Eq. 504 350, 361, 389 V. Tappan, 26 N. J. Eq. 141 721 Coder v. Huling, 27 Pa. St. 84 276, 389 TABLE OF CASES Xli [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Cody V. Cody. 31 Ga. 619 591 V. Dempsey, 86 App. Div. (N. Y.) 335 262 V. First Nat. Bank, 103 Ga. 789 474, 914 Coe, In re, 154 Fed. 162 688, 696, 705 Coe, In re, 157 Fed. 308 617 Coe, In re, 169 Fed. 1002 697 Coe. In re, 183 Fed. 745 697 Coe V. Davidge, 42 Hun (N. Y.) 656 720 Coffee V. Eastland, Fed. Cas. No. 2945 811, 861 Coffey V. Burke, 132 App. Div. (N. Y.) 128 177 V. Coffey, 210 Mass. 480 664, 675 CofEn V. Day, 34 Fed. 687 527 528 529 V. Hollister, 64 Hun (N. Y.) '639 ' 537 V. Jenkins, 3 Story (U. S.) 108 75 V. McCullough, 30 Ala. 107 371, 554 V. Mcintosh, 9 Utah 315 744, 748 V. Mitchell, 34 Ind. 293 763 Coffing V. Taylor, 16 111. 457 555 Coffin's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 280 270, 1024, 1028 Cofton V. Horner, 5 Price 537 551, 720 Coggshall V. Munger, 54 Mo. App. 420 399, 805 Coggswell V. Coggswell (N. J. Eq.), 40 Atl. 213 381, 508, 574, 591, 962 V. Davis, 65 Wis. 191 910 Cogswell V. Frendenau, 93 Mo. App. 482 . 634 V. Wilson, 11 Ore. 371 81, 880 V. Wilson, 17 Ore. 31 820, 831, 832 Cohen V. Hynes, 64 Hun (N. Y.) 54 836 V. Miller, 46 Misc. (N. Y.) 106 301, 424, 440 V. New York &c. Ins. Co., 50 N. Y. 610 186 Cohn V. Wahn, 117 N. Y. S. 633 721, 789 Cohoon V. Fisher, 146 Ind. 583 222, 775 Coit V. Tracy, 8 Conn. 268 888 Colbeck, In re, Buck 48 39 Colburn v. Mathews, 1 Strob. (S. Car.), 232 500 Coldren v. Clark, 93 Iowa 352 275 361 392 Cole V. Bacon, 63 Cal. 571 ' 978,' 993 V. Cole (Ark.), 177 S. W. 915 315, 729 V. Fowler, 68 Conn. 450 741, 743, 766 V. Great Bend Land &c. Co., 8 Kans. App. 860 238 V. Harvey, 142 Iowa 574 494 V. Hayutin, 109 Ark. 617 389, 399 . V. Manners, 76 Nebr. 454 491, 493 V. Mette, 65 Ark. 503 265, 269, 284, 62S V. Moxley, 12 W. Va. 730 224, 576, 582, 673 V. Price, 22 Wash. 18 721, 722, 789 V. Reynolds, 18 N. Y. 75 398, 472, 742, 743 . V. Sackett, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 516 499 Colehour v. Coolbaugh, 81 111. 29 731 Coleman v. Coleman, 78 Ind. 344 155, 231, 239, 243, 245, 367, 390, 741, 965, 1053 V. Coleman, 12 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 183 364, 651 V. Darling, 66 Wis. 155 458, 530 v. Eyre, 45 N. Y. 38 215 V. Fisher, 67 Ark. 27, 796 V. Lansing, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 54 564 V. Marble, 9 La. Ann. 476 675 V. Pearce, 26 Minn. 123 466, 475, 511, 559, 888 V. Rosenfeld, 66 Wis. 155 474 V. White, 14 Wis. 700 236 Coles v. Coles, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 159 624, 625 V. Coles, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 319 627 Colfes V. McKenna, 80 N. J. L. 48 499 Colgin V. Cummins, 1 Port. (Ala.) 148 353, 362, 637 Colgrove v. Tallman, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 97 558 V. Tallman, 67 N. Y. 95 558 Collamer v. Foster, 26 Vt. 757 746 Collender v. Phelan, 79 N. Y. 366 358, 638, 668 Coller V. Porter, 88 Mich. 549 424 Collett V. Smith, 143 Mass. 473 888 Collier, In re. Fed. Cas. No. 3002 689 Collier v. Cairns. 6 Mo. App. 188 634 V. Cross, 20 (3a. 1 814, 893 V. De Jernett, 1 Ala. App. 588 217 V. Field, 2 Mont. 205 491 V. Hanna, 71 Md. 253 820 V. Leech, 29 Pa. St. 404 606 V. Postum Cereal Co., 150 App. Div. (N. Y.) 169 805, 861 Collins V. Barker (1893), 1 Ch. 578 550 V. Butler, 14 Cal. 223 278 V. Collins, 26 Ky. L. 1037 450, 451 V. Decker, 70 Maine 23 371 V. Dickinson, 2 N. Car. 240 757 V. Jackson, 31 Beav. 645 670, 674 V. Owens, 34 Ala. 66 723 V. Stofer, 21 Ky. L. 652 . 967 V. Swindle, 6 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 282 655 V. Titusville Bank, 1 Walk. (Pa.) 194 469 V. Waggoner, 1 111. 51 509 V. Warren, 29 Mo. 235 296, 627, 672 V. Young, 1 Macq. 385 617 Collins' Appeal, In re, 107 Pa. St. 590 292 Collner v. Grieg, 137 Pa. St. 606 276, 623 CoUumb V. Read, 24 N. Y. 505 289, 290, 535, 624, 626, 627 Collyer v. Collyer, 38 Pa. St. 257 725 V. Moulton, 9 R. I. 90 562 Colorado Trading &c. Co. v. Acres Com- mission Co., 18 Colo. App. 253 967 Colquitt V. Howard, 11 Ga. 566 956 Colt V. Woollaston, 2 P. Wms. 154 590 Colton V. Raymond, 114 App. Div. (N. Y.) 911 1059 Columbia Bank v. Berolzheimer, 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 235 146, 1026 Columbia Land &c. Co. V. Daly, 46 Kans. 504 1020, 1036 Columbia Nat. Bank v. Rice, 48 Nebr. 428 371, 455, 465 Columbian Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 27 U. S. (2 Pet.) 25 298 Columbus State Bank v. Dole, 56 Nebr. 508 304, 471 Columbus Watch Co. v. Hodenpyl, 135 N. Y. 430 642 Colwell V. Weybosset Nat. Bank, 16 R. L 288 433, 537 Cora V. Schmelz, 114 Va. 364 939 Combs V. Boswell, 1 Dana (Ky.) 473 592 V. Shrewsbury Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 N. J. Eq. 403 299 Comer V. Thompson, 4 U. C. Q. B. (O. S.) 256 741 Comfort V. Lynam, 67 Mo. App. 668 594 (Commercial Bank v. Lewis, 13 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 225 554 V. Miller, 96 Va. 357 83, 191, 425, 475, 563, 604, 923 V. Mitchell, 58 Cal. 42 ^ _^ 832 V. Perry, 10 Rob. (La.) 61 593, 604 V. Weldon, 148 Cal. 601 981 V. Wilkins, 9 Greenl. (Maine) 28 291, 831 Commercial Club v. Davis, 136 Mo. App- .„ 583 177 Commercial Jewelry Co. V. Hite, 161 Mo. App. 465 854 xlii TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Commercial Nat. Bank v. Brinton (Utah), 145 Pac. 42 603, 834 V. Proctor, 98 111. 558 598, 617 V. Taylor, 64 Hun (N. Y.) 499 499 Commissioner of Stamp Duties v. Salt- ing [1907], Ann. Cas. 449 937 Commonwealth v. Alba Dentist Co., 13 Pa. Dist. 432 247 V. Arnheim, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 104 405 V. Baldwin, 11 Gray OVIass.) 197 405 V. Blood, 141 Mass. 571 405 V. Bracken, 17 Ky. L. 785 295, 637, 672 V. Brown, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 184 405 V. Cook, 12 Allen (Mass.) 542 518 V. Hall, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 588 200 V. Miller, 6 Dana (Ky.) 315 826 V. Rogers, Brightly N. P. 450 832 V. Rovnianck, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 86 513 V. Schmelz, 114 Va. 364 306, 935 V. Sloan, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 52 518 V. Smith, 10 Allen (Mass.) 448 193 Commonwealth Bank v. Mudgett, 44 N. Y. 514 596 Commonwealth Nat. Bank v. Temple, 39 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 432 822 Compton V. Green, 9 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 228 764 V. Smith, 120 Ala. 233 848 V. Thorn. 90 Va. 653 364, 651, 765 Comstock V. Buchanan, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 127 392, 444, 591 V. McDonald, 113 Mich. 626 721 V. McDonald, 126 Mich. 142 290, 291, 294, 353, 624, 625, 628, 672 V. McDonald, 136 Mich. 489 659 V. Warner, 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 663 466 Conant v. Frary, 49 Ind. 530 534, 535 V. National State Bank, 121 Ind. 323 190 Conary v. Sawyer, 92 Maine 463 188 Conaway v. Stealey, 44 W. Va. 163 531 Concord Const. Co. v. Plante, 137 App. Div. (N. Y.) 243 455 Condon v. Callahan, 115 Tenn. 285 352, 398, 631, 637 Conely v. Wood, 73 Mich. 203 487, 512, 825, 919 Conery v. Hayes, 19 La. Ann. 325 888 V. Kotchford, 30 La. Ann. 692 599 Congdon v. Aylesworth, 16 R. I. 281 , 727, 850, 855, 858 V. Monroe, 51 Tex. 109 854 V. Morgan, 13 S. Car. 190 411, 486 V. Olds, 18 Mont. 487 152, 279, 1048 Conger v. Piatt, 25 U. C. Q. B. 277 296, 623, 855 Conklin v. Fox, 3 Mont. 208 796 V. Harris, 5 Ala. 213 820 V. Ogborn, 7 Ind. 553 188, 474, 605 Conkling v. Washington University 2 Md. Ch. 497 193, 195, 537, 665, 666 Conlan v. Mead, 172 III. 13 889 Conley v. Chapman, 74 Ga. 709 817 V. Horner, 10 Okla. 277 725 Conn V. Boutwell, 101 Miss. 353 188 V. Conn, 22 Ore. 452 449, 487, 942 Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Carnahan, 63 Ohio 258 796 Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. f. Bowler, Holmes (U. S.) 263 837 V. Lucks, 108 U. S. 498 298 V. Scott, 81 Ky. 540 837 Connecticut Trust &c. Co. v. Mellendy, 119 Mass. 449 499 Connell, Ex parte, 3 Deac. Eng. Bkr. 201 689 Connell v. Alexander, 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 644 449 V. Owen, 4 U. C. C. P. 113 619, 630 Connelley v. Custer, 52 Wash. 697 582 Connelly v. Cheevers, 16 La. 30 804, 835 V. Withers, 9 Lane. Bar. 117 623 Conniff v. Doyle, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 630 292 Connolly v. Davidson, 15 Minn. 519 83, 825, 900 Connon v. Dunlap, 64 Ga. 680 820 Connor v. Allen, Harr. (Mich.) 371 616, 617 Conrad v. Buck, 21 W. Va. 396 367, 550, 576, 580, 606, 607 V. Fuller, 98 Va. 16 657 Conrader v. Cohen, 121 Fed. 801 695 Conrades v. Spink, 38 Mo. App. 309 265, 795, 796 Conroy v. Campbell, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 326 275 >r. Woods, 13 Cal. 626 307, 531, 559, 820, 832 Cousalus V. McConihe, .49 Hun (N. Y.) 609 824 V. McConihe, 119 N. Y. 652 526, 562 Consolidated Bank v. State, 5 La. Ann. 44 349 Consoul V. Cummings, 222 U. S. 262 718 V. Cummings, 24 App. (D. C.) 36 352, 361, 729 V. Cummings, 30 App. (D. C.) 540 659 V. Sheldon, 35 Nebr. 247 862 Const V. Harris, Turn. &- R. 496 416, 782, 788, 789 Consumers' Ice Co. v. Webster, 32 App. Div. (N. Y.) 592 253 Continental Nat. Bank v. Strauss, 137 N. Y. 148 188, 789, 1035 V. Strauss, 137 N. Y. 553 1002, 1017, 1031 V. Strauss, 60 N. Y. Super. Ct. 151 ' 1023, 1031, 1032, 1036, 1055 Converse v. Citizens' Mut. Ins. Co., 64 Mass. (10 Cush.) 37 298 V. Hobbs, 64 N. H. 42 364, 667, 716, 773 V. McKee, 14 Tex. 20 534 Conwell V. McCowan, 81 111. 285 367, 558 V. Sandidge, 8 Dana (Ky.) 273 371. 591, 669 Goody V. Shawver (Tex. Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 935 217, 825, 847 Cook V. Arthur, 33 N. Car. 407 291 v. Blake, 98 Mich. 389 451, 825 V. Canny, 96 Mich. 398 265, 747 V. Carpienter, 34 Vt. 121 83, 221 V. Castner, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 266 466, 508 V. Catchpole, 10 Jur. (N. S.) 1068 677 V. CoUingridge, Jac. 607 327, 353, 673, 728 V. Fowler, 101 Cal. 89 262, 264, 847 V. Gilchrist, 82 Iowa 277 291, 371, 529 V. Jenkins, 79 N. Y. 575 723, 858 V. Lewis, 36 Maine 340 634 V. Martin, 13 Miss. 379 854, 876 V. Penrhyn Slate Co., 36 Ohio St. 135 608, 923 V. Phillips, 16 111. App. 446 350, 351, 354 V. Port Fulton, 106 Ind. 170 306, 9«9 V. Rogers, 3 Fed. 69 639 V. Sherman, 20 Fed. 167 655 V. Slate Co., 36 Ohio St. 135 476 Cooke V. Allison, 30 La. Ann. 963 465 V. Benbow, 3 DeG., J. & S. 1 360, 361, 363, 386, 664 V. Cooke, L. R. 4 Eq. 77 677 V. Watson, 30 N.. J. Eq. 345 957 Cookes V. Lymperis, 178 Mich. 299 754 Cookingham v. Lasher, 41 N. Y. 454 813 Cookson V. Cookson, 8 Sim. 529 289, 624 Cooley V. Broad, 29 La. Ann. 345 103, 897 V. Farmers' Co-operative Bank, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 366 563 V. Hobart, 8 Iowa 358 301, 304 v. Miller (Cal.), 142 Pac. 83 616, 617 Coolidge V. Burke, 69 Ark. 237 625, 627 V. Taylor, 85 Vt. 39 167, 210 TABLE OF CASES xliii [References are to sections — Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Coons V. Coons, 106 Va. 572 (1907) 92 V. Renick, 11 Tex. 134 449 Coope V. Bowles, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 87 458 V. Eyre, 1 H. Bl. 37 922, 1003 Cooper, Ex parte, 5 Jur. 10 608 Cooper V. Burns, 6 La. Ann. 739 638 V. Edeburn, 198 Pa. St. 229 550 V. Frederick, 4 G. Greene (Iowa) 403 416, 672, 675 V. Frierson, 48 Miss. 300 995 V. McClurkan, 22 Pa. St. 80 432 V. McNeil, 14 111. App. 408 362 V. Nelson, 12 Ky. L. (abstract) 890 424 V. Olcott, 1 App. Cas. (D. C.) 123 661 V. Tappan, 9 Wis. 361 83 V. Wandsworth Board of Works, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 180 575 V. Watlington, 2 Chit. 451 550 V. Webster, 4 Ky. L. (abstract) 734 37l V. Wood, 1 Colo. App. 101 888 Cooper's Appeal, In re, 26 Pa. St. 262 291, 832 Cooperstown Bank v. Woods, 28 N. Y: 545 • 861 Cbover's Appeal, In re, 29 Pa. St. 9 292, 526, 830, 832 Copcutt V. Merchant, 4 Bradf. Sur. (N. Y.) 18 814, 836 Copen V. Barrows, 1 Gray (Mass.) 376 215 Copes V. Fultz, 1 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 623 808 Copland v. Toulmin, 7 CI. & F. 350 275, 562 Coop V. Longstreet, 5 Colo. App. 282 416 Corbaley v. State, 81 Ind. 62 492 Corbett, Ex parte, L. R. 14 Ch. Div. (1880) 122 118 Corbett V. Cannon, 57 Kans. 127 458, 471 V. Connor, 11 Ga. App. 385 503 Corbin v. Boies, 34 Fed. 692 1032 V. Henry, 36 Ind. App. 184 672 V. Holmes, 154 Fed. 593 75, 986 Corcoran, In re, 12 Am. Bkr. R. 283 685, 696 Corcoran V. Sumption, 79 Minn. 108 768, 769, 770, 856 r. Trick, 9 Pa. Cas. 110 ,^862 Corder v. Steiner (Tex. Civ. App.), 54 S W. 277 ^96, 835 Corey v. Caldwell, 86 Mich. 570 104, 169 V. Morrill, 61 Vt. 598 ,„ „ „ 239 Cork &c. R. Co. V. Cazenove, 10 Q. B. 935 1°^ Cornell V. Redrow, 60 N. J. Eq. 251 75 Cornells V. Stanhope, 14 R. I. 97 450, 455, 824 Corner v. Gilman, 53 Md. 364 716 V. Mackey, 147 N. Y. 574 558, 675 Cornhauser v. Roberts, 75 Wis. 554 S25( oolf "U/ Corning V. Abbott, 54 N. H. 469 486 V. McCuUough, 1 N. Y. 47 251 CornwaU V. Cornwall, 6 Bush (Ky.) 369 296, 626 V. McKinney, 12 S. Dak. 118 861 Corotinsky v. Maimin, 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 777 „ „. , 990 Corralitos v. Mackay, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 316 175, 656, 668 Corse V. Corse, 13 Fac. Dec. 162 623 Corson v. Berson, 86 Cal. 433 630, 83S Corwin v. Hawkins, 42 App. Div. (N. Y.) 571 321 V. Suydam, 24 Ohio St. 209 371, 601 Cory V. Lee, 93 Ala. 468 238 V. Long. 2 Sweeney (N. Y.) 491^^^ ^^^ Coserave Brewing &c. (^. v. Starrs, 5 Ont. 189 300, 599 Cossack V. Burgwyn, 112 N. Car. 304 83 Costa V. Costa (Mass.), 110 N. E. 309 724 Cbstello V. Costello, 209 N. Y. 252 291, 292, 579, 617, 638 I Costello V. Eddy, 58 Hun (N. Y.) 60S 328 V. Scott, 30 Nev. 43 153 Coster V. Bank of Georgia, 24 Ala. 37 „, , 537, 826 V. Clarke, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 411 814 V. Clarke, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 428 289, 290, 433, 627, 719 Costet V. Jeantet, 108 App. Div. (N. ^Y.) 201 '^'^ 825 Costley V. Towles, 46 Ala. 660 715 V. Wilkerson, 49 Ala. 210 808, 833 Cothran v. Knox, 13 S. Car. 496 350 V. Marmaduke, 60 Tex. 370 70, 83, 104, 216, 878 Cothway v. Fennell, 10 B. & C. 671 798 Cottam v. Smith, 27 La. Ann. 128 ^ , 425, 429 Cottle V. Harrold, 72 Ga. 830 301, 440, 586 v. Leitch, 35 Cal. 434 715 Cotton V. Evans, 21 N. Car. 284 418, 431 Cotton Plant Oil Mill Co. v. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co., 92 Ark. 271 416, 426, 486 Cottrell V. Babcock &c. Mfg. Co., 54 Conn. 122 316, 319, 553 Cottrill v. Van Duzen, 22 Vt. 511 104 Cotzhausen v. Judd, 43 Wis. 213 371, 415, 455 Couch V. Parker, 1 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. 192, § 435 769 V. Woodruff, 63 Ala. 466 729, 900 Couchman v. Maupin, 78 Ky. 33 371, 526 Coudrey v. Gilliam, 60 Mo. 86 718 Coughlin V. Pinkerton, 41 Wash. 500 817 Cougot V. Rodriguez, 1 La. 508 344 Couilliard v. Eaton, 139 Mass. 105 743 Coulson V. Ferree, 27 Ky. L. 451 743 Council V. Teal, 122 Ga. 61 798 Counts V. Medley, 163 Mo. App. 546 316 Course v. Prince, 1 Mill. (S. Car.) 413 743 Coursen v. Hamlin, 2 Duer (N. Y.) 513 350 Coursey v; Baker, 7 Har. & J. (Md.) 28 425 Coursia's Appeal, In re, 79 Pa. St. 220 381, 389, 396 Court V. Berlin, 2 Q. B. 396 563 Court Grange Silver-Lead Co., In re, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 1203 349 Courtland Forging Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 141 Ind. 518 620 Coventry v. Barclay, 33 Beav. 1 675, 729 Coverly v. Terminal Warehouse Co., 85 App. Div. (N. Y.) 488 173 Covert v. Henneberger, 53 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 1 850 Coville V. Gilman, 13 W. Va. 314 850 Covington v. Leak, 88 N. Car. 133 767 Covington City Bank v. Wright, 6 Ohio Dec. 350 616 Cowan V. Baird, 77 N. Car. 201 847 V. Creditors, 77 Cal. 403 297 V. Cunningham, 146 N. Car. 453 422, 436 V. Gill, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 674 371, 538 V. Iowa State Ins. Co., 40 Iowa 551 299 V. Kinney, 33 Ohio St. 422 888 Coward v. Clanton, 79 Cal. 23 219, 601, 673 Cowart V. Fender, 137 Ga; 586 876 V. Perrine, 18 N. J. Eq. 454 718 Cowdin V. Hurford, 4 Ohio 132 820 Cowen V. Eartherly Hdw. Co., 95 Ala. 324 455 Cowham v. Shipman, 151 Mich. 673 616 V. Shipman,, 164 Mich. 419 661 Cowie V. Ahrenstedt, 1 Wash. 416 887 V. Meyers, 10 Ohio Dec. 91 865 Cowles V. Garrett, 30 Ala. 341 104, 125 Cowley V. Patch, 120 Mass. 137 493 Cox V. Bodfish, 35 Maine 302 1047 V. Clarke, 45 Misc. (N. Y) 102 731 V. Delano, 14 N. Car. 89 83, 897 xliv TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II. §§ 615-119S.] Cox V. Gille Hardware &c. Co., 8 Okla. 483 496, 806, 813 V. Harris, 48 Ala. 538 806, 826 V. Hickman, 8 H. L. Cas. 268 43, 83, 85, 87, 103, 418, 486, 810, 900 V. Hubbard, 4 C. B. 317 797, 834 V. McBurney, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 561 276 V. Manning, 13 Ga. App. 518 716 V. Pearce, 112 N. Y. 637 596 V. Peoria Mfg. Co., 42 Nebr. 660 531 V. Peters, 13 N. J. Eq. 39 721 V. Eussell, 44 Iowa 556 292, 534, 761, 820 V. Stephens, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 1144 719 V. Volkert, 86 Mo. 505 721 Crable v. O'Connor, 21 Wyo. 460 421| S^4 Crabtree v. Clapham, 67 Maine 326 V. Randall, 133 Mass. 552 ' 668 Craft V. McConoughy, 79 111. 346 170, 172, 177, 655 Cragg T. Ford, 1 Y. & Ch. 285 364, 728 C.aiin V. Carleton,.21 Maine 492 893, 894 V. Gardner, 64 Mich. 399 804, 835 Craig V. Alverson, 6 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 609 83, 364, 897 V. California Vineyard Co., 30 Ore. 43 l\l V. Chandler, 6 Colo. 543 858 V. Chipman, 22 Ky. L. 322 854 V. Hulschizer, 34 N. J. L. 363 455, 824 V. Van Bebber, 100 Mo. 584 188 V. Warner, 216 Mass. 386 413, 670, 729 Craighead v. Pike, 58 N. J. Eq. 15 624, 627, 628 Cramer v. Eachman, 68 Mo. 310 350, 354 V. United States, 7 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 302 186 Crandall v. Denny, 2 N. J. L. 137 265, 795 Crane, In re, 4 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 398 "'^^ Crane v. Cranitch, 3 Misc. (N. Y.) 557 831 V. Dryer, 9 Cal. App. 290 371 V. French, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 311 457, 817, 830, 831 V. Morrison, 4 Sawy. (N. S.) 138 829 V. Rapple, 22 Ont. 519 444 V. Ring, 48 Kans. 61 _ 861 Crane Co. v. Specht, 39 Nebr. 123 599 V. Tierney, 175 111. 79 ^ „,„ 418, 420, 486, 825, 919 Crary v. Williams, 2 Ohio 65 445 Craswell v. Pure Breed Cattle Commis- sion Co., 148 Iowa 9 434, 499 Crater v. Bininger, 45 N. Y. 545 „ , „,, 744, 745, 746 Craufurd v. Cocks, 6 Exch. 287 559 Craw V. Wilson, 22 Nev. 385 219 Crawford v. Baum, 12 Rich. (S. Car.) 75 832 V. Collins, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 269 261, 265, 795 V. Gross, 140 Pa. St. 297 1056 V. Hamilton, 3 Madd. 254 158 V. Roberts, 8 Ore. 324 491 V. Stainback, 76 Ark. 346 551 V. Sternberg, 33 Am. Bkr. R. 679 693, 704 V. Stove Pipe Works, 83 Cal. 629 886 V. The William Penn, 3 Wash. C. C. 484 186 V. Wiedemann, 159 Ky. 18 89, 902 V. Willing, 4 Dall. (Pa.) 286 466 Crawshay v. Collins, 15 Ves. Jr. 218 275 V. Collins, 2 Russ. 325 599, 728 V. Maule, 1 Swanst. 495 152, 158, 276, 289, 573, 579, 623, 728 Creath v. Kolb, 70 Mo. App. 296 486 Creel v. Bell, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 309 796, 802 Cregler v. Durham, 9 Ind. 375 594 Creighton v. Garcia, 41 111. App. 429 882 V. Halifax B'k'g. Co., 18 C^n. S. C. 140 432 Crenshaw V. Crenshaw, 22 Ky. L. 1782 986, 987, 989 I V. Wickersham, 15 Iowa 154 828 Crescent Ins. Co. v. Bear, 23 Fla. 50 177, 655, 820 V. Camp, 64 Tex. 521 299 Cresse v. Loper, 72 N. J. Eq. 784 583 728 Cresson's Appeal, 91 Pa. St. 168 ' 855 Creswell v. Blank, 3 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 320 836 V. Oberly, 17 111. App. 281 155 Crews V. Lackland, 67 Mo. 619 826 V. Yowell, 25 Ky. L. 598 834 Cribb V. Morse, 77 Wis. 322 304, 529, 531 Crippen v. Hudson, 13 N. Y. 161 526, 823 Cripps V. Tappin, 1 Cab. & E. 13 561 Critchell V. Cook, 7 Ohio Dec. 314 811 Crites v. Wilkinson, 65 Cal. 559 444 Crittenden v. Johnston, 7 App. Div. (N. Y.) 258 769 Croarkin v. Hutchinson, 187 111. 633 967 Crocker v. Barteau, 212 Mo. 359 659, 661 V. Colwell, 46 N. Y. 212 486 Crockett v. Burleson, 60 W. Va. 252 756, 760 V. Grain, 33 N. H. 542 536 V. Garrard, 4 Ga. App. 360 854 Crofoot V. Moore, 4 Vt. 204 771 Croft V. Bain, 49 Mont. 484 114, 115. 743. 847. 885 V. Day, 7 Beav. 84 261 V. Mckneely, 1 La. 101 830 V. Pyke, 3 P. Wims. 180 371 Crofton V. Horner, 5 Price 537 773 Cron V. Cron, 56 Mich. 8 528 Crone v. Crone, 180 111. 599 281 Cronk v. Crandall, 137 App. Div. (N. Y.) 440 727, 732 Cronkrite v. Trexler, 187 Pa. St. 100 216 Cronly v. Bank of Kentucky. 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 405 599 Crook V. Davis, 28 Mo. 94 908 V. Rindskopf, 105 N. Y. 476 533 Crocker v. Crooker, 46 Maine 250 291, 371, 525, 535. 624, 625, 823, 829 V. Crooker, 52 Maine 267 434, 537 Crooks V. Smith, 1 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 356 855 Croone v. Bivens, 2 Head (Tenn.) 339 371, 554, 559 Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. C. C. 465 829 V. Illinois Sew. Mach. Co., 100 Miss. 127 1022 V. Knapman, 6 L. J. Exch. 9 657 Crosby v. Jeroloman, 37 Ind. 264 496. 499, 826 V. McDermitt, 7 Cal. 146 770 V. Nichols, 3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 450 307 751 V. Timolat, SO Minn. 171 398, 472, 741, 742, 743 Crosby Lumber Co. v. Smith, 51 Fed. 63 _ 966 Cross V. Burlington Nat. Bank, 17 Kans. 336 121, 559, 561, 910 v. Leonard, 181 Mich. 24 263 v. Pinckneyville Mill Co., 17 111, 54 238 v. Weare Commission Co., 153 111. 499 475 Crossley v. Taylor, 83 Ind. 337 364, 651, 741, 743, 748 Grossman v. Shears, 3 Ont. App. 583 601 Crosswell v. Lehman, 54 Ala. 3&S 390^ 466, 486 Crosthwait v. Ross, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 23 151. 412, 424, 426, 435 TABLE OF CASES xlv [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Crotty V. Jarvis, 1 Misc. (N. Y.) 316 732 Crouch V. Bowman, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 209 118, 260, 265, 433 V. First Nat. Bank, 156 111. 342 1011, 1020, 1023, 1032 Croughton v. Forrest, 17 Mo. 131 371 381 389 Crouse v. McCandless, 121 111. App. 237 659, 715 Crow V. Weidner, 36 Mo. 412 634 ■ Crowder, Ex parte, 2 Vern. 706 535 Crowder v. Sullivan, 128 Ind. 486 238 Crowe V. Buchanan, 36 Nova Scotia 1 551 Crowell V. Western Reserve Bank, 3 Ohio St. 406 895 Crownfield v. Phillips (Md.), 92 Atl. 1033 396, 553, 786 Crowningshield v. Strobel, 2 Brev. (S. Car.) 80 291 Crozier v. Hodge, 3 La. 357 804, 835 V. Kirker, 4 Tex. 252 260, 486 Cruess v. Fessler, 39 Cal. 336 325 Cruikshank v. McVicar, 8 Beav. 106 715, 729 Crum V. Abbott, 2 McLean (U. S.) 233 260 Crumless v. Sturgess, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 190 467, 515, 888 Cruttwell V. Lye, 17 Ves. Jr. 335 315, 322 CucuUu V. Manzenal, 4 Mart. (U. S.) (La.) 183 830 Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hibou, 92 Miss. 234 68, 83, 217 Culberson v. Alabama Const. Co., 127 Ga. 599 953 Culbertson v. Salinger (Iowa), 117 N. W. 6 616 - V. Sheridan, 93 Kans. 268 217 V. Townsend, 6 Ind. 64 849 Culley V. Edwards, 44 Ark. 423 85, 103 Culver, In re, 176 Fed. 450 689 Cummings v. Hayes, 100 111. App. 347 146, 1005, 1007, 1008 V. People, 50 III. 132 493, 8U Cumming's Appeal, In re, 25 Pa. St. 268 533, 826 Cummins v. Cassily, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 74 422 Cummings Mfg. Co. V. Smith (Maine), 93 Atl. 968 253 Cumpston V. Lambert, 18 Ohio 81 364 Cumner v. Butler, 45 Maine 434 45S Cundey v. Hall, 208 Pa. 335 283, 532, 623. 628 Cunningham v. Bragg, 37 Ala. 436 604 V. Green, 23 Ohio St. 296 359, 360 V. Gushee, 73 Maine 417 291, 820 V. Lamar, 51 Ga. 574 454 V. Smithson, 12 Leigh (Va.) 32 852 V. Ward, 30 W. Va. 572 281, 529, 624 V. Woodbridge. 76 Ga. 302 511 Cunliff V. Dyerville Mfg. Co., 7 R. I. 325 350 Curl V. Webster (1904), 1 Ch. 685 317 Curiae, In re, 118 La. 563 352, 634 Curran v. Carey, 4 Manitoba 450 732 V. Kendall Boot &c. Co., 8 N. Mex. 417 291, 806, 811 V. Rothschild, 14 Colo. App. 497 967 Currey v. Warrington, 5 Harr. (Del.) 147 496 Currier v. Bates. 62 Iowa 527 371 V. Rowe, 46 N. H. 72 749 V. Silloway, 1 Allen (Mass.) 19 889 V. Studley, 159 Mass. 17 718 V. Webster, 45 N. H. 226 746, 749 Curry v. Burnett, 36 Ind. 102 601, 672 V. Charles Warner Co., 2 Marv. (Del.) 98 396, 398 V. Fowler, 87 N. Y. 33 80, 168, 169 V. Kansas & C. P. E. Co., 58 Kans. 6 493 V. Kurtz, 33 Miss. 24 888 Curry V. La Fon, 133 Mo. App. 163 978 V. White, 51 Cal. 530 468, 604, 888 V. Woodward, 44 Ala. 305 1055 Curtis V. Belknap, 21 Vt. 433 802 V. Brown, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 488 961 V. Cash, 84 N. Car. 41 126 V. Gokey, 68 N. Y. 300 320 V. Hollingshead, 14 N. J. L. 402 119, 121, 820 V. Mansfield, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 152 492 V. Monteith, 1' Hill (N. Y.) 356 364 V. Sexton, 201 Mo. 217 608 V. Sexton, 252 Mo. 221 469, 592, 854 V. Smelter Nat. Bank, 43 Colo. 391 954 V. Tracy, 169 111. 2-33 238, 242 V. Wilcox, 91 Mich. 229 529 V. Woodward, 58 Wis. 499 535 Gushing v. Poli, 151 111. App. 1 499 V. Smith, 43 Tex. 261 420 Cushing's Estate, In re, 1 New Bruns. Eq. 102 623 Cushman v. Bailey, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 526 52, 54 V. Thayer Manufacturing Jewelry Co., 76 N. Y. 365 1055 Custance v. Bradshaw, 9 Jur. 486 289 Custard v. Hodges, 155 Mich. 361 452, 486 Cuthbert v. Edinborough, 21 Wkly. Rep. 98 675 Cutler V. Cochran, 13 La. 482 814, 835 V. Thomas, 25 Vt. 73 886, 1045 V. Winsor, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 335 79 Cutting V. Daigneau, 151 Mass. 297 741 Cutts V. Gordon, 13 Maine 474 848 Cuyamaca Granite Co. v. Paciiic Paving Co., 95 Cal. 252 719, 850 Cuyler v. City Power Co., 74 Minn. 22 250 Daby v. Ericsson, 45 N. Y. 786 798, 804, 835, 849 Dacie v. John, McClell. 206 722 Dages v. Lee, 20 W. Va. 584 434, 499 Dahlgren v. Duncan, 7 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 280 367, 630 Dailey v. Coons, 64 Ind. 545 905, 908 Daily v. Fitzgerald, 17 N. Mex. 137 152, 153 V. Hollis, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 570 173 V. Robinson, 86 Ind. 382 492 Dair, In re, Ohio Prob. R. 233 633 Dake v. Butler, 7 Misc. (N. Y.) 302 79 Dakin v. Graves, 48 N. H. 45 765 Dale v. Duryea, 49 Wash. 644 994 V. Goldenrod Min. Co., 110 Mo. App. 317 153 V. Hamilton, 5 Hare 369 218, 275, 626, 778 V. Harrahan, 85 Miss. 49 262 V. Hogan, 39 Mo. App. 646 652, 729 V. Hodge, 110 Mo. App. 317 1048 V. Keefe, 178 111. App. 262 861 Dalton City Co. v. Dalton Mfg. Co., 33 Ga. 243 79, 897 V. Hawes, 37 Ga. 115 79, 897 Daly V. Bradbury, 46 Minn. 396 820 Dameier v. Bayor, 68 111. App. 477 764 Dammon v. Beecher, 97 Cal. 530 486 Dampf's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 72 725 Dana v. Barrett, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 764 V. Conant, 30 Vt. 246 367 V. Gill, 5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 242 747 V. Stearns, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 372 188 Danaher v. ' Hitchcock, 34 Mich. 516 847, 848 Banbury Cornet Band v. Bean, 54 N. H. 524 166 Dance v. Girdler, 1 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 34 118 Dancy v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 293 405 Danels v. Taggart, 1 Gill. & J. (Md.) 311 855 xlvi TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. 11, §§ 61S-1195.] Danforth v. Carter, 4 Iowa 230 888 V. Hertel, 3 Pennewill (Del.) 57 596 V. Levin (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 569 70, 295, 496, 666, 743 Daniel, In re, 75 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 143 630, 631 Daniel v. Bethell, 167 N. Car. 218 499, 826, 827 V. Cross, 3 Ves. Jr. 277 639 V. Crowell, 125 N. Car. 519 291, 536 V. Daniel, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 195 371 444 V. Gillespie, 65 W. Va. 366 582, 675, 715, 716 V. Owens, 70 Ala. 297 292, 436, 823, 829, 831 V. Townsend, 21 Ga. 155 630 Daniels, In re, 14 R. I. 500 458 Daniels v. Barney, 22 Ind. 207 177 V. Fowler, 123 N. Car. 25 912 v. Hammond, 154 Mass. 165 435 V. McCormick, 87 Wis. 255 276, 281, 285, 360, 362, 363 V. Roanoke R. &c. Co., 158 N. Car. 418 265, 269, 796 Darby v. Darby, 3 Drew 495 288, 289, 623, 624, 627, 664 v. Gilligan, 33 W. Va. 246 307 D'Arcy v. Ke\chum, 11 How. (U. S.) 165 817 Darden v. Garrett", 130 La. 998 806 Dariano v. Fidalgo, 14 Philippine 62 (dictum) 658 Darling v. Magnan, 12 U. C. Q. B. 471 594 V. March, 22 Maine 184 454 V. Potts, 118 Mo. 506 80 Darling's Estate, 7 Kulp (Pa.) 323 104, 579 Darlington Joint Stock Banking Co., Ex parte, 4 DeG., J. & S. 581 443 Darrow v. BrufE, 36 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 479 1025, 1033 V. Calkins, 154 N. Y. 503 218; 288, 289, 290, 623, 626, 672 Darst V. Roth, 4 Wash. C. C. 471 861 Dart V. Laimbeer, 107 N. Y. 664 767, 768, 769 Darwent v. Walton, 2 Atk. 510 815, 826 Daugherty v. Haynes (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 692 371, 455 V. Heckard, 189 111. 239 261, 466, 825, 886, 889, 901, 905 Davenport v. Buchanan, 6 S. Dak. 376 169 V. Gear, 2 111. 495 743 V. Henderson, 47 111. 74 661 V. Morrisey, 14 App. Div. (N. Y.) 586 674 V. Rackstrow, 1 C. & P. 89 797 Davenport Mills Co. v. Chambers, 146 Ind. 156 457 David, In re (Eng.), L. R. (1899), 1 Ch. 378 326, 632, 635 David v: Ellice, 5 Barn. & C. 196 557 Davidor v. Bradford, 129 Wis. 524 981, 991 Davidson v. Hobson, 59 Mo. App. 130 240, 965 V. Kelly, 1 Md. 492 500 V. Papps, 28 Grant. Ch. (U. C.) 91 621 V. Provost, 35 111. App. 126 597 V. Thirkell, 3 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 330 361, 381, 726 V. Wilson, 3 Del. Ch. 307 876, 929 Davies V. Atkinson, 25 111. App. 260 475 V. Atkinson, 124 111. 474 371, 415 V. Davies, 1 Jur. 446 855 V. Games, 12 Ch. D. 813 276 V. Hodgson, 25 Beav. 177 632 V. Jones, 61 Kans. 602 499 V. Skinner, 58 Wis. 638 399 Davis, Ex parte, 4 DeG., J. & Sm. 523 221 Davis, In re, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 530 499, 603, 605, 606, 607 Davis V. Abbott, 2 McLean (U. S.) 29 848 V. Allen, 3 N. Y. 168 434, 563, 594 V. Amer, 3 Drew. 64 721, 779, 787 V. Bemis, 40 N. Y. 453 518 V, Berger, 54 Mich. 562 459, 460, 461 V. Bingham (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 840 813, 887 V. Briggs, 39 Maine 304 496, 598 V. Brown, 98 Ky. 475 771 V. Buchanan, 12 Iowa 575 806, 832 V. Cook, 14 Nev. 265 445 V. Christian, 15 Grat. (Va.) 11 290, 579, 615, 638, 639, 672 V. Church, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 240 617 V. Darling, 80 Hun (N. Y.) 299 267 V. Davis, 60 Miss. 615 276, 659, 773 V. Davis (1894); 1 Ch. 393 276 V. Delaware &c. Canal Co., 109 N. Y 47 291 832 V. Dodge, 30 Mich. 267 268,' 414 V. Dodson, 95 Ga. 718 267 V. Evans, 39 Vt. 182 221, 419, 486 V. Ferguson, 29 Ky. L. 214 675 V. Gelhaus, 44 Ohio St. 69 170, 364, 511 V. Grove, 2 Rob. (N. Y.) 134 719, 720 V. Howell, 33 N. J. Eq. 72 535 V. Hubbard, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 50 265, 795, 796 T. Hyman (1903), 1 K. B. 854 830 V. Kellar, 25 Ky. L. 279 989 V. Keyes, 38 N. Y. 94 596 v. Kline, 76 Mo. 310 265, 826 v. Lane, 10 N. H. 156 583 V. Laning, 85 Tex. 39 187 V. Lezinsky, 93 Cal. 126 262 V. Megroz, 55 N. J. L. 427 580, 591, 615 V. Merrill, 51 Mich. 480 741 V. Minch, 80 N. J. L. 214 743 V. Niswonger, 145 Ind. 426 850 V. Old Colony R. Co., 131 Mass. 258 250 V. Poland, 92 Va. 225 600, 927 V. Richardson, 45 Miss. 499 411, 418, 424, 471, 486 V. Ross (Tenn. Ch. App.), 50 S. W. „ 650 835 V. Sanderlin, 119 N. Car. 84 146, 496, 1012 V. Savannah Lumber Co., 11 Ga. App. 610 193, 902 V. Smith, 82 Ala. 198 289, 444, 450, 623, 625, 672 V. Smith, 27 Minn. 390 825 V. Sowell, 77 Ala. 262 599, 617, 618 V. Stevens, 104 Fed. 235 247, .686 v. Werden, 13 Gray (Mass.) 305 291, 820 V. White, 1 Houst. (Del.) 228 831, 903 V. Wiley, 3 Ky. L. 315 486 V. Willis, 47 Tex. 154 604, 608, 806, 811 V. Wimberley, 86 Ga. 46 861 v. Turner, 120 Fed. 605 260, 689 Davison v. Harmon, 65 Minn. 402 499 y. Holden, 55 Conn. 103 166, 1051 Davis Sewing Mach. Co. v. Buckles, 89 111. 237 559 Davy V. Scarth [1906], 1 Ch. 55 637 Daw V. Herring (1892), 1 Ch. 284 225, 779 Dawson, In re, 59 Hun (N. Y.) 239 531, 554 Dawson v. Blitch, 11 Ga. App. 840 71 v. Boisseau, Man. Unrep. Cas. (La.) 185 - 224 V. Elrod, 105 Ky. 624 418, 445 V. Fitzgerald, 1 Ex. Div. 257 370 V. Parsons, 21 N. Y. S. 212 638, 721 V. Parsons, 10 Misc. (N. Y.) 428 276, 283, 290, 624, 625 TABLE OF CASES xlvii [References are to sections — Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Dawson V. Pogue, 18 Ore. 94 210, 882 Dawson Nat. Bank v. Ward, 120 Ga. 861 75 Day, In re, 176 Fed. 377 689, 696 Day V. Cushman, 2 111. 475 795, 847 V. Dow, 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 148 721 V. Lafferty, 4 Ark. 450 422 V. Lockwood, 24 Conn. 185 360, 729, 730 V. McLeod, 18 U. C. Q. B. 256 454 V. McQuillan, 13 Minn. 205 291, 820, 832 V. Merritt, 38 N. J. L. 32 468 V. Morte, 2 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 90 349 V. Perkins, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 359 278 433 V. Stafford, 128 Mo. App. 438 ' 291 V. Stevens, 88 N. Car. 83 126 V. Swann, 13 Maine 165 796 V. Wetherby, 29 Wis. 363 528 V. Weynant, 72 Ore. 215 820 Dayton v. Bartlett, 38 Ohio St. 357 644 V. Wilkes, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 655 719 V. Wilkes, 17 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 510 276, 660 Deadwood First Nat. Bank v. Hatten- bach, 13 S. Dak. 365 861 Deakin v. Underwood, 37 Minn. 98 268 Deal V. Bogue, 20 Pa. St. 228 292, 796, 811, 830, 831 Dean v. Collins, IS N. Dak. 535 556, 558 V. Dean, 54 Wis. 23 275 V. McDowell, 8 Ch. Div. 345 348, 387, 393, 396, 653, 654 V. McFaul,'23 Mo. 76 599, 834 V. Phillips, 17 Ind. 406 497, 535, 630 V. Savage, 28 Conn. 359 604 Deaner v. O'Hara, 36 Colo. 476 392, 652 Dear, Ex parte, L. R. 1 Ch. Div. 514 630 Deardorf v. Thacher, 78 Mo. 128 151, 412, 424, 426, 486 Peavenport v. Green River Deposit Bank, 138 Ky. 352 430, 652 De Berenger v. Hamel, 7 Jar. Dyth. (2d ed.) 23 587 De Berkom v. Smith, 1 Esp. 29 . 47S De Camp v. Bates (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 644 827 Decatur Land Co. v. Cook (Ala.), 27 So. 559 344 De Caussey v. Baily, 57 Tex. 665 526 Deckai-d v. Case, 5 Watts (Pa.) 22 444, 458 Decker v. Bryant, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 182 820 V. Howell, 42 Cal. ,636 151, 152, 425, 426, 1048 Deckert v. Chesapeake Western Co., 101 Va. 804 . 146, 1015, 1020 V. Filbert, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 454 599 De Coursey, In re, 211 Pa. 92 633 Deere v. Bonne, 108 Iowa 281 190 V. Plant, 42 Mo. 60 561 Deering V. Flanders, 49 N. H. 225 594 V. Kerfoo't, 89 Va. 491 290, 296, 627 Deeters v. Sellers, 102 Ind. 458 291, 303, 371, 433, 441 Deford v. Reynolds, 36 Pa. St. 325 594 De Forest v. Andrews, 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 145 ' . 857 Defries v. Creed, 11 Jur. (U. S.) 360 722 Degan v. Singer, 41 III. 28 854 Degnan v. Nowlin, 5 Ind. Ter. 312 834 De Graum v. Jones, 23 Fla. 83 190, 847 De Grauw v. Schmid, 38 App. Div. (N. Y.) 189 632 De GreiS v. Wilson, 30 N. J. Eq. 43S 815 De Groot v. Darby, 7 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 118 803 De Haven, In re, 248 Pa. 271 76, 77 De Haven v. Anjer (Pa.), 6 Atl. 768 641 v. Coup, S Ohio Dec. 562 451 De Haven's Appeal, 44 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 38 719 Dehority v. Nelson, 56 Ind. 414 850 Deickmann v. St. Louis, 9 Mo. App. 9 291 Deitz V. Regnier, 27 Kans. 94 424, 466, 486 Dejarnette v. DeGiverille, 56 Mo. 440 186 V. McQueen, 31 Ala. 230 651, 741, 743 Delamour v. Roger, 7 La. Ann. 152 170 Deland Min. & Mill. Co. v. Hanna, 112 Md. 528 424 Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 546 759 Delaware Ins. Co. v. Bonnett, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 107 299 Delaware Trust Co. v. Calm, 195 N. Y. 231 991 Delemater v. Hepworth, 48 Hun (N. Y.) 618 579 De Leon v. Heller, 77 Ga. 740 265, 795, 817 V. Trevino, 42 Tex. 88 177, 389, 655, 763 Delhasse, Ex parte, 7 Ch. Div. 511 669 De Lizardi v. Gossett, 1 La. Ann. 138 1015, 1020 Dell, In re, S Sawy. (U. S.) 344 538 Dellapiazza v. Foley, 112 Cal. 380 434, 499, 596, 962, ;1048 Delmonico v. Guillaume, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 366 535, 624, 626 V. Roudebush, 5 Fed. 165 395, 978 Delp V. Edlis, 190 Pa. St. .25 350, 768 Demain v. Huston, 70 W. Va. 306 295, 856, 895 De Manderfield v. Field, 7 N. Mex. 17 550, 591, 719 De Mantort v. Saunders, 1 B. & Ad. 398 825 Demarest, In re, 110 Fed. 638 704 Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y. 205 238, 240, 249 v. Koch, 129 N. Y. 218 168, 169 De Mazar v. Pybus, 4 Ves. 644 .118, 268 Deming v. Bull, 10 Conn. 409 252 V. Colt, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 284 1025, 1032, 1033 V. Moss, 40 Utah 501 276, 301 Demott V. Swaim, 5 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 293 . . 817 Deneufbourg v. Gaiennie, 14 La. S3 677 Dengler's Appeal, 125 Pa. St. 12 831 Denhohm v. McKay, 148 Mass. 434 633 Denison v. Ketser, 104 Ark. 94 902 Denithorne v.. Hook, 112 Pa. St. 240 476 Denman v. Dosson, 19 La. Ann. 9 596 Dennehy v. Jolly, 22 Wkly. Rep. 449 677 Dennett v. Chick, 2 Greenl. (Maine) 191 826 Denning, In re, 114 Fed. 219 689, 694, 698, 705 Dennis V. Gordon, 163 Cal. 427 342, 387, 396, 654, 729 V. Green, 20 Ga. 386 826 V. Kass, 11 Wash. 353 297 V. Kolm, 131 Cal. 91 466 Dennison v. Hyde, 6 Conn. 508 818 Dennistoun v. Debuys, 6 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 48 445 Denny v. Cabotl 6 Mete. (Mass.) 82 69, 88 V. Metcalf, 28 Maine 389 742 V. Turner, 2 Mo. App. 52 630, 836 Densmore v. Mathews, 58 Mich. 616 103, 529, 541 Densmore Commission Co. v. Shong, 98 Wis. 380 371 Densmore Oil Co. v. Densmore, 64 Pa. 43 381, 395 Dent V. Ferguson, 132 U. S. 50 655 v. Slough, 40 Ala. 518 657 Denton v. Hannah, 12 Ga. App. 494 440, 444, 817 xlviii TABLE OF GASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ l-608i Vol. II. |§ 615-1195.] Denton V. Kodie, 3 Campb. 493 496 Denver v. Roane, 99 U. S. 355 295, 350, 352, 353, 354 389, 586, 616, 637 De Pusey v. Du Pont, 1 Del. Ch. 82 370, 677 Deputy V. Harris, 1 Marv. (Del.) 100 475, 910 Derbigny v. Mondelli, 15 La. 496 861 Derby v. Gage, 38 111. 27 650 V. Gallup, 5 Minn. 119 861 Derickson v. Whitney, 6 Gray (Mass.) 248 975 995 Derry Bank v. Davis, 44 N. H. 548 ' 530 De St. Aubin v. Laskin, 74 111. App. 455 876 De«ha v. Holland, 12 Ala. 513 798, 810 V. Smith, 20 Ala. 747 360, 674, 675, 727, 914 V. Stewart, 6 Ala. 852 825 Des Moines Gas Co. v. West, 50 Iowa 16 96S De Soto Nat. Bank v. Arcadia Elec. Light &c. Co., 57 Fla. 391 291, 496 Dessaint v. Elling, 31 Minn. 287 847 De Tastet v. Bordenave, Jac. 516 787 V. Bordicu, 2 Brown Ch. 272n 789 V. Shaw, 1 Barn. & Aid. 664 118, 398 De Temple v. Rohrbach, 52 Pa. Super. Ct. 455 433, 500 Detrick v. McLean, 112 N. Car. 840 888 Detroit v. Lothrop Estate Co., 136 Mich. 265 941 Devall V. Burbridge, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 529 346, 381, 729 Devaynes v. Noble, 1 Mer. 529 496, 630 V. Noble, 1 Mer. 580 836 V. Noble, 2 Russ. & M. 495 639 Deveau v. Fowler, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 400 371 Deveney v. Mahoney, 23 N. J. Eq. 247 276, 624, 626, 715 Devereux v. Fleming, 47 Fed. 177 721 Devin v. Harris, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 186 486 Devine v. Cotunio, 187 111. App. 414 657 Devol V. Mcintosh, 23 Ind. 529 558, 564 Devore v. Woodruff, 1 N. Dak. 143 741, 743 Devoss V. Gray, 22 Ohio St. 159 111 Dew V. Pearson, 73 Wash. 602 599, 834 De Walt V. Zeigler, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 82 796 Dewey v. Carey, 60 Mo. 224 493 V. Dewey, 35 Vt. 555 276, 625 De Wit V. Lander, 72 Wis. 120 796, 802 V. Staniford, 1 Root (Conn.) 270 743 Dewitt V. Hastings, 69 N. Y. 518 230 238 V. San Francisco, 2 Cal. 289 ' 197 Dexter v. Arnold, 3 Mason (U. S.) 284 362 V. Dexter, 43 App. Div. (N. Y.) 268 218, 579, 615, 638 Deyerle v. Hunt, SO Mo. App. 541 198 De Zeng v. Bailey, 9 Wend^ (N. Y.) 336 491 Dial v. Agnew, 28 S. Car. 454 804, 835 Diamond, In re, 149 Fed. 407 696 Diamond Creek &c. Mining Co. v. Swope, 204 Mo. 48 89 Dick V. Dunlap, 1 Rob. (La.) 54 835 v. Laird, 5 Cranch C. C. 328 622, 836 Dickas v. Barnes, 140 Fed. 849 686, 687, 692, 705 Dickens v. Dickens, 154 Ma. 440 617 Dickenson v. Moore, 117 Ga. 887 564, 760 Dickerson v. Wheeler, 1 Humph, (Tenn.) 51 604 v. Wilcoxon, 97 N. Car. 309 731 Dickey v. Allen, 2 N. J. Eq. 40 850 V. Shirk, 128 Ind. 278 290, 296, 624, 625 Dickinson v. Bold, 3 Desaus. (S. Car.) 501 225 V. Dickinson, 29 Conn, 600 289, 623, 728 V. Dickinson, 25 Grat. (Va.) 321 594 V. Legare, 1 Desaus (S. Car.) 537 260, 454 V. Matheson Motor Car Co., 161 Fed. 874 292, 1051, 1057 v. Valpy, 10 Barn. & C. 128 221, 425 V. Vanderpoel, 2 Hun (N. Y.) 626 796 Dickson v. Alexander, 29 N. Car. 4 445 V. Conde, 148 Ind. 279 559 V. Dryden, 97 Iowa 122 425 V. Indianapolis Cotton Mfg. Co., 63 Ind. 9 599 V. Primrose, 2 Miles (Pa.) 366 429 432 Didier v. Davison, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.)' 477 718 Didlake v. Eoden Grocery Co., 160 Ala. 484 328, 579, 616, 660 Dieckmann t. St, Louis, 9 Mo, App. 9 371 Diehl V. Dreyer, 84 App. Div. (N. Y.) 247 725 Dietz v. Eegnier, 27 Kans. 94 800 Digby, Ex parte, 1 Deac. 341 39 Diggs V. Brown, 78 Va. 292 290 371 535 624 Dignan v. Dignan (N. J.), 14'Atl.'887 ' 715 Dikinson v. Bowers, 7 Baxt. 307 835 Dikis v. Likis, 187 Ala. 218 394, 772 Dill V. Voss, 94 Ind. 590 367 Dillard v. Turner, 87 Va. 669 825 Dille V. Parker, 204 Mass. 163 574, 675 Dillon, In re, 100 Fed. 627 698 Dillon V. Brown, 11 Gray (Mass.) 179 422, 444, 446 Dilworth v. Curts, 139 111. 508 535 V. Mayfield, 36 Miss. 40 290, 371, 627, 669, 719 Dimon v. Hazard, 32 N. Y. 65 307, 371, 526, 559 Dimond v. Henderson, 47 Wis. 172 362, 363, 369, 727 V. Minnesota Sav. Bank, 70 Minn. 298 121, 796, 848 Dineen v. Lanning, 92 Nebr. 545 819, 826, 835 Dingeldein v. Third Ave. E. Co., 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 79 954, 961 Dinham v. Bradford, L. E. 5 Ch. 519 360, 362, 668, 673, 677 D'Invilliers' Estate, In re, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 362 536 Dispatch Printing Co. v. George, 83 Minn. 309 530 Ditts v. Lonsdale, 49 Ind. 521 „. 425, 426, 895 Divme V. Mitchum, 4 B. Mon. (Ky) 488 289, 290, 623, 626 Dix V. Otis, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 38 419, 559, 881 Dixie Cotton Oil Co. v. Morris, 79 Ark. ^ 113 536, 563 Dixon V. Barclay, 22 Ala. 370 808 X. Dixon, 19 Iowa 512 767 V. Dixon [1904], 1 Ch. 161 722 V. Hammond, 2 B. & Aid. 310 617 V. Hood, 7 Mo. 414 889 V. Paddock, 104 Va. 387 728, 729 ' Dixon Nat. Bank v. Spielraann, 35 111. App. 184 596 Doan V. Eogan, 79 Ohio St. 372 214, 215 Doane v. Adams, 15 La. Ann. 350 160, 975, 982, 984, 985 V. Cummins, 11 Conn. l52 369 Dob V. Halsey, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 34 52, 83, 275, 371, 496, 796, 831 DobUn V. Foster, 1 Car. & K. 323 563 Dobbins v. Tatem (N. J.), 25 Atl. 544 573, 574 Dobell V. Loker, 1 Handy (Ohio) 574 865 TABLE OF CASES xlix [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. 11, §§ 615-1195.] Dobenspeck v. Armel, 11 Ind. 31 848 Dobert, In re, 165 Fed. 749 616 Dobson V. Chambers, 78 N. Car. 334 887 V. Chambers, 79 N. Car. 142 499 V. Hallowell, 53 Minn. 98 861 Dockery v. Faulkner (Tex, Civ. App.), 101 S. W. 501 260, 433, 559 Dr. Koch Vegetable Tea Co. v. Ma- lone (Tex. Civ. App.), 163 S. W. 662 217 Dodd V. Bishop, 30 La. Ann. 1178 604 V. Dreyfus, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 600 558 V. Everett-Ridley-Ragan Co., 110 Ga. 303 475. 891 v. Rogers, 68 Ind. 110 888 Dodge v. Childers, 167 Mo. App. 448 217 v. Cutrer, 100 Miss. 647 558, 561 v. Kaufman, 46 Misc. (N. Y.) 248 706 V. McKay, 4 Ala. 346 471 Dodgon, Ex parte, Mont. & McA. 445 149, 150 Dodson V. Alphin, 88 Ark. 482 496 V. Dodson, 26 Ore. 349 219, 624 V. Dodson, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 110 352, 353, 637 V. Downey [1901], 2 Ch. 620 561 Doe V. McLeod, 8 U. C. Q. B. 344 627 Doggett V. Dill, 108 111. 560 496, 630, 836 V. Jordan, 2 Fla. 541 825, 879 Dolan V. Lee, 40 N. J. Eq. 338 635 V. Wilkerson, 57 Kans. 758 967 Dole V. Wooldredge, 135 Mass. 140 100 Doll V. Hennessy Mercantile Co., 33 Mont. 80 444, 472, 499, 743 Dollins V. Pollock, 89 Ala. 351 820 Dolphin V. Steell, 2 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) Ill 721 Donahue v. Hanighen, 96 Nebr. 180 902 V. McCosh, 70 Iowa 733 668, 675, 754 Donald v. Carpenter, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 321 - 820 V. Guy, 127 Fed. 228 1049 Donaldson v. Cape Fear Bank, 1 Dev. Eq. (N. Car.) 103 276 V. Donaldson, 142 111. App. 21 727 V. State Bank, 16 N. Car. 103 535, 814 Doncourt v. Denton, 131 App. Div. (N. Y.) 905 (1909) 71 Dondell v. Shoo, 20 Cal. App. 424 218 Donellan v. Hardy, 57 Ind. 393 831 Donelson v. Posey, 13 Ala. 752 295, 371, 669, 672, 674 'Doner v. Stauffer, 1 P. & W. (Pa.) 198 291, 292, 830, 832 Donk Bros.' Coal &c. Co. v. Aronson, 102 Mo. App. 590 854 Donleavey v. Johnston, 24 Cal. App. 319 75, 394, 760 Donley v. Hall, S Bush (Ky.) 549 76 Donnally v. Hearpdon, 41 W. Va. 519 953 V. Ryan, 41 Pa. St. 306 419, 486, 528 Donnan v. Gross, 3 111. App. 409 159 Donnell v. Harshe, 67 Mo. 170 26, 126, 292 V. Jones, 13 Ala. 490 805 Donnelly, In re, 125 Cal. 417 187 Donnelly v. McArdle, 152 App. Div. (N. Y.) 80S 723, 727, 730 V. Morris, 59 N. Y. Super. Ct. 557 720 Donlon v. English, 89 Hun (N. Y.) 67 262, 264 Donohoe v. Rogers, 168 Cal. 700 778 Donovan v. Clark,. 138 N. Y. 631 727 Don Yook v. Washington Mill Co., 16 Wash. 459 559 Doob V. Lovell Mfg. Co., 4 Ohio Dec. 189 263 Doody Co. V. Jeffcoat, 127 Ga. 301 826 Dooner v. Haws, 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 639 449 Doremus v. McCormick, 7 Gill (Md.) 49 508, 888 Dorn V. Tyler, 64 111. App. 110 857 Dorough V. Harrington, 148 Ala. 305 825 Dorr V. Jouet, 20 La. Ann. 27 796, 803 V. McKinney, 9 Allen (Mass.) 359 991, 993 Dorsett v. Ormiston, 53 App. Div. (N. Y.) 629 675 V. Ormiston, 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 570 675 Dorsey v. Dashiell, 1 Md. 198 564, 675 V. Kyle, 30 Md. 512 186, 577 V. Newcomer, 121 Cal. 213 153 V. Thompson, 37 Md. 25 186 Dorwart v. Ball, 71 Nebr. 173 716, 754, 767 Aoty V. Bates, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 544 437, 876 V. Crawfordj 39 S. Car. 1 559 V. Irwin Phillips Co., 15 Colo. App. 96 835 V. Martin, 32 Mich. 462 331 V. Patterson, 155 Ind. 60 231, 237 Doubleday, Page &c. Co. v. Shumaker, 113 N. Y. S. 83 657 Doudell V. Shoo, 20 Cal. App. 424 70, 116, 216, 719, 730, 850, 851 Dougal V. Cowles, 5 Day (Conn.) 511 260, 434, 499 Dougall V. Ockerman, 9 U. C. Q. B. 354 599 Dougherty v. Creary, 30 Cal. 290 150, 1048 v. Smith, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 279 803 V. Van Nostrand, Hofim. Ch. (N. Y.) 68 326, 350, 389 632, 640, 668, 728 Douglas case, 14 Ct. of CI. 1 577 Douglas V. Alder, 13 Utah 303 531 V. Chapin, 26 Conn. 76 811 V. Winslow, 20 Maine 89 291 Douglas Naval Stores Co. v. Georgia Fertilizer & Oil Co., 11 Ga. App. 130 834 Douglass V. Hall, 22 Vt. 451 605 Dounce v. Parsons, 45 N. Y. 180 503, 515 Doupe V. Stewart, 13 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 637 677, 715, 721 Douthart v. Logan, 86 111. App. 294 331 V. Logan, 190 111. 243 615, 641, 659, 660, 664 Douthit V. Douthit, 133 Ind. 26 743, 746, 751, 765 Dovey v. Dovey, 95 Nebr. 624 551, 554, 631, 675 Dow V. Darragh, 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. 138 985 V. Dempsey, 21 Wash. 86 216, 897 V. Moore, 47 N. H. 419 151, 426, 471 V. Phillips, 24 111. 249 425 V. Sayward, 14 N. H. 9 820, 829, 830, 1046 V. Simpson, 17 N. M. 357 616, 634 V. State Bank, 88 Minn. 355 221, 223 Dowd V. Elstner, 23 La. Ann. 656 270 V. Troup, 57 Miss. 204 618 Dowling V. Clarke, 13 R. I. 134 743 V. National Exch. Bank, 145 U. S. 512 424, 426, 486 Downard v. Sluder, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 559 826 Downey v. Farmers' &c. Bank, 13 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 288 493 Downham v. HoUoway, 158 Ind. 626 189 Downie v. Savage, 72 Wash. 164 91, 93, 96, 90S Downing, In re, 1 Dill (U. S.) 33 558, 689 Downing v. Linville, 3 Bush. (Ky.) 472 450, 536 Downs V. Collins, 6 Hare 418 638 v. Jackson, 33 111. 464 364, 651, 666. V. Short, 6 Penne. (Del.) 624 751 V. Woodson, 25 Ky. L. 566 760, 771 Dowse V. Gaynor, 155 Mich. 38 718 V. Gorton (1891), A. C. 190 579 Dowzelot V. Rawlings, 58 Mo. 75 467 TABLE OF CASES IReferences are to sections— Vol. I, ^§| l-608j Vol. II, §§ 61S-I19S.] Doxey v. Service, 30 Ind. App. 173 556, 809, 834 Doyle V. Bailey, 75 III. 418 221 V. Burns, 123 Iowa 488 152, 219 V. Duckworth, 149 Iowa 623, 359, 360 V. Mizner, 42 Mich. 332 1051 V. Shuttleworth, 41 Misc. (N. Y.) 42 264 Drake v. Blount, 17 N. Car. 353 836 V. Brander, 8 Tex. 351 268 V. Dodsworth, 4 Kans. 159 , 316 V. Elwyn, 1 Caines (N. Y.) 184 260, 265, 825, 879 V. Great Northern R. Co., 24 S. Dak. 19 847 V, Hall, 220 Fed. 90S 115 V. Hays, 27 La. Ann. 256 559, 564 V. Hill, 53 Iowa 37 434, 491, 499 V. Moore, 66 Iowa 58 276, 296, 625 V. Porter, 13 Hun (N. Y.) 658 564 V. Thyng, 37 Ark. 228 444 V. White Sew. Mach. Co., 133 App. Div. (N. Y.) 446 469 Draper v. Bissel, 3 McLean (U. S.) 275 604, 605 Dreher v. Connolly, 9 N. Y. S. 365 608 V. Aetna Ins. Co., 18 Mo. 128 299 Drennen v. House, 41 Pa. St. 30 907 V. London Assur. Corp., 20 Fed. 657 221, 299 Dressel v. Lonsdale, 46 111. App. 454 191 Dresser, In re, 135 Fed. 495 689 Dresser, In re, 144 Fed. 318 707 Dresser v. United Firemen's Ins. Co., 45 Hun (N. Y.) 298 299 Drew V. Bank of Monroe, 125 La. 673 496 V. Beard, 107 Mass. 64 773 V. Person, 22 Wis. 651 350, 351 Drewer v. Person, 22 Wis. 651 741 Drewry v. Montgomery, 28 Ark. 2S6 290, 625 Drexel v. Pease, 59 Hun (N. Y.) 626 536 Drexler v. Smith, 30 Fed. 754 431 Dreyfus v. Union Nat. Bank, 164 Bl. 83 421, 433, 486 DrifBU V. Goodwin, 23 Grant Ch. (U. C) 431 ■ 469 Driggs V. Driggs, 46 Hun (N. Y.) 676 435 V. Morely, 2 Finn. (Wis.) 403 725 Drilling v. Armstrong, 94 Ark. 505 79 Driver v. Burton, 17 Q. B. 989 802 Drouin v. Gauthier, 12 Quebec K. B. 442 496 Drucke v. Boylon (Mich.) 125 N. W. 416 616 Drucker v. Wellhouse, 82 Ga. 129 ^ 121, 530 Drumm Flato Comm. Co. v. Summers, 89 Mo. App. 300 854 Drumright v. Philpot, 16 Ga. 424 444, 470 Drury v. Roberts, 2 Md. Ch. 157 720, 721 Dry V. Boswell, 1 Camp. 329 41 V. Davy, 10 Adol & E., 30, 118, 599 Du Bois v. Padgham, 18 Cal. App. 298 553, 760, 851 Dubois' Appeal, In re, 38 Pa. St. 231 443, 444, 450 Dubois? Case, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 177 836 DuBree v. Albert, 100 Pa. St. 483 628 Ducey v. Patterson, 37 Colo. 216 489 Duck V. Abbott, 24 Ind. 349 767 Duckwell V. Jones, 156 Ind. 682 847, 852 Duden v. Maloy, 37 Fed. 98 ' 719 V. Maloy, 63 Fed. 183 728, 730, 674 Dudley v. Bland, 83 N. Car. 220 491 V. Little, 2 Ohio 504 170 V. Littlefield, 21 Maine 418 169 v. Love, 60 Mo. App. 420 509 V. Piatt, 118 N. Y. S. 1058 1054, 1059 Duer v. Small, 4 Blatchf. 263 937 Dufau V. Massicot, 6 Mart. (La.) (N. S.) 182 719 Duff V. Baker, 78 Iowa 642 596, 926 V. Maguire, 99 Mass. 300 741 V. Maguire, 107 Mass. 87 350, 355, 472 Duffy, In re, 118 Fed. 926 704 Duffy V. Gray, 52 Mo. 528 805 Duffield V. Brainerd, 45 Conn. 424 579, 638, 650 Dugger V. Tutwiler, 129 Ala. 258 294, 716, 718, 850 Duguid, In re, 100 Fed. 274 704 Duhring v. Duhring, 20 Mo. 174 290, 625 Duke, In re, 199 Fed. 199 686, 687, 692 Duke V. Taylor, 37 Fla. 64 244, 249, 965 Dukes V. Kellogg, 127 Cal. 563 743 Dulany v. Elfordl 22 S. Car. 304 634, 825 V. Walshe, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 174 835 Duly v. Hogan, 60 Maine 351 496 Dummett, Matter of, 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 477 353, 633, 637 Dumont v. Ruepprecht, 38 Ala. 175 295, 586, 674, 730 Dunbar v. Bucfe, 6 Munf. (Va.) 34 815 Duncan, v. Clark, 2 Rich. (S. Car.) 587 431 V. Duncan, 93 Ky. 37 290 V. Lowiides, 3 Campb. 478 454 V. Lyon, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 351 747 v. Randall, 2 Utah 131 861 Dundass v. Gallagher, 4 Pa. St. 205 607 Dunham v. Gillis, 8 Mass. 462 747, 767 V. Hanna, 18 Ind. 270 (1862) 528 V. Jarvis, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 88 720, 721 V. Loverock, 158 Pa. St. 197 210, 213 V. Murdock, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 553 830 V. Presby, 120 Mass. 285 170, 176, 655, 656 v. Rogers, 1 Pa. St. 255 79 V. Shindler, .17 Ore. 256 265 795 817 Dunifer v. Jecks, 87 Mo. 282 ' ' 191 Dunklin v. Kimball, 50 Ala. 251 297, 458 Dunlap V. Byers, 110 Mich. 109 276, 277, 290, 731 V. Green, 60 Fed. 242 269j 284 V. Limes, 49 Iowa 177 593 V. McNeil, 35 Ind. 316 834 V. Watson, 124 Mass. 305 350, 352, 355, 607, 667, 668 Dunlop V. Ball, 2 Cranch (U. S.) 180 186 V. Gregory, 10 N. Y. 241 320 V. Richards, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 181 381, 389, 393, 395, 652, 982 Dunn, In re, 115 La. 1084 1020, 1030 Dunn V. Jaffray, 36 Kans. 408 496 V. McNaught, 38 Ga. 179 588, 721 Dunnell v. Henderson, 23 N. J. Eq. 174 275, 386, 727, 888, 912 Dunning's Appeal, 44 Pa. St. 150 1024, 1034 Dunphy v. Ryan, 116 U. S. 491 218 Dunton v. Brown, 31 Mich. 182 • 188 Dupuy V. Dawson (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 698 574 v. Leavenworth, 17 Cal. 262 500, 601, 624, 625, 626 ■ V. Sheak, 57 Iowa 361 190 Duquesne Distributing Co. v. Green- baum, 135 Ky. 182 119, 506, 513 Duran v. Ayer, 67 Maine 145 825 Durand v. Curtis, 57 N. Y. 7 559 Duraut v. Abendroth, 41 N. Y. Super. Ct. 53 1003, 1007 V. Abendroth, 69 N. Y. 148 1016, 1055 V. Abendroth, 97 N. Y. 132 1030, 1033 v. Pierson, 124 N. Y. 444 579, 615, 620, 621 V, Rhenier, 26 Minn. 362 170, 655 V. Rogers, 71 111. 121 454, 503 V. Rogers, 87 111. 508 364 Durbin V. Barber, 14 Ohio 311 .„ , „. 582, 586, 673, 730 Durdeu v. Cleveland, 4 Ala. 225 745 TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Durgin v, Colburn, 176 Mass. 110 146, 1026, 1028 V. Coolidge, 3 Allen (Mass.) 554 458 V. Somers, 117 Mass. 55 448, 449 Durham, In re, 104 Fed. 231 704 Durham v. Edwards, 50 Fla. 49S 717 V. Hartlett, 32 Ga. 22 659 V. Lathrop, 95 111. App. 429 763, 764 V. Sumpter, 17 Ky. L. 655 729 Durham Fertilizer Co. v. Clute, 112 N. Car. 440 1059 Durham Smoking Tobacco Case, 3 Hughes (U. S.) 151 328 Durkee v. Gunn, 41 Kans. 496 169 V. Price, 11 La. Ann. 333 605 V. Stringham, 8 Wis. 1 1055 Durkheimer v. Heilner, 24 Ore. 270 731 Durlacher v. Frazer, 8 Wyo. 58 953, 955, 960 Durphy v. Pearsall, 6 Cal. App. 54 730 Durrell v. Staples, 169 Mass. 49 425, 486 Duryea v. Burt, 28 Cal. 569 152, 153, 371, 626 V. Whitcomb, 31 Vt. 395 103, 716, 897 Dusenberry v. Horning, 56 Ore. 210 276 393 Dutcher v. Buck, 96 Mich. 160 65, 83, 85 Dutton V. Morrisson, 17 Ves. 193 292, 829, 830, 831 V. Woodman, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 255 888, 893, 894 Du Vivier v. Gallice, 149 Fed. 118 959 Duxbury v. Isherwood, 10 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 712 719 V. Isherwood, 12 Wkly. Rep. 821 677 V. Plymouth County, 172 Mass. 383 306, 940 Dwight V. Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 50 83, 509 V. Hamilton, 113 Mass. 175 331, 553 V. Simon, 4 La. Ann. 490 511 Dwinel v. Pottle, 31 Maine 167 917 V. Stone, 30 Maine 384 72, 103, 900 Dwyer Pine Land Co. v. Whiteman, 92 Minn. 55 284 Dyas V. Dinkgrave, 15 La. Ann. 502 809, 834 V. O'Neil, 3 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dec. 309 631 Dycus V. Brown, 135 Ky. 140 71 Dye V. Bowling, 82 Mo. App. 587 715, 718 Dyer v. Adams, 56 Tex. Civ. App.,400 675 V. Ballinger, 24 Ky. L. 1918 732 V. Clark, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 562 276, 281, 290, 296, 303, 579, . 624, 625, 626, 627, 628 V. Dyer, 138 Ga. 159 564, 760 V. Morse, 10 Wash. 492- 598, 617, 626 V. Shore, 20 R. I. 259 326, 660 V. Sutherland, 75 111. 583 451 Dyke v. Brewer, 2 Car. & K. 828 559 E Eady v. Newton Coal &c. Co., 123 Ga. 557 ' 414, 415, 445, 455 Eager v. Barnes, 31 Beav. 579 503, 517 V. Crawford, 76 N. Y. 97 80 Eagle V. Bucher, 6 Ohio St. 295 573 Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Jennings, 29 Kans. Eakin v. Knox, 6 S. Car. 14 651 V. Shumaker, 12 Tex. 51 350, 390 Eames v. Miller, 108 Mich. 406 733 Earl V. Hurd, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 248 910 Earle v. Art .Library Pub. Co., 95 Fed. 544 103, 889 Early v. Burt, 68 Iowa 716 557 Early & . Clement Grain Co. v. Fite (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 673 848 Earon v. Mackey, 106 Pa. St. 452 559, 562 Eason v. Cherry. 59 N. Car. 261 389 Eastburn v. Eddleblute, 53 Pa. Super. Ct. 234 400 Easter v. Farmer's Nat. Bank, 57 111. 215 471, 605 Easterwood v. Burnitt (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 934 796 Eastman v. Burleigh, 2 N. H. 484 459, 461 V. Clark, 53 N. H. 276 25, 40, 58, 69, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 411, 897, 900, 907, 922 v. Cooper, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 276 418, 428, 878, 919 V. Dunn, 34 R. L 155 746 V. Dunn, 34 R. I. 416 221 Easton v. Courtwright, 84 Mo. 27 634 V. Ellis, 1 Handy (Ohio) 70 594 V. Strother, 57 Iowa 506 .364 V. Wostenholm, 137 Fed. 524 563, 593 Eaton V. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y. 119 231, 236 V. Burns, 31 Ind. 390 492 V. Eaton, 37 N. J. L. 108 189 V. Eaton, 43 N. Car. 102 856 V. Graham,. 104 111. App. 296 219 V. Taylor, 10 Mass. 54 474, 605 V. Walker, 76 Mich. 579 213, 248 V. Whitcomb, 17 Vt. 641 450, 562 Eaton's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 483 730 Eau Claire St. Louis Lumber Co. v. Gray, 81 Mo. App. 337 486 Eaves v. Field, 8 Ga. App. 69 854 Ebbert's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 79 623 Eccleston v. Clipsham, 1 Wm. Saund. 153, note 1 - 493 Ecker v. First Nat. Bank, 59 Md. 291 604 Eckert v. Clark, 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 18 350 Eddie v. Davidson, 2 Doug. 650 292 Eddins v. Menefee (Tenn. Ch. App.), 54 S. W. 992 651, 743 Eddy v. Fogg, 192 Mass. 543 675, 677, 718 Edelen v. Hagan, 9 Ky. L. 862 652 V. Newman, 5 Ky. L. 120 173 V. Walker, 21 Ky. L. 839 350 Eden v. Lingenfelter, 39 Ind. 19 727, 912, 916 V. Nash, 7 Ch. D. 781 816 Edens v. Williams, 36 111. 252 559, 591 Edgar V. Baca, 1 N. Mex. 613 657 V. Caldwell, 1 Morr. (Iowa) 434 292 V. Cook, 4 Ala. 588 579, 639 V. Donnally. 2 Munf. (Va.) 387 290 Edgell V. Felder, 84 Fed. 69 767, 815 V. MacQueen, 8 Mo. App. 71 446 Edger v. Knapp, 1 D. & L. 73 651 Edgerton v. Preston, 15 111. App. 23 261 Edgeworth v. Wood, 58 N. J. L. 463 1046 Edfck V. Green, 38 Hun (N.) Y.) 202 820 Edison Electric Illuminating Co. v. De- Mott, 51 N. J. Eq. 16 364, 390, 496, 537 Edmondson v. Barrell, 2 Cranch C. C. 228 559, 564 Edmonson v. Davis, 4 Esp. N. P. 14 812 v. Thomasson, 112 Va. 326 764 Edmunds v. Bushell, L. R. 1 Q. B. 97 425 Edson V. Gates, 44 Mich. 253 975, 985, 987 Edwards v. Armour Packing Co., 190 111. 467 239, 246 V. Buchanan, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 268 897 V. Carter, 1 Stra. 473 494 V. Dillon, 147 111. 14 422, 444 v. Entwisle, 2 Mackey (D. C.) 43 371 v. Fairbanks, 27 La. Ann. 452 81 V. Hatfield, 93 Nebr. 712 805 v. Hellings, 103 Cal. 204 826 V. Hudson, 165 111. App. 521 977 V. Hughes, 20 Mich. 289 291, 820 V. Johnson, 90 S. Car. 90 342, 381, 652, 981 V. McFall, 5 La. Ann. 167 594 V. Michigan Tontirie Inv. Co., 132 Mich. 1 247 v. Parker, 88 Ala. 356 517, 825 V. Pitzer, 12 Iowa 607 457 Hi TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Edwards V. Remington, 51 Wis. 336 564, 651, 746, 850 V. Thomas, 66 Mo. 468 432, 579, 615, 638 V. Tracy, 62 Pa. St. 374 53, 75, 83, 418, 486, 886, 888, 889, 897, 919 V. Trulock, 37 Iowa 244 434 V. Warren Linoline &c. Works, 168 Mass. 564 148, 1049 V. Wheeler, 130 Mich. 219 253 V. Zu^k, 171 Mich. 29 216, 364 Edward's Estate, In re (Mo.), 24 S. W. 758 536 Edwards & Wigginter, In re, 122 Mo. 426 270 Effinger, In re, 184 Fed. 728 694 Egan V. Wirth, 26 R. I. 363 158, 633 Egberts V. Wood, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 517 450, 535, 579, 601, 621, 638, 640 Ege V. Kyle, 2 Watts (Pa.) 222 847, 861 Eggleston v. Boardman, 37 Mich. 14 268 V. Mason, 84 Iowa 630 475 Egholm V. Williams, 81 Wash. 609 594 Ehrhart v. Rork, 114 III. App. 509 706 Ehrlich v. Pike, 53 Misc. (N. Y.) 328 677 Ehrmann v. Ehrmann, 72 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 17 719 V. Stitzel, 121 Ky. 751 342, 381, 554 Eichbaum v. Irons, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 67 157 E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Co. V. Jones, 200 Fed. 638 118 Eilers Music House v. Reine, 65 Ore. 598 25, 292, 343, 591, 657, 901 Einstein v. Gourdin, 4 Woods 415 217 V. Schnebly, 89 Fed. 540 344, 383, 587, 721, 789, 850 Eisenhart v. Slaymaker, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 153 451 Eisfeld V. Kenworth, 50 Iowa 389 237 240 Eisner v. Eisner, S App. Div. (N. Y.)' 117 757, 850 Elder, Matter of, 39 Mich. 474 773 Elder v. Hood, 38 111. 533 744 Eldred v. Peterson, 80 Iowa 264 489 Eldridge v. Walker, 80 111. 270 381 Elevator Co. v. Memphis &o. R. Co., 85 Tenn. 703 250 Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Loveland, 132 Fed. 41 239, 246, 1051 V. Meyer, 30 Fed. 659 533 Eliot V. Himrod, 108 Pa. St. 569 1008, 1029, 1049 Eliza, The, In re, 2 Gall. (U. S.) 4 186 Elkin V. Green, 13 Bush. (Ky.) 612 420 Elkinton v. Bc^oth, 143 Mass. 479 594 Eller V. Lacy, 137 Ind. 436 489 Ellicott V. Nichols, 7 Gill (Md.) 85 467, 598, 603 V. Smith, 2 Cranch C. C. 543 820 Elliot V. Brown, 3 Swanst. 489 623, 720, 787 V. Stevens, 38 N. H. 311 826, 922 V. Swannell, 154 111. App. 570 901 Elliott V. Bidwell (S. Dak.), 152 N. W. 286 398 V. Deason, 64 Ga. 63 719, 741 V. Dycke. 78 Ala. 150 444 V. Espenhain, 54 Wis. 231 854 V. Holbrook. 33 Ala. 659 475, 499 V. Pontius, 136 Ind. 641 511 V. Stevens, 38 N. H. 311 62, 486 Ellis V. Allen, 80 Ala. 515 461, 444, 472, 825 T. Brand, 176 Mo. App. 383 72, 231, 245, 878, 901 V. Bronson, 40 111. 455 563 T. Commander, 1 Strobh. Eq. (S. Car.) 188 720, 787 V. Ellis, 47 N. J. L. 69 457 V. Harrison, 104 Mo. 270 809 V. Jameson, 17 Maine 235 893 Ellis V. Johnson, 4 Ky. L. (abstract) 991 290, 579, 638 Ellison V. Andrews, 12 Ired. L. (N. Car.) 188 835 V. Lucas, 87 Ga. 223 270, 307, 527, 528, 529 V. Sexton, 105 N. C. 356 596 V. Stuart, 2 Pennew. (Del.) 179 25, 80, 83, 104, 476, 486, 905, 919 Ellsberry v. Block, 28 Colo. 477 817, 826 Ellston v. Deacon, L. R. 2 C. P. 20 857 Ellsworth v. Pomeroy, 26 Ind. 158 103 V. Tartt, 26 Ala. 733 83 Elm City Lumber Co. v. Haupt, 50 Pa. Super. Ct. 489 854 Elmer v. Hall, 148 Pa. St. 345 774 Elmira Iron &c. Co. v. Harris, 124 N. Y. 280 139, 486, 500, 594, 825, 922, 923 El Paso Ice & Refrigerator Co. v. Consumers' Ice & Cold Storage Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 S. W. 551 217 Ely V. Hair, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 230 301, 371, 440, 458 Emanuel V. Bird, 19 Ala. 596 535, 536 V. Draughn, 14 Ala. 303 83 Emberson v. McKenna, 4 Willson, Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 94 79, 910 Embry v. Lewis (Ark.), 18 S. W. 372 528, 529 Emerick v. Moir, 124 Pa. St. 498 350, 364, 670 Emerson v. Baylies, 19 Pick (Mass.) 55 798 v. Durand, 64 Wis. Ill 213, 350, 354, 359, 360 V. Harmon, 14 Maine 271 430 V. Knower, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 63 451 V. Senter, 118 U. S. 3 ' 621, 640 Emery v. Bradley, 88 Maine 357 321 V. Canal Nat. Bank, 3 Cliff. (U. ■ S.) 507 697 V. Emery, 9 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 130 826 V. Kalamazoo &c. Const. Co., 132 Mich. 560 1020, 1035, 1037 V. Parrott, 107 Mass. 95 381, 395 V. Wilson, 79 N. Y. 78 215 Emly V. Lye, 15 East 7 261. 445, 486 Emmel v. Zapp, 112 Minn. 375 985 Emmet v.Dekle, 132 Ga. 593 265 Emmons V. Newman, 38 Ind. 372 76, 86 Emory v. Faith, 113 Md. 253 722 Empire Mills v. Alston Grocery Co., 4 Willson Civ. Cas. Ct. App., § 221 245, 249, 250 Empire Rice Mill Co. v. Neumond, 199 Fed. 800 816, 817, 826 Empire State Surety Co. v. Ballou, 66 Wash. 76 496 Emrick T. Goldstein, 103 App. Div. (N. Y.) 17 850 Enok V. Gerding, 67 Ohio St. 245 598, 617 England v. Curling, 8 Beav. 129 778, 786 V. England, 1 Baxt. (Tenn.) 108 79 Englar v. OfFutt, 70 Md. 78 517 Englis V. Furniss, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 587 742 Engvall V. Buchie, 73 Wash. 534 245 Eno V. Diefendorf, 102 N. Y. 720 675 Ensminger v. Marvin, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 210 848, 876 Ensworth V. Curd, 68 Mo. 282 716 Enterprise Oil &c. Co. v. National Transit Co., 172 Pa. St. 421 471, 475 Entwisle v. Carey, 9 Sad. (Pa.) 423 825 Epping V. Aiken, 71 Ga. 682 716, 773 Epstein V. Hugel, 138 N. Y. S. 1072 901 Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Coats, 44 Mich. 260 118 Erben v. Heston, 202 Pa. 406 349 Erie R. Co. v. State, 31 N. J. L. 531 249 Ernest v. Wible, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 576 825 V. Woodworth, 124 Mich. 1 831 Ernst V. Schmitz. 207 111. 604 729 TABLE OF CASES liii [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Erret v. Pritchard, 121 Iowa 496 754 Erringer v. Miller, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 344 444 Erskine v. Russell, 43 Colo. 449 496 Ervin, In re, 109 Fed. 135 196, 698 Ervin v. Masterman, 16 Ohio C. C. 62 153 Escallier v. Baines, 40 Wash. 176 357, 671 Escott V. Gray, 47 L. J. C. P. 606 719 Esdaile v. Wuytack, 25 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 474 745 Esmond v. Seeley, 28 App. Div. (N. Y.) 292 381, 393 Espinola v. Blasco, 15 La. Ann. 426 189 Esposito V. Bowden, 7 El. & Bl. 763 186, 577 Espy V. Comer, 76 Ala. 501 290, 579, 620, 621, 624, 626, 628 Ess, In re, 3 Biss. (U. S.) 301 139 Essel V. Hayward, 30 Beav. 158 585 Essex V. Essex, 20 Beav. 442 218, 289, 296, 627, 779 Estabrook v. Messersmith, 18 Wis. 545 824 V. Smith, 6 Gray (Mass.) 570 430, 803 V. Woods, 192 Mass. 499 75 Esterly v. Bressler, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 455 602 V. Rua, 122 Fed. 609 716 Estes, In re, 3 Fed. 134 535 Estes V. Whipple, 12 Vt. 373 741 Eston V. Strother, 57 Iowa 506 390 Estwick V. Conningsby, 1 Vern. 118 789 Etheridge v, Binney, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 272 500, 852, 895, 922, 923 Euclid Nat. Bank v. Union Trust & De- posit Co., 149 Fed. 975 696 Euless V. Tomlinson (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 534 551, 591 Eustis V. Bolles, 146 Mass. 413 580, 594 Evans, In re, 161 Fed. 590 685, 686 Evans, In re, 22 L. T. (N. S.) 507 677 Evans v. Biddleman, 3 Cal. 435 424, 517 V. Bradford, 35 Ind. 527 400, 942 V. Carey, 29 Ala. 99 499 V. Carter (Tex. Civ. App.), 176 S. W. 749 390 v. Clapp, 123 Mass. 165 364, 675 V. Coventry, S DeGex., M. & G. 911 788, 789 v. Drummond, 4 Esp. 89 606 v. Evans, 82 Iowa 492 418, 448 v. Evans, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 178 617, 638, 789 V. Gibson, 29 Mo. 223 389 V. Pigg, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 395 491 V. Hanson, 42 III. 234 275 V. Hawley, 35 Iowa 83 371, 531, 535, 625 V. Honsinger, 11 Ont. W. R. 861 732 V. Howell, 84 N. Car. 460 371 V. Hughes, 18 Jur. 691 638 V. Mackey (Ala.), 66 So. 3 675 V. Montgomery, 50 Iowa 325 590 V. Rhea, 12 Ky. L. 224 367, 371 V. Sanders, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 291 489 V. Silvey, 144 Ala. 398 617, 835 v. Smallcombe, L. R. 3 H. L. 249 773 V. Superior Steel Co., 114 111. App. 505 630, 836 V. Virgin, 69 Wis. 153 820 V. Warner, 20 App. Div. (N. Y.) 230 25, 351, 674, 767 V. Watts, 192 Pa. St. 112 265, 638 V. Weatherhead, 24 R. L 394 353, 358, 361, 637, 659, 664 V. White (Miss.), 31 So. 833 743 V. Winston, 74 Ala. 349 371 Evans &c. Brick Co. V. Hadfield, 93 Wis. 665 ' 811 Evansville Old Nat. Bank v. Heckman, 148 Ind. 490 529 Everall v. Stevens, 158 App. Div. (N. Y.) 723 535 Everet v. Williams, 9 Law Quart. Bev. 197 • 655 Everett v. Coe, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 180 52 V. Gores, 89 Wis. 421 722 V. Schepmoes, 6 Hun (N. Y.) 479 301, 535 Everhart v. Everhart, 3 Luz. Leg. Reg. (Pa.) 217 850 Everhart's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 349 218, 219 Everitt v. Chapman, 6 Conn. 347 81, 418, 486, 500, 767, 879 v. Watts, 3 Edw. (N. 'Y.) 486 855 Everly v. Durborrow, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 93 401, 670 Evernghim v. Enswood, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 326 455 Evers V. Life Assn., 59 Mo. 429 888 Eversole v. Cook, 92 Ind. 222 306, 939 Everson v. Gehrman, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 167 457 Everybody's Grocery & Meat Market, In re, 173 Fed. 492 " 686 Evoy V. Expressmen's Aid Soc, 66 Hun (N. Y.) 636 817 Ewart V. Nave-McCord Mercantile Co., 130 Mo. 112 292, 526, 529 Ewing, In re, 6 Prob. Div. 19 937 Ewing V. Ewing, 8 App. Cas. 822 668 V. French, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 353 802 V. Osbaldiston, 2 Myl. & C. 53-88 371 V. Patterson, 35 Ind. 326 856 V. Trippe, 73 Ga. 776 596, 604 Exchange Bank v. Ford, 7 Colo. 314 496 V. Gardner, 104 Iowa 176 383, 387 v. Tracy, 77 Mo. 594 579, 615, 618, 635 Express Co. v. State, 55 Ohio St. 69 1046, 1058 Eyre v. Cook, 9 Iowa 185 494 V. Lesher, 14 Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 189 715 Eyrich V. Capital State Bank, 67 Miss. 60 486 Eyton V. Knight, 2 Jur. 8 562 Factors &c. Ins. Co, v. New Harbor Protection Co., 37 La. Ann. 233 242 Fagan v. Long, 30 Mo. 222 562 Fagely v. Bellas, 17 Pa. St. 67 559, 564 Fagg V. Hambel, 21 Iowa 140 557 Fail V. McArthur, 31 Ala. 26 888 V. McRee, 36 Ala. 61 599 Fain v. Jones, 3 Head (Tenn.) 308 371 Fair v. Citizens' State Bank, 9 Kans. App. 779 - 260, 433 Fairhank v. Leary, 40 Wis. 637 154, 170 V. Newton, 50 Wis. 628 170, 172 Fairbanks v. Kittredge, 24 Vt. 9 306, -939 V. Kraft, 43 Mo. App. 121 823 V. Welshans, 55 Nebr. 362 526 Fairchild v. Fairchild, 64 N. Y. 471 276, 290, 617, 624, 625, 627, 878, 914 V. Holly, 10 Conn. 175 499, 562 V. Rushmore, 8 Bosw. (N. Y.) 698 425, 854 Faires v. Ross (Tex.), 18 S. W. 418 426, 487 Fairfield v. Day, 71 N. H. 63 ^^ 349 V. Kreps, 33 Pitts. L. J. (Pa.) (N. S.) 407 729 V. Phillips, 83 Iowa 571 276 Fairfield Shoe Co. v. Olds, 176 Ind. 526 ?" Fairly v. Nash, 70 Miss. 193 103 Fairthorne v. Weston, 3 Hare 387 659, 773 Faison v. Stewart, 112 N. Car. 332 718 Faith v. Richmond, 11 A. & E. 339 421 Faler v. Jordan, 44 Miss. 283 466, 486 Falk V. La Grange Cigar Co. (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 93 75 Falkner v. Hendy, 80 Cal. 636 668 V. Hunt, 73 N. Car. 571 218, 897 liv TABLE OF CASES iReferences are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, !S 615-1195.] Fallowes v. Williamson, 11 Ves. Jr. 306 815 Fall River Union Bank v. Sturtevant, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 372 371 Fall River Whaling Co. v. Borden, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 4f8 218, 276, 281, 289, 535, 624 Falls of Neuse Mfg. Co. v. Brower, 105 N. Car. 440 716 Family Endowment Soc., In re, L. R. 5 Ch. 118 562 Fancher v. Bibb Furnace Co., 80 Ala. 481 459 Faneuil Hall Nat. Bank v. Meloon, 183 Mass. 66 121, 430, 496 Fanning v. Chadwick, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 420 389, 716, 751, 753, 754 Fanshawe v. Lane. 16 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 71 1003, 1035 Fant V. Gadberry, 5 Rich. (S. Car.) 10 861 V. West, 10 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 149 426 Fargo V. Ames, 45 Iowa 491 302, 441, 529, 820 V. McVicker, 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 437 1046 Faris v. Cook, 110 Ky. 867 , 260 Farley, In re, 115 Fed. 359 685, 688 Farley v. Lovell, 103 Mass. 387 824 Farmer v. Putnam, 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 32 364 V. Samuel, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 187 389, 390 V. Underwood, 146 Iowa 345 992 Farmers' &c. Bank v. Bank of Glen Elder, 46 Kans. 376 817 Farmers' &c. Sav. Inst. v. Garesche, 12 Mo. App. 584 579, 638 Farmers' Bank v. Bayless, 35 Mo. 428 260, 433 V. Bayless, 41 Mo. 274 437 V. Green, 30 N. J. L. 316 604 V. Ritter (Pa.), 12 Atl. 659 621, 1037 V. Saling, 33 Ore. 394 910 V. Smith, 26 W. Va. 541 608, 882, 951 Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Ross, 29 Ohio St. 429 103 Farmers' Union Gin &c. Co. v. Seitz, 93 Ark. 329 297 Farnam v. Brooks, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 212 718 Farner v. Turner, 1 Iowa 53 912 Farnsworth v. Boardman, 131 Mass. 115 564, 1020, 1023 V. Union Trust & Deposit Co., 211 Fed. 912 421, 500 V. Whitney, 74 Maine 370 675, 756, 760 Farnum v. Ewell, 59 Vt. 327 805 V. Patch, 60 N. H. 294 103, 1059 Farr V. Johnson, 25 111. 522 295, 878 V. Pearce, 3 Madd. 74 215, 331 V. Wheeler, 20 N. H. 569 882 Farrand v. Gleason, 56 Vt. 633 104, 125 ' Farrar v. Beswick, 1 Moo. & Rob. 527 878 V. Deflinne, 1 C. & K. 580 594 V. Haselden, 9 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 331 815 V. Hutchinson, 9 A. & E. 641 -451 V. Kingsley, 126 N. Y. S. 584 652 V. Pearson, 59 Maine 561 716 Farrel v. Colwell, 30 N. J. L. 123 805 Farrell v. Friedlander, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 254 _ 512 Farris v. Morrison, 66 Ark. 318 450 Farrow v. Bresler, 108 Mich. 564 214 Farry v. Briggs, 22 Mich. 201 835 Faulds V. Yates, 57 111. 416 290, 395, 624 v. Hobbie Grocery Co., 178 Ala. 254 496 Faulkner v. Brigel, 101 Ind. 329 820 v. Hendy, 79 (Dal. 265 732 V. Hyman, 142 Mass. 53 121 V. Whitaker, 15 N. J. L. 438 265, 795, 806, 817, 820, 822 Faust V. Bui-gevin, 25 Ark. 170 564 V. Smith, 3 Colo. App. 505 848 Faver v. Bowers (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 131 214, 912 Fawcett v. Osborn, 32 111. 411 81, 900 Fawcett V. Whitehouse, I Russ. & M. 132 652 Farwell v. Brooks, 65 Minn. 184 530 V. Chambers, 62 Mich. 316 761 V. Cook, 42 111. App. 291 526 V. Davis, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 73 803, 808 V. Hathaway, 151 Mass. 242 306, 457, 940 V. Huling, 132 111. 112 660 V. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn. 495 270, 371, 415 V. Stick, 96 Iowa 87 529 V. Tyler, 5 Iowa 535 754, 764 Fay V. Burditt, 81 Ind. 433 189 V. Davidson, 13 Gil. (Minn.) 491 83 V. Finley, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 206 564 V. Ladd, 15 Gray (Mass.) 296 564 V. Noble, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 188 237; 241, 245, 250 V. Waldron, 3 N. Y. S. 894 103, 552 Fayette Liquor Co. v. Jones (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 726, 919 Fayette Nat. Bank v. Kenney, 79 Ky. 133 535 Fearn v. Tiernan, 4 Rob. (La.) 367 552 Featherstone v. Hunt, 2 D. & R. 233 598 Featherstonhaugh v. Fenwick, 17 Ves. 298 389, 393, 394, 446, 573, 689, 728 V. Turner, 25 Beav. 382 353, 636, 637, 729, 779 Fechheitner Fishel Co., In re, 212 Fed. 357 244 Fechteler v. Palm, 133 Fed. 462 104, 193, 216, 960 Feder v. Epstein, 69 Cal. 456 826 Feige v. Babcock, 111 Mich. 538 599, 650, 658 Feigenspan v. McDonnell, 201 Mass. 341 418, 424 Feighan v. Sobers, 239 Pa. 284 457 Feigley v. Whitaker, 22 Ohio St. 606 467, 592, 602, 927 Felan v. McGill. 3 Ch. Chamb. (U. C.) 68 , 536 Felbel v. Kahn, 29 App. Div. (N. Y.) 270 160, 975, 976, 990 Felder v. Wall, 26 Miss. 595 723, 858 Felichy V. Hamilton, 1 Wash. (U. S.) 491 486, 881 Fellerman v. Goldberg, 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 235 659 Fellowes v. Johnson, 91 App. Div. (N. Y.) 611 '^'^ 718 Fellows V. Jernigan, 68 Mo. 434 848 V. Wyman, 33 N. H. 351 604 Felt V. Cleghorn, 2 Colo. App. 4 292 V. Mitchell, 44 Ind. App. 96 577 Feltner v. Feltner, 132 Ky. 705 177 Felton V. Reid, S3 N. Car. 269 804, 808, 835 i Fender v. Stiles, 31 111. 460 826 Fenn v. BoUes, 7 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 202 326, 632 Fennell v. Myers, 25 Ky. L. 589 475, 496, 835, 854, 857 Fenton V. Folger, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 676 832 Fereday v. Wightwick, 1 Russ. & M. 45 152, 276, 623, 626, 729 Fergus v. Cleveland Paper Co., 3 111. App. 629 • 854 Ferguson v. Baker, 116 N. Y. 257 574, 740, 746 V. Bruckman, 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 182 722 V. Cripps, 87 Conn. 241 668, 729 V. Day, 6 Ind. App. 138 292, 831 V. Hanauer, 56 Ark. 179 269, 276, 444 V. Hass, 62 N. Or. 113 290, 625 V. Hite, 9 Dana (Ky.) 553 675 V. Johnson, 2 Ky. Op. 549 729 V. Shepherd, 33 Tenn. 254 473 V. Sims, 3 Ky. L. (abstract) 684 486 TABLE OF CASES Iv [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Ferguson V. Speith, 13 Mont. 487 296 V. Thacher, 79 Mo. 511 487 V. Wright, 61 Pa. St. 258 741, 743 Fergusson v. Fyffe, 8 CI. & F. 121 466 Fern v. Gushing, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 357 820 Ferns v. Carr, 28 Ch. Div. 409 215 Ferrall v. Bradford, 2 Fla. 508 493 Ferrari v. Saitta, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 613 563 Ferrell v. Bales, 23 Ky. L. 1516 733 Ferrero v. Buhlmeyer, 34 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 33 576, 580, 591 Ferris v. Baker, 127 Cal. 520 153, 1048 V. Thaw, 72 Mo. 446 111, 230, 237, 239, 243, 965 V. Van Ingen, UO Ga. 102 296, 367, 579, 623, 625, 627, 638 Fersner v. Bradley, 87 Md. 488 826 Person f. Monroe, 21 N. H. 462 528, 529, 486 Fessenden v. Forest Paper Co., 63 Maine 175 764 Fessler v. Hickernell. 82 Pa. 150 367 Fetner v. American Nat. Bank (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 185 413 Fetz V. Clark, 7 Minn. 217 847, 848, 854, 861 Feucht r. Evans, 52 Ark. 556 371 Feust V. Brown, 23 Mo. App. 332 852 Fichthorn v. Boyer, 5 Watts (Pa.) 159 421 Fickett V. Swift, 41 Maine 65 466, 888 Fidelity Banking &c. Co. v. Kangara Val. &c. Co., 95 Ga. 172 301 Fidelity Title &c. Co. v. Bell, 188 Pa. St. 637 733 Field V. Cooks, 16 La. Ann. 153 239, 243, 245, 965 11. App. 374 882 V. Hamilton, 45 Vt. 35 367 V. Howry, 132 Mich. 687 706 V. Runk, 22 N. J. L. 525 490 V. Tenney, 47 N. H. 513 886 V. Woodmancy, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 427 975, 978, 981, 987 Fielding v. Lucas, 87 N. Y. 197 720 Fifth Ave Bank v. Colgate, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 188 1007, 1008, 1055 V. Colgate, 120 N. Y. 381 1003, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1019, 1020, 1026 Filbrun v. Ivers, 92 Mo. 388 342, 381, 389, 390, 396, 728, 729 Filippini v. Stead, 4 Misc. (N. Y.) 405 558, 562, 596 Filkins v. Blackman, 13 Blatchf. (U. S.) 440 276 Filley v. Phelps, IS Conn. 294 291, 371, 455, 534, 579, 598, 617, 642, 820, 830, 835, 836 V. Walker, 28 Nebr. 506 201, 552 Fillyan v. Laverty, 3 Fla. 72 496, 630, 836 Filmar, In re,' 177 Fed. 170 694, 698 Filter v. Meyer, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 235 419, 508 Finch V. De Forest, 16 Conn. 445 430 v. Simon, 61 App. Div. (N. Y.) 139 499 Fincher v. Hanson, 12 Ga. App. 608 422 826 Fincke v. Fincke, 25 Hun (N. Y.) 616 ' 722 Findlay v. Carson, 97 Iowa 537 316 V. Stevenson, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 48 852, 861 Finger v. Hahn, 42 N. J. Eq. 606 321 Fingerhuth v. Lachmann, 37 111. App. 489 297 Fink V. Montgomery, 162 Ind. 424 721 Finlay v. Stewart, 56 Pa. St. 183 160, 757, 984, 990 Finletter v. Baum, 207 Pa. 361 729 Finley v. Lycoming County Mut.- Ins. Co., 30 Pa. St. 311 299 Finn v. Young, 46 Wash. 74 400 V. Young, 50 Wash. 543 342 Finnegan v. Allen, 60 111. App. 354 630 Finney v. Brant, 19 Mo. 42 358 Finney V. Erie City Iron Works, 109 Ala. 485 859 v. Turner. 10 Mo. 207 764 Finnigan v. Noerenbere, 52 Minn. 239 238 Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Floss, 67 Md. 403 299, 809 Firsch-Wickwire Co. v. Denison Cloth- ing Co. (Iowa), 138 N. W. 1101 535 First Commercial Bank v. Talbert, 103 Mich. 625 599, 605 First Nat. Bank v. Almy, 117 Mass. 476 232, 237, 241, 245, 251 v. Ballard, 19 Ohio C. C. 63 54, 103 V. Brenneisen, 97 Mo. 145 291, 528, 820 V. Brubaker, 128 Iowa 587 526, 528 V. Carpenter, 41 Iowa 518 454, 919 v. Cheney, 114 Ala. 536 262, 556, 558 v. Clark, 143 111. 83 1027 V. Cody, 93 Ga. 127 221, 475, 626 v. Conway, 67 Wis. 210 912, 917, 962 V. Creveling, 177 Pa. St 270 146 V. Davies, 43 Iowa 424 238 V. Dovetail &c. Gear Co., 143 Ind. 534 238 V. Eichelberger, 1 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 397 559, 564 V. Ells, 68 Ga. 192 604 V. Finck, 100 Wis. 446 556 V. Green, 40 Ohio St. 431 606 V. Greig, 43 Fla. 412 832 v. Grignon, 7 Idaho 646 417 V. Hattenbach, 13 S. Dak. 365 847, 848 V. Hill (Tex.), 151 S. W. 652 826 V. Huber, 75 Hun (N. Y.) 80 912, 1015, 1020, 1026, 1036 V. Larsen, 146 Wis. 653 558, 563 V. Leland, 122 Ala. 289 889 V. Manassa (Ore.), 150 Pad. 258 817 V. Mayer, 129 La. 981 426 V. Morgan, 73 N. Y. 593 431, 606 V. Newton, 10 Colb. 161 606, 922 V. Parsons, 128 Ind. 147 620 V. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 15 238 V. Rowley, 92 Iowa 530 454 V. Rusk, 179 111. App. 574 901 V. Sanders Bros., 162 Ky. 374 427. 818, 820 V. Stadden, 103 Minn. 403 418 V. State, 68 Nebr. 482 174 V. State Nat. Bank, 131 Fed. 422 435 V. Strait, 65 Minn. 162 888 V. Trebein Co., 59 Ohio St. 316 967, 968 V. Weston, 25 App. Div. (N. Y.) 414 432 V. Whitney, 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 38 1020, 1036 V. Wood, 128 N. Y. 39 742 First State iBank of Oldham v. Thomp- son, 32 S. Dak. 169 901 Fischer v. Campbell, 101 Fed. 156 967 v. Eyre, 151 N. Y. S. 692 924 V. Raab, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 87 587 V. Superior Ct., 98 Cal. 67 721, 850 Fish V. Farwell, 160 111. 236 824 V. First Nat. Bank, 150 Fed. 524 558 V. Gates, 133 Mass. 441 834 V. Thompson, 68 Vt. 273 83, 667, 669 Fish Bros. Wagon Co. v. La Belle Wagon Works, 82 Wis. 546 316, 319, 328 Fisher v. Bowles, 20 III. 396 920 V. Hume, 6 Mackey (D. C.) 9 419, 486 v. Jackson, 60 L. J. Ch. 482 575 V. Lang, 10 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 178 627 V. Linton, 28 Ont. 322 455 V. McPhee, 28 Nova. Scotia 523 554, 601 V. Melles, L. R. 18 Eq. Cas. 268n 583 V. Pender, 52 N. Car. 483 422 V. Russell, 2 L. C. Jur. (Can.) 191 467 V. Sweet, 67 Cal. 228 741, 898 V. Syfers, 109 Ind. 514 270, 304, 528, 529, 531 V. Taylor, 2 Hare 218 424 Ivi TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Fisher V. Tucker, 1 McCord Eq. (S. Car.) 169 579 V. Vaughn, 75 Wis. 609 291, 307 Fisk V. Fisk, 77 App. Div. (N. Y.) 83 326, 632 V. Herrick, 6 Mass. 271 820, 830 V. Tank, 12 Wis. 276 854 Fitch V. Forman, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 172 451 V. Hall, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 13 75 V. Harrington, 13 Gray (Mass.) 468 149, 150, 907 V. Pryse, 4 Ky. L. 904 580 V. Stamps, 6 How. (Miss.) 487 469 Fite V. Dorman (Tenn.), 57 S. W. 129 266, 328, 329, 553 Fithian v. Jones, 12 Phjla. (Pa.) 201 607 Fitz V. Reichard, 20 La. Ann. 549 631 Fitzgerald v. Christi, 20 N. J. Eq. 90 307, 554 V. Flynn (R. I.), 69 Atl. 921 786 V. Grimmell, 64 Iowa 261 121, 816 Fitzner v. NouUet, 114 La. 167 721 Fitzpatrick v. Flannagan, 106 U. S. 648 526, 642 Fitzsimmons v. Foley, 80 Mich. 518 675 Flack V. Charron, 29 Md. 311 814 Flagg V. Stowe, 85 111. 164 155, 242, 244, 275, 276, 664, 666 Flammer v. Green, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 538 587 Flake v. Day, 22 Ala. 132 861 Flanagan v. Alexander, 50 Mo. 50 371, 455, 486 V. Shuck, 6 Ky. L. 699 290, 371, 535 Flanagin v. Federal Champion, 2 N. J. Eq. 51 888 Planner v. Moore, 47 N. Car. 120 291 Flannery v. Anderson, 4 Nev. 437 826, 827 Flarsheim v. Brestrup, 43 Minn. 298 450 Flash V. Conn, 16 Fla. 428 235 Flavell, In re, 25 Ch. D. 89 719 Fleischmann v. Gottschalk, 70 Md. 523 295, 674 V. Fleischmann, 66 N. Y. S. 631 657 Fleisher v. Hinde (Mo.), 93 S. W. 1126 291, 820 Fleming, In re, 184 Pa. St. 88 635 Fleming v. Billings, 9 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 149 535 V. Carson, 37 Ore. 252 582, 721, 728, 732 V. Lay, 109 Fed. 952 103 V. Ross, 225 111. 149 499 Flemming v. Prescott, 3 Rich, L. (S. Car.) 307 454 Flemyng v. Hector, 2 Gale 180 166 Fleshman v. Collier, 47 Ga. 253 817, 893 Fletcher v. Anderson, 11 Iowa 228 371, 430 V. Brown, 7 Humphr. (Tenn.) 385 763 V. Dana, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 377 854 V. Ingram, 46 Wis. 191 396, 511, 812 V. Pollard, 2 Hen. & M. (Va.) 544 727, 914 V. Post, 104 Mich. 424 306, 935 V. Pullen, 70 Md. 205 • 138, 475, 887, 906, 907, 908 V. Reed, 131 Mass. 312 224, 573, 729 V. Vandusen, 52 Iowa 448 720, 787 V. Vanzant, 1 Mo. 196 422 Flight V. Bolland, 4 Russ. 298 778 Flindt V. Waters, 15 East. 260 186 Flinn v. Hanbury, 157 App. Div. (N. Y.) 207 722, 726 Flint V. Tillman, 2 Heisk. (Tenn.) 202 764 Flock V. Williams, 175 111. App. 319 92,, 445, 882, 889 Flood V. Busch, 165 Mo. App. 142 230 Florida Terr. v. Redding, 1 Fla. 242 616 Flour City Nat. Bank v. Widener, 163 N. Y. 276 425, 437, 469, 561 Flower v. Barnekoff, 20 Ore. 132 83, 168, 169, 218, 623 V. Millaudon, 19 La. 185 364 v. O'Connor, 7 La. 194 617, 804, 835 V. Williams, 1 La. 22 825 Flowers v. Helm, 29 Mo. 324 600 V. Strickland, 10 Ga. App. 739 827 Floyd, In re, 156 Fed. 206 693 Floyd V. Boyd (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 494 119 V. Duffy, 68 W. Va. 339 218 V. Efron, 66 Tex. 221 983, 984 V. Kicklighter, 139 Ga. 133 216, 223, 850 V. Miller, 61 Ind. 224 604, 925 V. Ort, 20 Kans. 162 834 V. Patterson, 72 Tex. 202 655 V. Wallace, 31 Ga. 688 419, 486 Flynn v. Bank of Mineral Wells, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 481 469 V. Scale, 2 Cal. App. 665 358, 617, 658, 718 Focke V. Blum, 82 Tex. 436 530 Foerster v. Kirkpatrick, 2 Minn. 210 806, 846, 847, 848 Fogarty v. CuUen, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 397 861 Fogg V. Johnston, 27 Ala. 432 222, 586, 773, 775 V. Lawry, 68 Maine 78 291, 831 V. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 17 Fed. 871 953 V. Virgin, 19 Maine 352 811 Folds V. Allardt, 35 Minn. 488 188 Foley V. Addenbrooke, 4 Ad. & El. (N. S.) 197 493 V. Foley, 15 App. Div. (N. Y.) 276 668 Folk V. Schaeffer, 180 Pa. St. 613 446 V. Wilson, 21 Md. 538 265, 267, 421, 434, 466, 499, 888 Folks V. Burletson, 177 Mich. 6 91, 92, 97 Follmer v. Frommel, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 370 861 Folsom V. Detrick Fertilizer &c. ,Co., 85 Md. 52 815, 967 V. Fernstrom, 43 Utah 432 550, 717 V. Marlette, 23 Nev. 459 350, 354, 358, 361, 665 Foltz v. Pourie, 2 Desaus. (S. Car.)- 40 604 Fooks V. Williams, 120 Md. 436 224, 290, 587, 850 Foot, In re, 8 Ben. 228 535 Foot V. Goldman, 68 Miss. 529 458 Forbes, In re, 128 Fed. 137 685, 686, 691, 692 Forbes v. Garfield, 32 Hun (N. Y.) 389 468, 600, 927 V. Hagman, 75 Va. 168 448 V. Morehead, 22 Ky. L. 853 486 V. ScannelL 13 Cal. 242 458 V. Steven, L. R. 10 Eq. 178 937 V. Thorpe, 209 Mass. 570 216, 561, 954 v. Webster, 2 Vt. 58 364 V. Whittemore, 62 Ark. 229 240 Forcheimer v. Foster (Ala.), 68 So. 879 715, 719 Ford V. Cunningham, 87 Cal. 209 912, 916 V. McBryde, 45 Tex. 498 399 Forde v. Herron, 4 Munf. (Va.) 316 281 Fordice v. Scribner, 108 Ind. 85 859 Fordsville Banking Co. v. Thompson, 26 Ky. L. 534 472 Fordyce v. Hicks, 80 Iowa 272 624 Fordyce v. Shriver, 115 111. 530 381, 383, 387 Fore V. Hittson, 70 Tex. 517 487 Foreman v. Carter, 9 Kans. 674 186 V. Weil, 98 Ala. 495 796 Fore St. Warehouse Co. v. Durrant, 10 Q. B.. D. 471 826 Forkner v. Stuart, 6 Grat. (Va.) 197 444 Fornes v. Wright, 91 Iowa 392 486 Forney v. Adams, 74 Mo. 138 366, 371, 455 Forrer v. Forrer, 29 Grat. (Va.) 134 350, 356, 389, 390, 667 TABLE OF CASES Ivii [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ l-608j Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Forrester v. Oliver, 1 Bradw. (111.) 259 579 Forst V. Kirkpatrick, 64 N. J. Eq. 578 118, 555 V. Leonard, 112 Ala. 296 496 V. Parker, 34 N. J. L. (5 Vroom) 71 306 ■ Forster v. Lawson, 3 Bing. 452 805 Forsyth v. Butler, 152 Cal. 396 362, 363 Forsyth County v. Lash, 89 N. Car. 159 342 Ft. Madison Bank v. Alden, 129 t!. S. 372 - 454 Ft. Worth &c. R. Co. v. Johnston, S Tex. Civ. App. 24 220 V. Shank (Tex. (Jiv. App.), 167 S. W. 1093 848 Fort Worth Nat. Bank v. Daugherty, 81 Tex. 301 304, 529 Fort Worth Pub. Co. v. Hitson, 80 - Tex. 216 960 Fortis V. Hermanos, 6 Philippine 100 449 Fortune v. Brazier, 10 Ala. 791 767 Forward v. Forward, 6 Allen (Mass.) 494 675, 766 Fosdick V. Van Horn, 40 Ohio St 459 139, 433, 464, 911, 922, 923 Foss V. Dawes, 72 Nebr. 608 651 V. Harbottle, 2 Hare 461 773 V. Roby, 195 Mass. 292 318 Foster v. AUanson, 2 T. R. 479 666, 716, 755 V. Andrews, 2 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 160 455 V. Barnes, 81 Pa. St. 377 290, 832 V. Carr, 135 Cal. 83 677, 850 V. Chaplin, 19 Grant. Ch. (U. C.) . . . 251 670 • • • V. Donald, 1 Jac. & W. 252 716 s s V V. Field, 13 Okla. 230 722 V. Fifield, 29 Maine 136 888, 916 V. Goddard, 1 Black (U. S.) 506 674 V. Hall, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 346 525, 581 V. Hooper, 2 Mass. 572 492 V. Ives, 53 Vt. 458 716 V. Rison, 17 Grat. (Va.) 321 718 V. Sargent, 72 N. H. 170 282, 284, 624 V. Vanauken, 4 N. J. L. 98 748 Foster's Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 391 290, 296, 303, 444, 627 Fougner v. First Nat. Bank, 141 111. 124 79, 80, 86, 103 Fouke V. Brengle (Tex. Civ. App.), 51 S, W. 519 80 Fountain v. Menard, 53 Minn. 443 218 Fountaine v. Urquhart, 33 Ga. Supp. 184 657, 719 Fourth Nat. Bank v. Altheimer, 91 Mo. 190 104, 439, 469, 878, 899 V. Flach, 2 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 443 601 V. Heuschen, 52 Mo. 207 439 V. Mead, 216 Mass. 521 430 V. New Orleans. &c. R. Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 624 291, 591, 719 Fourth Street Nat. Bank v. Whitaker, 170 Pa St 297 146, 1002, 1008, 1020, 1026 Fouse V. Shelly, 64 W. Va. 425 342, 357, 371, 671 Fowle V. Harrington, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 146 474, 605 V. Kirkland, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 299 716 V. Torrey, 131 Mass. 289 815 Fowler v. Bailley, 14 Wis. 125 624, 817 V. Coker, 107 Ga. 817 557, 602 V. Reynal, 2 DeG. & Sm. 749 118 V. Richardson, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 508 434, 499, 60S V. Stone's River Nat Bank (Tenn.), 57 S. W. 209 169 Fowlkes v. Baldwin, 2 Ala. 705 826, 857 V. Bowers, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 144 53S Fox V. Blue Grass Grocery Co., 22 Ky. L. 169 796, 806, 817 V. Clemmons, 30 Ky. L. 805 511, 857, 863 V. Curtis, 176 Pa. St 52 458, 721 V. Graham, How. N. P. (Mich.) 90 1014, 1020, 1027, 1031 V. Hanbury, Cowp. 445 201, 294, 444, 580, 829, 830 V. McComb, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 630 238 V. Mahony, 91 App. Div. (N. Y.) 364 991 V. Norton, 9 Mich. 207 422 Francis, In re. Pacific Law Rep., Dec. 17, 1872 (U. S. Dist. Ct of Ore.) 40 Francis, In re, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 286 104 Francis v. Lavine, 21 La. Ann. 265 719 V. McNeal, 228 U. S. 695 686, 687, 706 V. McNeal, 186 Fed. 481 685, 686 V. Rand, 7 Conn. 221 764 V. Shearer, 13 Ky. L. 283 661 V. Smith, 1 Duv. (Ky.) 121 558, 809, 834 V. Spittle, 9 L. J. Ch. 230 720 V. Taylor, 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 187 1059 Francklyn v. Sprague, 121 U. S. 215 591, 956, 962, 964 Frank v. Anderson, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 695 190 537 V. Beswick, 44 U. C. Q. B. 1 ' 769 V. Drenkhahn, 76 Mo. 508 957, 1059 V. Michigan Paper Co., 179 Fed. 776 707 \ V. Peters, 9 Ind. 343 528 V. Tatum (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 900 848 v. Tatum, 87 Tex. 204 121, 265, 795, 819 V. Webb, 67 Miss. 462 350 Frankenstein v. North, 79 111. App. 669 886 Franklin v. Hardie, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 1219 X 500 v. Hoadley, 145 App. Div. (N. Y.) 228 889 V. Morris, 154 Pa. St 152 457 v. Robinson, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 157 - 350 V. Tonjours, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 506 641 v. Trickey, 9 Ariz. 282 617 Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Hender- son, 86 Md. 452 526, 531 Franks v. Lockey, 45 Vt. 395 826 Franz v. William Barr Dry Goods Co., 132 Mo. App. 8 193 Fraser, In re, 2 Q. B. 633 553 Fraser v. Kershaw, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 880 601, 721, 831 V. Wolcott, 4 McLean (U. S.) 365 604 Frayes v. Johns, 11 Colo. App. 219 215 Frazer, Matter of, 34 Am. Bkr. R. 467 693 Frazer v. Frazer Lubricator Co., 121 111. 147 . 261 V. Fulcher, 17 Ohio 260 187 V. Howe, 106 111. 563 559, 639 V. Linton, 183 Pa; St. 186 168, 295, 674 Frazier, In re, 2 Q. B. 633 596 Frazier v. Dowling, 18 Ky. L. 1109 266 V. Frazier, 77 Va. 775 350, 356, 637 Frear v. Lewis, 166 App. Div. (N. Y.) 210 574, 660 Freck v. Blakeston, 83 Pa. St 474 395, 397 Fredenburg v. Lyon Lake M. E. Church, 37 Mich. 476 1051 Frederick v. Cooper, 3 Iowa 171 225, 307, 357, 550, 671, 715, 716, 719, 850 Fredlock v. Fredlock (W. Va.), 74 S. E. 865 817 Free v. Beatley, 95 Mich. 426 290, 296, 627 Freedman v. Holberg, 89 Mo. App. 340 525, 826 Iviii TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Freeland v. Stansfeld, 2 Eq. 1181 639, 721 Freeman, Ex parte. Buck, Bankr. 471 558, 809 Freeman v. Abramson, 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 101 444, 487 V. Badgley, 105 Cal. 372 559 V. Berkey, 45 Minn. 438 837 T. Bloomiield, 43 Mo. 391 201, 210, 466, 552, 882 V. Carhart, 17 Ga. 348 817, 818 V. Carpenter, 17 Wis. 126 424 V. Freeman, 136 Mass. 260 640, 661, 769 V. Freeman, 142 Mass. 98 673 V. Gordon, 59 111. App. 189 426 V. Hemenway, .75 Mo. App. 611 152, 153, 591, 1048 V. Huttig Sash & Door Co. (Tex.), 153 S. W. 122 113, 244, 559, 561 V. Lowell Specialty Co., 174 Mich. 59 279, 715 V. Miller, 157 App. Div. (N. Y.) 715 719, 899 V. Stewart, 41 Miss. 138 \ 371, 496, 630, 808, 835, 836 Friedenbloom v. McAfee (Tex.), 167 S. W. 28 717 Freligh v. Miller, 16 La. Ann. 418 201, 552 French v. Andrade, 6 Term. Rep. 582 849 V. Barron, 49 Vt. 471 907 V. Donohue, 29 Minn. Ill 193, 194, 195, 196 V. GrifBn, 104 N. Car. 141 486, 599 V. Lovejoy, 12 N. H. 458 302, 441. 534 V. Parker, 16 R. I. 219 331 V. Rowe, 15 Iowa 563 508 V. Vanatta, 83 Ark. 306 625, 626 V. Weir, 17 U. C. Q. B. 245 459, 861 Frentress v. Markle, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 553 562 Freschel v. Bellesheim, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 636 979 Fresno Canal &c. Co. v. Warner, 72 Cal. 379 155 Fretwell v. Branyon, 67 S. Car. 95 284 Fretz V. Johnson, 15 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 208 820 Freund v. Murray, 39 Mont. 539 381 573 753 Frey v. Eisenhardt, 116 Mich. 160 276, 281, 282, 283, 638 Frick V. Barbour, 64 Pa. 120 914, 918 V. Reynolds, 6 Okla. 638 466 Fried v. Burk, 125 Md. 500 631, 658, 715, 716 849, 850 Friedburgher v. Jaberg, 20 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 279 458, 583 Friedenwall Co. v. Asheville Tobacco Works &c., 117 N. Car. 544 954 Friedman v. Engel, 93 Mo. App. 464 561 Friedrich, In re, 100 Fed. 284 704 Friend v. Duryee, 17 Fla. Ill 151, 412, 426, 430, 862 V. Michaelis, 15 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 354 820 Frierson v. Morrow (Tenn.), 48 S. W. 245 360, 659, 664, 725, 729 Fries v. Ennis, 132 Pa. St. 195 531, 723 Friese v. Simpson (Ga.), 84 S. E. 219 901, 919 Frigerio v. Crottles, 20 La. Ann. 351 357, 671 Frink v. Branch, 16 Conn. 260 290, 371 V. Ryan, 4 III. 322 763 Fripp V. Williams, 14 S. Car. 502 467, 888' Frisbie v. Felton, 65 Vt. 138 475 V. Larned, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 450 457 V. McFarlane, 196 Pa. St. 110 825 Frisk V. Reigelman, 75 Wis. 499 265, 796, 817 Fritche V. Liddell, 6 Ohio Dec. 971 827 Frith V. Lawrence, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 434 371, 669 Fritz V. Fritz, 141 Iowa 721 675 748, 990 557, 562 742, 743 795, 847 Frizzell v. Woodman Pub. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 130 S. W. 659 503 Frost V. Hanford, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 540 486 V. Schackleford, 57 Ga. 260 815 V. Thompson, 219 Mass. 360 128 V. Walker, 60 Me. 468 147, 965, 1046, 1053 V. Wolf, 77 Tex. 455 265, 444 Frothingham v. Barney, 6 Hun (N. Y.) 366 1059 V. Seymour, 118 Mass. 489 215 V. Seymour, 121 Mass. 409 768 Froun v. Davis, 97 Ind. 401 448, 449 Front V. Hardin, 56 Ind. 166 126 Froweiu v. Haysler, 87 Mo. App. 310 825 Frow's. Estate, In re, 73 Pa. St. 459 367, 534, 558 Fruin-Colmon Contracting Co. v. Chat- terson, 146 Ky. 504 264 Fry V. Patterson, 49 N. J. L. 612 499, 606 V. Potter, 12 R. I. 542 "•■" """ Frye v. Phillips, 46 Wash. 190 V. Sanders, 21 Kans. 26 Fryer v. Breeze, 16 Colo. 323 V. Barker, 142 Iowa 708 177, 655,' 656 F. T. Blanchard Co. v. Simon, 104 Va. 209 266 FuUan v. Abrahams, 29 Kans. 725 533 FuUenwider v. Bank, 101 Ark. 259 721, 725 Fuller V. Atwood, 13 R. L 316 222, 775 V. Benjamin, 23 Maine 255 _ 719 V. £1 Paso Live Stock Commission Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 174 S. W. 930 729, 929 V. McHenry, 83 Wis. 573 191 V. Miller, 105 Mass. 103 674 V. Percival, 126 Mass. 381 756 V. Rowe, 57 N. Y. 23 230, 240, 241, 245, 560 V. Rowe, 59 Barb. (N. Y.) 344 559 V. Scott, 8 Kans. 25 265 Fuller Electrical Co. v. Lewis, 101 N. Y. 674 270 Fullerton v. Seymour, 5 Vt. 249 861 Fulmer's Appeal, In re, 90 Pa. St. 143 275, 369, 674 Fulmer v. Abendroth, 40 Hun (N. Y.) 639 1008, 1011 Fulmore v. McGeorge, 91 Cal. 611 370 Fulton, In re, 7 Ont. L. Rep. 445 288 V. Central Bank, 92 Pa. St. 112 607 V. Hughes, 63 Miss. 61 V. Loughlin, 118 Ind. 286 V. Mc(;racken, 18 Md. 528 V. Thompson, 18 Tex. 278 V. Williams, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 108 420 Funck V. Haskell, 132 Mass. 580 386, 898 v.- Heintze (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 417 604 Funk V. Babbitt, 55 111. App. 124 419, 486 V. Leachman, 4 Dana (Ky.) 24 369 V. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.), 142 S. W. 24 985 V. Ryan, 4 111. 322 743 V. Young, 241 Pa. 72 457 Fuqua v. Massie, 95 Ky. 387 75, 79 Furber v. Carter, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 271 886 Furman v. Fisher, 4 Coldw. (Tenn.) 626 371 V. McMillian, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 121 982, 985, 987 Furniture Co. v. Wynn (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 340 834 Gabriel v. Evill, 9 M. & W. 297 221 Gaddie v. Mann, 147 Fed. 960 652, 720, 721 531, 559 430 265 599 TABLE OF CASES llX [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Gaddis v. Durashy, 13 N. J. L. 324 268 Gadsden v. Carson, 9 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 252 532, 535 Gaffney v. Hoyt, 2 Idaho 199 910 Gage V. Canada Pub. Co., 11 Ont. App. 402 328 V. Lewis, 68 111. 604 564 V. Parmelee, 87 111. 329 362, 369, 775 V. Reid, 118 111. 35 944 V. Rogers, 51 Mo. App. 428 596 V. Rollins, -10 Mete. (Mass.) 348 191 Gaiennie v. Akin, 17 La. 42 817 Gaines v. Catron, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 514 290 V. Coney, 51 Miss. 323 291, 665 V. Nashville &c. Bank (Tenn. Ch.) 52 S. W. 467 816 V. Therman, 8 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 521 496 Gainey v. Gilson, 149 Ind. 58 231 Gaisell v. Johnston, 68 Wash. 470 601, 675, 760, 834 Gaither v. Caldwell, 21 N. Car. 504 . 803, 815 Gai Wo Chaus Co., In re, 9 Hawaii 507 496 Galbraith v. Devlin (Wash.), 148 Pac. 589 393 V. Gedge, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 631 281, 290, 535, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628 V. Tracy, 153 III. 54 290, 296, 617, 627, 628, 631, 635, 639, 644 Galbraith's Estate, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 20 637 Galb'reath v. Moore, 2 Watts (Pa.) 86 716, 754 Gale V. Leckie, 2 Stark. 107 768. 769, 770 V. Miller, 54 N. Y. 536 604 V. SuUoway, 62 N. H. 57 650 V. Townsend, 45 Minn, 357 121, 796, 817 CJaligher v. Lockhart, 11 Mont. 109 561 Gallagher v. First Nat. Bank (Pa.), 5 Cent Rep. 725 528 Gallagher's Appeal, In re, 114 Pa. St. 353 307, 450, 526, 533 Gallier v. Walsh, 1 Rob. (La.) 226 677 Galliott V. Planters' & Mechanics' Bank, 1 McMul. (S. Car.) 209 592, 596, 604, 605 Gallot V. McCIuskey, 18 La. Ann. 259 796 Galloway v. Hughes, 1 Bailey (S. Car.) 553 414 Gallup's Appeal, 76 Conn. 617 937 Gallway v. Mathew, 10 East 264 418, 429. 824 Gait V. Calland, 7 Leigh (Va.) 594 454, 836 Galveston &c. R. Co. v. Davis, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 468 25 V. Houston- (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. 842 220 Galway v. FuUerton, 17 N. J. Eq. 389 ^^^ V. Nordlinger, 51 Hun (N. Y.) 639' 471, 486, 511 Gamble v. Grimes, 2 Ind. 392 433 V. Loffler, 28 S. Dak. 239 117 Gammon v. Huse, 100 111. 234 608 Ganahl v. Shore, 24 Ga. 17 912 Gandolfo v. Appleton. 40 N. Y. S33 499. 661 Gannett v. Cunningham, 34 Maine 56 602. 805, 834 V. Hausaman, 42 Okla. 41 508 Gano V.' SamueL 14 Ohio 592 425 Gansevoort v. Kennedy, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 279 416, 593, 670 Ganson v. Lathrop. 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 455 437. 536 Ganzer v. Fricke, 57 Pa. St. 316 918 Garbett v. Gedney. 15 Misc. (N. Y.) 440 608 V. Veale, D. & M. 345 292 Card V. Clark, 29 Iowa 189 603 Garden, In re, 93 Fed. 423 ' 704 Garden City Nat. Bank v. Schulman, 89 Kans. 182 471, 919 Gardenhire v. Smith, 39 Ark. 280 75 Gardiner v. Fargo, 58 Mich. 72 564, 743, 760 V. Gardiner, 212 Mass. 508 1053 Gardner v. Austin, 14 Pa. Co. Ct. 549 826 V. Baker, 25 Iowa 343 491, 499 V. Cleveland. 9 Pick. (Mass.) 334 745 V. Conn, 34 Ohio St 187 604, 606, 666 V. Gumming, Ga. Dec. 1 598, 727 V. Haines, 19 S. Dak. 514 967, 968 V. Keogh Mfg. Co., 63 Hun (N. y!) 519 967 V. Northwestern Mfg. Co., 52 111. 367 889 V. Salyer, 1 Ky. L. (abstract) 420 364 V. Wiley, 46 Ore. 96 430 Gargan v. School Dist. No. 15, 4 Colo. . 53 837 Garland. Ex parte. 10 Ves. 110 39. 158, 201 Garland v. Hickey, 75 Wis. 178 866, 919 V. Jacomb, L. R. 8 Ex. 216 426 Garner v. Simpson, Minor (Ala.) 67 866 V. Tiffany, Minor (Ala.) 167 796 Garner's Appeal, 1 Walk. (Pa.) 438 444 Garnett v. Richardson, 35 Ark. 144 155, 237, 239, 243, 245, 951, 965 V. Wills, 24 Ky. L. 617 715 Garrard v, Dawson, 49 Ga. 434 496, 835, 836 Garretson v. Brown, 185 Pa. St. 447 352, 381. 603, 667, 718 V. Weaver, 3. Edw. (N. Y.) 385 721 788 Garrett v. Bradford, 28 Gratt. (Va.) 609 674 V. Handley, 3 B. & C. 462 802 v. MuUer, 37 Tex. 589 798 V. Robinson, 80 Ala. 192 726 V. Woodward, 2 Cranch C. C. 190 888 Garrett-Williams Co. v. Watkins, 84 Vt. 299 200 Garrison, In re, 149 Fed. 178 707 Garrison v. Bowman (Tex. Civ. App.). 183 S. W. 70 975 V. Nute, 87 111. 215 533 Garrow v. Nicolai, 24 Ore. 76 677 Garth v. Davis, 120 Ky. 106 218, 289, 623 Gartner Hancock Lumber Co.. In re. 173 Fed. 153 v 704 Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 22 Fed. 197 155, 238, 240, 241, 245 Carver v. Allan. 3 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 238 732 Garvin v. Paul, 47 N. H. 158 820 V. Stewart, 59 111. 229 _ 836 Garza v. Alamo Live Stock Commis- sion Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 687 V 861 Gasely v. Separatists Soc, 13 Ohio St. 144 142 Gaskell v. Nolte, 138 App. Div. (N. Y.) 875 861 Gaskill v. Adams, 83 Mo. App. 380 579, 658 v. Weeks, 154 Mich. 223 616 Gass V. Stinson, 3 Sumn. 98 450 V. Wilhite, 2 Dana (Ky.) 170 142 Gasser v. Wall, 111 Minn. 6 978 Gassie's Succession, 42 La. Ann. 239 717 Cast V. Johnston, 3 N. Y. St. 258 555 Gaston v. Drake, 14 Nev. 175 170 V. Kellogg, 91 Mo. 104 350 Gates V. Andrews. 37 N. Y. 657 530 Ix TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Gates V. Beecher, 60 N. Y. 518 469 V. Bennett, 33. Ark. 475 304, 440 V. Fisk, 45 Mich. 522 467, 468, 486 V. Fraser, 6 III. App. 229 224 V. Graham, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 53 422 V. Johnson, 56 Nebr. 808 83 V. Paul, 117 Wis. 170 715 V. Pollock, 50 N. Car. 344 451 V. Watson, 54 Mo. 585 486, 848, 905 V. Watt, 127 Pa. St. 20 . 825 Gathings v. State, 44 Miss. 343 518 Gaty V. Tyler, 33 Mo. App. 494 573, 659 Gauger v. Fautz, 45 Wis. 449 675, 741, 749 Gauss V. Hobbs, 18 Kans. 500 559 Gaut V. Reed, 24 Tex. 46 496, 598, 617, 630, 808, 835, 836 Gavin v. Walker, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 643 260, 424, 466, 922, 923 Gay, In re, 98 Fed. 870 699, 705 Gay V. Bowen, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 100 888 V. Fretwell, 9 Wis. 186 861, 910 V. Householder, 71 W. Va. 277 350, 417, 727, 729 V. Johnson, 32 N. H. 167 188, 826 V. Johnson, 45 N. H. 587 433 V. Kohlsaat, 223 III. 250 237 V. Ray, 195 Mass. 8 291, 659 V. Seibold, 97 N. Y. 472 261, 262, 264 V. Waltman, 89 Pa. St. 453 459 Gayle v. Pennington, 185 Ala. 53 718 Gaylord v. Imhoff, 26 Ohio St. 317 297 Gearing v. Carroll, 151 Pa. St. 79 1008, 1019, 1021, 1051 Geddes, Appeal of, 80 Pa. St. 442 384 Geddes v. Simpson, 2 Bay (S. Car.) 533 826 Gedge v. Cromwell, 19 App. D. C. 192 469 Gee V. Gee, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 395 982, 983, 987 V. Humphries, 49 S. Car. 253 367, 633 Geery v. Cockroft, 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 146 371, 455 Geiger v. Cawley, 146 Mich. S50 321 Geise V. Ragan, 80 Ga. 732 746 Geller, Ex parte, 1 Rose 297 39 Genessee &c. Ins. Co. v. Westman, 8 U. C. (Q. B.) 487 249 Gensburg v. Field, 104 Iowa 599 882 Gentry v. Singleton, 128 Fed. 679 75 George v. Benjamin, 100 Wis. 622 744 V. Carpenter, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 225 1034 V. Grant, 20 Hun (N. Y.) 372 1032 V. Grant, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 69 530 V. Grant, 91 N. Y. 262 1020, 1023, 1036 V. Morison, 93 Md. 132 278, 538 V. Pfeil, 158 111. App. 261 743, 764 V. Tate, 102 U. S. 564 421, 443 V. Wamsley, 64 Iowa 175 270, 527, 528 George Bohon Co. v. Moren, 151 Ky. 811 465, 500, 816 George Norris Co. v. Levin, 81 S. Car. 36 817 George W. McAlpin Co. v. Finsterwald, 57 Ohio St. 524 457 Georgia Co. V. Castleberry, 43 Ga. 187 953, 958, 961 Georgia Hoine Ins. Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga. 630 298, 299 Georgia Northern R. Co. v. Snellgrove (Ga. App.), 85 S. E. 790 926 Geortner v. Canaioharie, 2 Barb. (N. ' Y.) 625 291, 371, 601, 721 Gerard v. Basse, 1 Ball. (Pa.) 119 422 v. Bates, 124 111. 150 292, 719, 815, 831 v. Gateau, 84 111. 121 350, 576, 587, 590 Gerber i. Jones, 36 Nebr. 126 725 Gere v. Clarke, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 350 808 Gerli V. Mistletoe Silk Mills (N. J.), 93 Atl. 571 924 V. Poidebard Silk Mfg. Co., 57 N. J. L. 432 444 German Bank v. Schloth, 59 Iowa 316 456 Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 144 N. Y. 195 299 German Min. Co., In re, 4 DeGex, M. & G. 19 _ 668 German Mut. Fire Ins. Co. V. Fox, 4 Nebr. (unoff.) 833 299 German Sav. Bank v. Wulfekuhler, 19 Kans. 60 469 Gernon v. Hoyt, 90 N. Y. 631 433, 899 Gernt v. Cusack, 106 Tenn. 141 850 Gershner v. Scott-Mayer Commission Co., 93 Ark. 301 95 Gervais V. Edwards, 2 Dr. & W. 80 778 Gessner v. Roeming, 135 Wis. 535 826 Getchell v. Foster, 106 Mass. 42 260, 898 Gething v. Keighley, 9 Ch. Div. 547 675 Gettins v. Hennessey, 60 Ore. 566 465, 887 Getty V. Devlin, 54 N. Y. 403 389, 978 Geurinck v. Alcott, 66 Ohio St. 94 193, 196 Gewirtz v. Abraham, 171 111. App. 433 444 Geyer v. Carpenter, 15 Phila. (Pa.) 172 675 G, H. Haulenbeck Adv. Agency v. No- vember, 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 836 471, 486, 825 Gibbons v. Bell, 45 Tex. 417 218 v. Bush Co., 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 619 836 V. Surber, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 155 493 Gibb's Estate, In re, 157 Pa. St. 59 25, 104, 210, 213, 254, 882, 897, 1046 Gibbs V. Humphrey, 91 Wis. Ill 537. 538 Gibson, In re, 191 Fed. 665 217 Gibson v. Cunningham, 92 Mo. 131 589, 590 V. Glover, 3 Colo. App. 506 675 V. Goldsmid, 5 De G., M. & G. 757 779 V. Moore, 6 N. H. 547 370, 666, 741, 754 TJ. Ohio Farina Co., 4 Wkly. L. Gaz. (Ohio) 81 742 V. Smith, 31 Nebr. 354 69, 85, 104 V. Stevens, 7 N. H. 352 292, 830, 831 V. Warden, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 244 422 Giddings v. Palmer, 107 Mass. 269 371 V. Seevers, 24 Md. 363 559 Gifford V. Livingston, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 380 1046 Gilbert v. Anderson, 73 N. J. Eq. 243 400 V. Emmons, 42 111. 143 512 V. Howard Automatic Mach. Co., 147 N. Car. 308 292, 344, 746 V. Lichtenberg, 98 Mich. 417 802 V. Whidden, 20 Maine 367 890 Gilbough V. Stahl Bldg. Co., 16 Tex. Civ. App. 448 596 Gilchrist v. Brande, 58 Wis. 184 486, 596, 926 V. Kelley, 85 Mich. 413 675 Gilhooly v. Hart, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 176 350 Gilkerson-Sloss Commission Co. v. Sa- linger, 56 Ark. 294 191 Gill V. Bickel, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 67 796, 802, 809, 825, 834 V. Crosby, 63 III. 190 444 T. Ferris, 82 Mo. 156 591, 899 V. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 47 S. W. 751 508 V. Geyer, 15 Ohio St. 399 673, 674 V. Kuhn, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 333 901 T. Lattimore, 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 381 297 V. Manchester &c. R. Co., L. E. 8 Q. B. 186 196, 220 TABLE OF CASES Ixi [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Gill V. Wilson, 2 Willson Civ. Cas. Ct App. (Tex.), § 380 385 Gillam V. Nussbaum, 95 III. App. 277 722 Gillan v. Morrison, 1 DeG. & Sm. 421 364, 670 Gillaspy v. Peck, 46 Iowa 461 533, 536 Gille Hardw. &c. Co. v. Harrison, 89 Mo. App. 154 72 Gillen v. Peters, 39 Kans. 489 564, 771, 809, 834 Gillespie v. Salmon, 2 Cal. App. 501 537 Gillett V. Gaffney, 3 Colo. 351 624, 625 V. Hall, 13 Conn. 426 664, 716, 729 V. Higgins, 142 Ala. 444 587, 721, 789 V. Thornton, L. R. 19 Eq. 559 677 V. Van Rensselaer, 15 N. Y. 397 668 V. Walter, 74 Ga. 291 817 Gillham v. Kerone, 45 Mo. 487 831 Gilliam v. Brown, 43 Miss. 641 177 V. Newland, 37 Okla. 36 675, 723 Gillig r. Lake Bigler Road Co., 2 Nev. 214 121, 796 Gillilan v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 41 N. Y. 376 602, 607 Gillingham v. Beddow, L. R. (1900) 2 Ch. 242 316, 318 Gillisse v. Gibson, 6 La. Ann. 125 276, 278 Gilly V. Singleton, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 249 469 Gilman v. Cosgrove, 22 Cal. 356 121, 265, 795, 796, 847 V. Vailghan, 44 Wis. 646 360, 362 V. Williams, 7 Wis. 329 297 Gilmore v. Black, 11 Maine 48S >166 V. Ham, 133 N. Y. 664 651 V. Ham, 61 Hun (N. Y.) 1 364 V. Ham, 142 N. Y. 1 607, 718, 888, 928 V. Merritt, 62 Ind. 525 500, 922 Gilmour v. Kerr, 18 Ky. L. 400 675 V. Kerr (Ky.), 36 S. W. 554 554 Gilpin, In re, 160 Fed. 171 707 Gilpin V. Temple, 4 Harr. (Del.) 190 767, 879, 910 Gilroy v. Loftus, 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 317 260, 265, 892 Gilruth V. Decell, 72 Miss. 232 469, 517 Gimpel v. Wilson, 10 Misc. (N. Y.) 153 731 (jinesi v. Cooper, L. R. 14 Ch. Div. 596 317 Ginners' Mut. Underwriters v. Wiley (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 629 854 Giovanni v. First Nat. Bank, 55 Ala. 305 297 Girard &c. Ins. Co. v. Field, 45 Pa. St. 129 761 Given v. Albert, S Watts & S. (Pa.) 333 486, 889 Givens v. Berry, 21 Ky. L. 680 291, 366 Glade v. White, 42 Nebr. 336 744, 751 Gladstone Exch. Nat. Bank v. Keating, 94 Mich. 429 418 Glass v. Walker, 17 Ky. L. 189 895 V. Wiles (Tex.), 14 S. W. 225 850 Glasscock v. Glasscock, 17 Tex. 480 276 V. Price, 92 Tex. 271 826 Glassington v. Thwaites, 1 L, T. Ch. (O. S.) 113 720 Glausier v. Boston Naval Stores Co., 132 Ga. 549 861 Gleason v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (Iowa), 43 N. W. 517 393 V. McKay, 134 Mass. 419 943 V. Van Aernam, 9 Ore. 343 716 V. White, 34 Cal. 258 579, 631, 650, 743 Gleeson v. Costello (Ariz.), 138 Pac. 544 573, 719 Glen V. Breard, 35 La. Ann. 875 245, 247 Glen &c. Mfg. Co. v. Hall, 61 N. Y. 226 328 Glenn t. Bergmann, 20 Mo. App. 343 250 Glenn V. Gill, 2 Md. 1 371, 535 V. Hebb, 12 Gill & J. (Md.) 271 718, 723, 850 V. Sims, 5 Ky. L. (abstract) 775 350, 362 Globe Pub. Co. v. State Bank, 41 Nebr. 175 965 Globe Refining Co., In re, 151 Pa. St. 558 1027, 1055 Globe Rolling Mill v. King, 13 Ohio Dec. 744 795 Globe Woolen Co. v. Carhart, 67 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 403 820 Globe Works v. United States, 45 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 497 173 Glock V. Weikel, 149 Ky. 170 718, 836 Gloeckner v.~ Kittlaus, 192 Mo. 477 978 Gloninger v. Barclay, 246 Pa. St. 265 733 Glore V. Dawson, 106 Mo. App. 107 75, 104 Glossop V. Colman, 1 Stark. 21 797 Glover, In re, 127 Mo. 153 634 Glover v. Hembree, 82 Ala. 324 349, 350, 729, 850, 912, 914, 915 V. Taylor, 38 La. Ann. 634 174 V. Tuck, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 153 747, 1055 Glynn v. Phetteplace, 26 Mich. 383 291, 719 Goble V. Gale, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 218 798 V. Howard, 12 Ohio St. 165 761 Goddard v. Bridgman, 25 Vt. 351 530 V. Pratt, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 412 138, 496, 604, 608, 910, 951, 962 v. Renner, 57 Ind. 532 444 Goddard-Peck Grocery Co. v. Berry, 58 Mo. App. 665 104, 899 v. McCune, 122 Mo. 426 528, 529 Godfrey v. Templeton, 86 Tenn. 161 350, 352, 353, 579, 637, 912 V. Turnbull, 1 Esp. 371 5ii6 V. White, 43 Mich. 171 276, 290, 350, 351, 355, 361, 369, 659, 716, 766, 816 Godson V. Good, 6 Taunt. 587 492 Goelet v. McKinstry, 1 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 405 835 Goell V. Morse, 126 Mass. 480 104, 125 Goembel v. Arnett, 100 111. 34 371, 554 Goetter v. Head, 70 Ala. 532 854 V. Norman, 107 Ala. 585 528 Goggin V. O'Donnell, 62 III. 66 810 Goldbeck v. Kensington Nat. Bank, 147 Pa. 267 491 Golden Rule Mercantile Co., Matter of, 21 Am. Bkr. R. 397 704 Golden State &c. Iron Works v. David- son, 73 Cal. 389 535, 826 Golding V. Brennan, 183 Mass. 286 471, 472 Goldman v. Manistee Circuit Judge, 155 Mich. 47 720, 721 V. Marcus, 4 Willson Civ. Cas. Ct. (Tex. App.) § 208 731 V. O'Hara, 164 Mich. 612 729 V. Page, 59 Miss. 404 815 V. Rosenberg, 116 N. Y. 78 275, 664 Goldsmith y. Eichold, 94 Ala. 116 25, 28, 116, 119, 342, 371, 381, 525, 526, 835, 836 V. Koopman, 152 Fed. 173 400 V. Sachs, 17 Fed. 726 145, 214, 768 Goldstein v. Peter Fox Sons Co., 22 N. Dak. 636 817, 826 V. Susholtz, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 582 616 Goldthwait v. Day, 149 Mass. 185 631, 661 Goldthwaite v. Janney, 102 Ala. 431 276, 281, 302, 441, 444, 535 Gomersall v. Gomersall, 14 Allen (Mass.) 60 741 Gondolfo V. Garbarino, 8 Cal. App. 546 291 Ixii TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Gonzalez v. Smith, 65 Fla. 85 349 Good, Ex parte, L. E. 5 Ch. D. (Eng.) 46 499, 666 Good V. Blewitt, 19 Ves. Jr. 336 716 V. Blewitt, 13 Ves. 397 850 V. Galveston &c. R. Co. (Tex.), 11 S. W. 854 854 V. Jarrard, 93 S. Car. 229 119 v. Red River Valley Co., 12 N. Mex. 245 121 Goodale v. Wheeler, 41 Ore. 190 967 Goodbar v. Cary, 16 Fed. 316 528, 529 Goodburn v. Stevens, 5 Gill (Md.) 1 290, 296, 579, 626, 627, 661 V. Stevens, 1 Md. Ch. 420 296, 627, 636, 641 Goode V. Harrison, 5 B. & Aid. 147 188 V. McCartney, 10 Tex. 193 75, 371, 455 Goodell V. Smith, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 592 981, 982 Gooden v. Morrow, 8 Ala. 486 834 Goodenow v. Jones, 75 111. 48 ' 270, 419, 486, 556, 559 V. Parkinson, 67 Iowa 95 675 Goodfellow V. Kelsey, 21 S. Dak. 247 '715 Goodin v. Pitt, 36 Nev. 156 75 Gooding v. Underwood, 89 Mich. 187 433, 446, 466 Goodman v. Chase, 1 B. & Aid. 297 961 V. Henry, 42 W. Va. 526 820 V. Whitcomb, 1 Jac. & W. 589 346, 587, 788, 789 Goodnow V. Empire Lumber 'Co., 31 Minn. 468 188 V. Smith, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 414 491 Goodrich v. Clute, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 605 559 V. Gordon, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 6 186 Goodspeed v. South Bend Chilled Plow Co., 45 Mich. 237 563, 606 V. Wiard Plow Co., 45 Mich. 322 596 Goodson V. Cooley, 19 Ga. 599 773 V. Goodson, 140 Mo. 206 634 Goodwill V. Heim, 212 Pa. 595 362 Goodwin v. Richardson, 11 Mass. 469 '276, 281 V. Smith, 23 Ky. L. 1810 965 V. Smith, 144 Ky. 41 218, 390 Gorder v. Pankonin, 83 Nebr. 204 219 552 591 Gordon v. Albert, 168 Mass. 150 . 451, 602, 925 V. Bankard, 37 111. 147 265 v. Boppe, 55 N. Y, 665 749, 985 V. Buchanan, 5 Yeffe. (Tenn.) 71 421 V. Creditors, 6 Rob. (La.) 328 367 v. Dick, 15 La. 33 716 V. Ellis, 2 C. B. 821 764 V. Farrell, 157 App. Div. (N. Y.) 409 902 V. Freeman, 11 111. 14 451, 580, 602 V. Funkhouser, 100 Va. 675 422 436 454 V. Gordon, 49 Mich. 501 ' 281^ 659 V. Hammell, 19 N. J. Eq. 216 855 V. Howden, 12 CI. & F. 237 655 V. Janney, Morris (Iowa) 182 847 V. Kennedy, 36 Iowa 167 832 V. Knott, 199 Mass. 173 318 V. McCall, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 283 296 ■ V. Miller, 111 Mo. App. 342 188 v. Moore, 134 Pa. St. 486 349, 382, 728, 732 V. Titus, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 275 749 v. Tyler, 53 Mich. 629 389, 390 Gordon Hollow Blast Grate Co. v. Gor- eon, 142 Mich. 488 266 Gore V. McBrayer, 18 Cal. 582 219 V. Vines, 72 W. Va. 783 357, 671, 726, 731 Gorham v. Heiman, 90 Cal. 346 674 V. Innis, 115 N. Y. 87 541 Gorham V. Thompson, 1 Peake 42 596 Gorman v. Davis &c. Co., 118 M. Car. 370 594 V. Madden, 27 S. Dak. 319 659, 661, 665, 666, 729, 861 V Russell, 14 Cal. 531 157, 167, 575, 587, 773 Gbrmley v. Hartray, 92 111. App. 115 419 Goss V. Lanin (Iowa), 152 N. W. 43 902, 975, 976, 978, 981, 987, 988, 994 Gossett V. Morrow, 187 Ala. 387 825 V. Morrow, 4 Ala. App. 306 441, 455 V. Weatherly, 5 Jones Eq. (N. Car.) 46 929 V. Weatherly, 58 N. Car. 46 550 Gossios V. Wulff (Mo. App.), 165 S. W. 817 • 633 Gottschalk v. Smith, 156 111. 377 168 Gotzian v. Shakman, 89 Wis. 52 535 Goudy V. Werbe, 117 Ind. 154 270, 297, 527, 528, 693 Gould, Ex parte, 4 Deac. & C. S47 834 Gould V. Banks, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 562 574 V. Emerson, 160 Mass. 438 675 V. Gould, 36 N. J. Eq. 380 486 V. Gould, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 263 674, 878 V. Horner, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 601 604 Goulding v. Bain, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 716 , 720, 721 Gourley v. Tyler, 4 Willson Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), § 215 558 Cover V. Hall, 3 Harr. & J. (Md.) 43 902 Govett V. Radnidge, 3 East 62 506 Gow V. Collin &c. Lumber Co., 109 Mich. 45 238 Gowan v. Jeffries, 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 296 586, 587, 721 V. Tunno, Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 369 826 Grabbs v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Assn., 125 N. Car. 389 298 Grabenheimer v. Rindskoff, 64 Tex. 49 104, 541 Grace v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278 1046 V. Smith, 2 W. Bl. 1000 38, 80, 83, 554 Graden v. Turner, 15 Wash. 136 830 Grady v. Gosline, 48 Ohio St. 665 817, 865 v. Robinson, 28 Ala. 289 422, 594 Graeff v. Hitchman, 5 Watts (Pa.). 454 260, 500, 528 Graff V. Callahan, 158 Pa. St. 380 917 V. Kinney, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 405 578 Grafton v. Paine, 7 App. D. C. 255 389, 391, 555, 603, 652, 654, 715 Grafton Bank v. Moore, 13 N. H. 99 910 Graham v. Graham, 9 Pa. St. 254 677 v. Henderson, 35 Ind. 195 854, 876 V. Holt, 3 Ired. L. (N. Car.) 300 743 V. McCuUoch, L. R. 20 Eq. 397 728 V. Macon &c. R. Co., 120 Ga. 757 194 V. Meyer, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 129 515 V. Pocock, L. R. 3 P. C. 345 515 V. Swann, 148 Ky. 608 75, 802, 902, 910 V. Thornton (Miss.), 9 So. 292 486, 558, 564 Grahame v. Harris, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 489 742, 767 Gram v. Cadwell, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 489 602, 675, 831 Granby Min. &c. Co. v. Laverty, 159 Pa. St. 287 418 V. Richards, 95 Mo. 106 155, 231, 235, 238, 240 Grand Union Tea Co. v. Lewitsky, 153 Mich. 244 v 320 TABLE OF CASES Ixiii [References are to sections — Vol. I, §g 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Granger v. McGilvra, 24 III. 152 „ . 371, 598, 602 Granit v. Abramowitz, 112 N. Y. S. 1081 826 Grant, In re, 106 Fed. 496 702 Grant v. Bannister, 160 Cal. 774 265, 276, 283, 926, 929 V. Bryant, 101 Mass. 567 386 V. Hardy, 33 Wis. 668 342, 393, 395 V. Holmes, 75 Mo. 109 499 V. Hyatt, 22 La. Ann. 411 827 ' V. Jackson, Peake N. P. 204 467 V. McArthur, 153 Ky. 356 169, 445 V. McKinney, 36 Tex. 62 633 V. Masterton, 55 Mich. 161 912, 916 V. Naylor, 4 Cranch (U. S.) 224 599 V. Reed, 24 Tex. 46 496 V. Smith, 70 App. Div. (N. Y.) 301 360, 361 V. Williams, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), § 363 291 Grant Bros., In re, 106 Fed. 496 691 Granville v. Arnott, 77 Conn. 716 732 Grapel v. Hodges, 112 N. Y. 419 75 Graser v. Stellwagen, 25 N. Y. 315 304, 444 Grashell v. Knoll, 13 Ky. L. 241 657 Gratz V. Bayard, 11 Serg. & E. (Pa.) 41 579, 615 V. Stump, Cooke (Tenn.) 494 806, 848 Graves v. Drane, 66 Tex. 658 847 V. Hall, 32 Tex. 665 458, 1033 V. Hardin, 21 Ky. L. 1499 290, 626 V. Kellenberger, 51 Ind. 66 413, 425, 895 V. Merry, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 701 425, 596, 604, 605 V. Norfolk Nat. Bank, 49 Nebr. 437 861 Gray, In re, 208 Fed. 959 695 Gray v. Blasingame, 110 Ga. 343 898 V. Bonnell, 19 Cal. App. 243 244 V. Brown, 22 Ala. 262 499 V. Chiswell, 9 Ves. 124 630 V. Church, 84 Ga. 125 420 V. Green, 125 N. Y. 203 718 T. Green, 142 N. Y. 316 592 718 925 V. Gibson, 6 Mich. 300 103,'201,'221i 861, 877, 882, 1004, 1010, 1014 V. Haig, 20 Beav. 219 369 V. Hamil, 82 Ga. 375 351, 354, 356, 667 V. Hook, 4 N. Y. 449 174 V. Kerr, 46 Ohio St. 652 718, 850 V. Larrimore, 4 Sawy. (U. S.) 638 719 V. McMillan, 22 U. C. Q. B. 456 564 V. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616 142, 218, 290, 296, 598, 627, 669, 880, 903 V. Portland Bank, 3 Mass. 264 341 V. Eollo, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 629 496 V. Smith, 43 Ch. D. 208 218, 289, 550, 779 V. Stewart, 70 Kans. 429 187 V. Tiernan, J8 ta. 53 445 V. Ward, 18 III. 32 424, 426, 561 V. Wells, 118 Cal. 11 262, 264 V. Williams, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 503 364, 564 Gray's Estate, In re. 111 N. Y. 404 496, 535 V. Moore, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 289 382, 401, 732 Gray's Harbor Commercial Co. v. Weise, 86 111. App. 125 82S Grazebrook, Ex parte, 2 Deac. & C. 186 538 Grazebrook v. McCreedie, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 437 457 Greacen v. Bell, 115 Fed. 553 279 Greatrex v. Greatrex, 1 DeG. & Sm. 692 369, 720, 787 Great Southern Fireproof Hotel (io. v. Jones, 177 U. S. 449 148, 795, 1046 Great Western Tel. Co., In re, 5 Biss. 363 307 Greek-American Produce Co. v. Pap- pas, 9 Ala. App. 311 416, 451 Green, In re, 116 Fed. 118 ■ 695 Green v. Ames, 14 N. Y. 225 718 V. Barrett, 1 Sim. 45 590 V. Beals, 2 Cai. (N. Y.) 254 457 V. Beesby, 2 Scott 164 79 V. Castleberry, 77 N. Car. 164 730 V. Chapman, 27 Vt. 236 716, 742 V. Corrigan, 87 Mo. 359 655 V. Ervin, 85 S. Car. 40 413, 418 V. Greenbank, 2 Marsh 485 188 v. Hart, 27 Ky. L. 970 715 V. Higham, 161 Mo. 333 977 V. Hood, 42 111. App. 652 1023 V. Howell (1910), 1 Ch. 495 575 V. Lippincott 53 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 33 796 V. People's Warehouse Co., 85 S. Car. 40 486, 487 V. Pyne, 1 Ala. 235 291, 806 V. Ross, 24 Ga. 613 291, 826 V. Stacy, 90 Wis. 46 358, 731, 733 V. Tanner, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 411 486 V. Taylor, 98 Ky. 330 104, 297 V. Thornton, 96 Cal. 67 733 V. Tuchner, 87 App. Div. (N. Y.) „ 314 "^'^ 715 V. Tuchner, 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 154 720 V. Virden, 22 Mo. 506 634 v. Waco State Bank, 78 Tex. 2 420, 573, 574, 576 V. Walker, 5 Del. Ch. 26 454 V. Warning, 1 W. Bl. 475 370 Greenberg-Miller Co. v. Everett Shoe Co., 138 Ga. 729 953 Greenburg v. Early, 4 Misc. (N. Y.) „99 517 619 Greene v. Breck, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 73 580, 1023, 1030, 1032 Greene v. Burton, 59 Vt. 423 487 V. Graham, 5 Ohio 264 626, 628 v. Greene, 1 Ohio 535 288, 289, 290, 623, 624, 625, 627 Greenebaum v. Gage, 61 111. 46 320 Green River Bank v. Craig, 110 Fed. 137 702 Green River Deposit Bank v. Craig, 6 Am. Bkr. R. 381 691 Greenslade v. Dover, 1 M. & Ry. 640 437 Greenwald v. Gotham-Attucks Music Co., 118 App. Div. (N. Y.) 29 ■ 720, 721 V. Kaster, 3 Wkly. Notes Cas., (Pa.) 327 499 V. Kaster,. 86 Pa. St. 45 499 Greenwell v. Negley, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 144 S.J' f ^^2 Greenwood v. Brodhead, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 593 371, 526, 721 V. Marvin, 111 N. Y. 423 276, 290, 296, 624, 625 Greer v. Arlington Mills Mfg. Co., 1 Pennew. (Del.) 581 764 V. Ferguson, 56 Ark. 324 301, 440 V. Greer, 15 Ky. L. 472 727 v. Liipfert Scales Co., 156 Ala. 572 796 Gregg V. Fisher, 3 111. App. 261 878 v. Hilsen, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 348 822 V. Hord, 129 111. 613 727 V. James, 1 111. 143 450 V. Willis, 71 Vt. 313 903 Gregg Twp. v. Half-Moon Twp., 2 Watts. (Pa.) 103 Gregory v. Brooks, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 404 126 V. Menefee, 83 Mo. 413 353, 636, 637 V. Patchett, 33 Beav. 595 416 Gregory's Appeal, 4 Pennyp. (Pa.) 221 832 Greiss v. Wilkop, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 481 268 Gresham v. Harcourt (Tex. Civ. App.), 50 S. W. 1058 350, 353, 659 V. Harcourt, 93 Tex. 149 631, 673, 729 Ixiv TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Grether v. Smith, 17 S. Dak. 279 617 Gribbin v. Thompson, 28 111. 61 826 Gridley v. Conner, 2 La. Ann. 87 362. 363, 719, 721, 722, 778 V. Dole, 4 N. Y. 486 651, 741, 773 GrieS v. Boudousquie, 18 La. Ann, 631 104 V. Kirk, IS La. Ann. 320 818 Griener v. Ulerey, 20 Iowa 266 895 Grier v. Deputy, 1 Marv. (Del.) 19 910 V. Hood, 25 Pa. St. 430 457 V. Strother, 153 Mo. App. 292 661, 673, 857 Griesheimer v. Tanenbaum, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 604 917 Griifeth v. Green, 129 N. Y. 517 232, 234 Griffey v. Northcutt, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 746 290, 352, 353, 625, 626, 627 Griffin, Ex parte, 3 Ont. App. Rep. 1 559 Griffin v. Bark (Ga. App.), 66 S. E. 382 826 V. Carr, 165 N. Y. 621 904 V. Colonial Bank, 7 Ga. App. 126 826, 857 V. Cooper, 50 III. App. 257 103. 275 V. Cranston, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 281 531 V. Macauley, 7 Grat. (Va.) 476 963 V. Orman, 9 Fla. 22 367, 371, 486, 556, 559, 564 V. Stoddard, 12 Ala. 783 886 Griffith T- Buck, 13 Md. 102 554, 559, 569 V. Buffum, 22 Vt. 181 81, 103, 486, 922, 923 V. Carter, 8 Kans. S6S 306, 939 V. Hill, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 324 763 V. Kirley, 189 Mass. 522 660, 731 Griggs V. Clark, 23 Cal. 427 295, 350, 352, 353, 637, 674, 731, 816 V. Swift, 82 Ga. 392 619 Grigsby v. Day, 9 S. Dak. 585 86 V. Nance, 3 Ala. 347 747, 749, 752 Grimes v. Bowerman, 92 Mich. 258 118, 820 V. Shaw, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 20 189 Grinnan v. Baton Rouge Mills Co., 7 La. Ann. 638 596 Grissom v. Hofius, 39 Wash, 51 503, 506, 861 V. Moore, 106 Ind. 296 289, 290, 296 Grist V. Hodges, 14 N. Car. 198 371 Griswold V. Haven, 25 N. Y. 595 ' 466, 508 V. Nichols, 117 Wis. 267 530 V. Waddington, 15 Johns. (N. V.) 438 824 V. Waddington, IS Johns. (N. Y.) 57 186, 577, 579, 583, 594 Groenendyke v. Coffeen, 109 111. 325 773 Groesbeck v. Brown, 2 How. Fr. (N. Y.) 21 826 Groetzinger, In re, 110 Fed. 366 535 Groetzinger, In re, 127 Fed. 814 284 Grollman v. Lipsitz, 43 S. Car. 329 268, 454, 486 Gross V. Breckenridge Bark (Ky.), 90 S. W. 5 596 V. Daly, 5 Daly (N. Y.) 540 967 V. Gross, 128 App. Div. (N. Y.) 429 292, 444, 722 Grossini v. Perazzo, 66 Cal. 545 719 Grossmayer, In re, 177 U. S. 48 817 Grosvenor v. Austin, 6 Ohio 103 535, 696, 836 T. Lloyd, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 19 138. 594, 923 Groth v. Kersting, 23 Colo. 213 357, 662, 671, 731 V. Payment, 79 Mich. 290 587, 715, 902 Grotte V. Weil, 62 Nebr. 478 556 Grove v. Fresh, 9 Gill & J. (Md.) 280 731 T. Keeling (Tex. Civ. App.), 176 S. W. 822 399 Grover v. Smith, 165 Mass. 132 455 Groves v. Sentell, 153 U. S. 465 489 V. Tallman, 8 Nev. 178 210, 882 V. Wilson, 168 Mass. 370 632, 1019, 1020 Grove's Appeal, In re, 176 Pa. St. 354 ' 539 Grozier v. Atwood, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 234 75 Grubbe v. Pierce, 156 Wis. 29 434, 499 Grubbs v. Mcllvain, 18 Ky. L. 383 729 Grubb's Appeal. In re, 66 Pa. St. 117 276 " Grund v. Van Vleck, 69 111. 478 364 Gruner v. Stucken, 39 La. Ann. 1076 445, 449, 486, 487 Guarantee Trust &c. Co. v. E. C. Drew Inv. Co., 107 La. 251 506 Guccione v. Scott. 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 214 215, 275, 550 Guckert v. Hacke, 159 Pa. St. 303 239, 965 Gueringer v. Creditors, 33 La. Ann. 1279 535 Guibert v. Saunders, 45 Hun (N7 Y.) 589 169 Guice V. Thornton, 76 Ala. 466 486, 876 Guild v. Leonard, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 511 540 Guillou V. Peterson, 7 W. N. Cas. (Phila.) 268 517 V. Peterson, 89 Pa.- St. 163 511, 1020, 1026, 1036 Guimond v. Nast, 44 Tex. 114 817 Guiterman v. Wishon, 21 Mont. 458 263 Guldin v. Lorah, 141 Pa. St. 109 718 Gulf City Shingle Mfg. Co. v. Boyles, 129 Ala. 192 79, 103, 214 Gulf &c. R. Co. V. Baird, 75 Tex. 256 220 V. Edloff, 89 Tex. 454 854 Gulick, In re, 186 Fed. 350 706 Gulick V. Gulick, 14 N. J. L. 578 191, 466, 743. 888. 910 Gullat V. Tucker, 2 Cranch C. C. 33 44S Gullich V. Alford, 61 Miss. 224 355 Gulliver v. Roelle, 100 111. 141 235 Gumbel v. Koon, 59 Miss. 264 500 Gummer v. Mairs, 140 Cal. 535 494 Gunderson v. Hasterlik, 100 111. App. 429 454 V. Illinois Trust &c. Bank. 199 111. 422 246 Gunn V. Black, 60 Fed. 151 381. 652, 733 V. Central R. Co., 74 Ga. 509 193, 194 V. Ewan, 93 Fed. 80 732 Gunnell v. Bird, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 304 659 Gunnison v. Erie Dime Sav. &c. Co., 157 Pa. St. 303 826 V. Langley, 3 Allen (Mass.) 337 103 Gunter v. Williams, 40 Ala. 561 422, 471 Gunzberg v. Miller, 39 Mich. 80 826 Guptil v. McFee, 9 Kans. 30 297 Curler v. Wood, 16 N, H. 539 820 Gurley v. Gurley, 77 Miss. 413 634 Gurney v. Braden, L. R. 3 Brit. Col. 474 562 V. Evans, 3 H. & N. 122 825 Gusdorff v. Schlessner, 85 Md. 360 720, 747 Gutheil V. Gilmer, 23 Utah 84 471. 472, 487 Gutsch Brewing Co. v. Fischbeck, 41 111. App. 400 850 Guy v. Kaulman, 11 Ga. App. 350 817 V. Rosewater, 18 Colo. App. 1 199 Guyton v. Flack, 7 Md. 398 789 G. V. B. Min. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 9S Fed. 35 152 Gwfn V. Selby, 5 Ohio St. 96 270, 526 Gwinn v. Lee, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 646 559 V. O'Daniel, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 112 847 V. Rooker, 24 Mo. 290 454 Gwinner v. Union Trust Co., 226 Pa. 614 283 Gwynn v. Gwynn, 27 S. Car. 525 191 V. Duffield, 66 Iowa 708 503. 509 TABLE OF CASES Ixv [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Gyger's Appeal, In re, 62 Pa. St. 73 352, 359. 668, 732 H Haacke v. Knights of Liberty Social Club, 76 Md. 429 177 Haarmann v. Lueders, 109 Fed. 325 847 Haas V. Craighead, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 396 719 V. Shaw, 91 Ind. 384 191 Haase v. Horton, 138 Iowa 205 506 V. Morton, 138 Iowa 205 503, 509 Haben v. Harshaw, 49 Wis. 379 528 Haberkorn v. Hill, 2 N. Y. S. 243 Habershon v. Blurton, 1 DeG. & Sm. ' 121 581 715 Habig V. Layne, 38 NeBr. 743 419| 486 Hacker v. Johnson, 66 Maine 21 TT , ^ -.^r , , 291, 292, 371, 657 Hackett v. Multnomah R. Co., 12 Ore „ 124 195, 196, 197, 721 V. Stanley, 115 N. Y. 625 74, 75, 80, 83, 897 v. State Bank & Trust Co., 155 Ky. 392 719 836 Hackley v. Patrick, 3 Johns. (N. Y.)' Ti".* „,.,.. 600, 888, 927 Hackney v. Williams, 46 Ind. 413 855, 859 Haddock v. Crocheron, 32 Tex. 276 V. Gnnnell Mfg. Corp., 109 Pa. St. 372 1007, 1008, 1009, 1020, 1026, 1027 Hadley v. Milligan, 100 Ind. 49 620 Haeberly's Appeal, 191 Pa. St. 239 601 Hagan v. Hoover, 33 S. Car. 219 190 V. Scott, 10 La. 345 531 Hagar v. Graves, 25 Mo. App. 164 455 V. Stone, 20 Vt. 106 813 Hage V. Campbell, 78 Wis. 572 270, 304, 440, 528, 529 Hagenaers v. Herbst, 30 App. Div. (N. „Y.) 546 " 576, 753, 770 Hagenbuchle v. Schultz, 69 Hun (N. Y.) 183 350, 729 Haggart v. Allan, 2 Grant Ch. 407 765 Haggerty v. Bodkin, 72 N. J. Eq. 473 617 V. Foster, 103 Mass. 17 146, 1007, 1008, 1016 V. Granger, 15 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 243 530, 720, 721 V. Johnston, 48 Ind. 41 558, 559 V. Taylor, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 262 1008, 1032, 1035 Haggett V. Hurley, 91 Maine 542 191 Hagmayer v. Armbruster, 35 Misc. (N. Y) 378 825 Hahlo V. Mayer, 102 Mo. 93 907 Hahn, v. Allen, 93 Ga. 612 486 V. St. Clair &c. Co., 50 111. 465 466, 888 Haight V. Burr, 19 Md. 130 721, 789 V. Haight, 151 Cal. 90 730 V. Turner, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 595 825 Haines, In re, 176 Pa. St. 354 119, 121 Haines v. Hollister, 64 N. Y. 1 496, 836 V. Millers, 61 Ga. 344 536 Hake v. Coach, 114 Mich. 558 729 Halbert v. Soule, 57 Vt. 358 817 Haldeman v. Middletown Bank, 28 Pa. St. 440 852 Halderman v. Halderman, Hemp. 559 651, 751 Hale, In re, 107 Fed. 432 685, 706 Hale V. Brennan, 23 Cal. 511 914, 918 V. City Cab &c. Co., 66 Wash. 459 262, 263, 264, 290, 296 V. Hale, 4 Beav. 369 721, 789 V. Henrie, 2 Watts (Pa.) 143 623, 628 V. Philbrick, 47 Iowa 217 727 V. Plummer, 6 Ind. 121 627 V. Spaulding, 145 Mass. 482 489 Hale V. Van Saun, 18 Iowa 19 817 V. Wilson, 112 Mass. 444 770 Haley v. Bellamy, 137 Mass. 357 677 V. Case, 142 Mass. 316 503, 509 Hall, In re, 60 Pa. St. 458 316 Hall, In re, 32 R. I. 424 357, 670, 671 Hall V. Antrobus, 44 Nova Scotia, 96 357, 671, 732 V. Baker Furn. Co., 86 Nebr. 389 953 955 V. Barrows, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 483 ' 728 v. Clagett, 48 Md. 223 369. 579, 876 v. Edson, 40 Mich. 651 75 V. Gaiennie, 18 La. 442 367 V. Glessner, 100 Mo. 155 420. 1023, 1032 V. Goodnight, 138 Mo. 576 469, 967 V. Hall, 3 Macn. & G. 79 781, 788 v. Hall, 12 Beav. 414 720, 786 v. Heck, 92 Mich. 458 549, 604 V. Herter, 90 Hun (N. Y.) 280 959, 960 V. Herter, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 19 958 V. Johnston, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 110 554 V. Jones, 56 Ala. 493 558, 596, 834 V. Kimball, 77 111. 161 398, 741, 742 V. Lanning, 91 U. S. 160 456, 457, 494, 496, 817, 818 V. Logan, 34 Pa. St. 331 741, 742 v. Lonkey, 57 Cal. 80 728 V. Sannoner, 44 Ark. 34 383 v. Stone (Ga. App.), 75 S. E. 140 79 V. Younts. 87 N. Car. 285 503, 861 Hallack v. March, 25 111. 48 459, 461 Halladay v. Faurot, 8 Ohio Dec. (Re- print) 633 786 Halleck v. Streeter, 52 Nebr. 827 744, 745 Hallenback v. Rogers, 57 N. J. Eq. 199 85, 882 Haller v. Willamowicz, 23 Ark. 566 350, 368, 385, 727, 747, 758, 912, 914, 915 Hallett V. Cumston, 110 Mass. 29 262, 329 v. Desban, 14 La. Ann. 529 83, 85, 897 V. Jenks, 3 Cranch (U. S.) 210 186 Halliday v. Bridewell, 36 La. Ann. 238 103, 210, 213, 882 V. Carman, 6 Daly (N. Y.) 422 747, 763 V. Doggett, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 359 796, 802 V. McDougall. 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 81 910 V. McDougall, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 264 861 Hallock, In re, 47 Misc. (N. Y.) 571 536 Hallock V. Streeter, 102 Fed. 193 675 Hallowell v. Blackstone Nat. Bank, 154 Mass. 359 118, 497 Hallstead v. Coleman, 143 Pa. St. 352 254, 876 Halpenny v. Pennock, 33 U. C. Q. B. 229 304 Halsell V. McMurphy, 85 Tex. 100 827 Halsey v. Norton, 45 Miss. 703 580 Halstead v. Shepard, 23 Ala. 558 444 Halsted v. Schmelzel, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 80 651, 741, 748, 754, 984 Halvorson v. Bowes, 22 Manitoba 447 214 Ham V. Hill, 29 Mo. 275 564 Hambleton v. Rhind, 84 Md. 456 975, 978, 982 •Hambly v. Bancroft, 83 Fed. 444 75 Hambough v. Carney (Tenn. Ch.), 62 S. W. 503 836 Hambro Distilling &c. Co. v. Price, 141 Iowa 169 861 Hamer v. Giles, 11 Ch; Div. 942 732 Hamersley v. Lambert, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 508 496, 630, 836 Hamil v. Stokes, 4 Price, 161 590 Hamill v. Hamill, 27 Md. 679 2:^4 Ixvi TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Hamilton, In re, 1 Fed. 800 191, 192, 194, 392, 538 Hamilton, In re, 26 Ore. 579 722 Hamilton v. Buxton, 6 Ark. 24 811 V. Conine, 28 Md. 635 774 V. Halpin, 68 Miss. 99 290 V. Hamilton, 18 Pa. St. 20 748 V. Harris, 72 Mich. 56 525 V. Hodges, 30 La. Ann. 1290 270 419, 527, 528 V. James A. Cushman Mfg. Co., 15 Tex. Civ. App. 338 824 V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 106 Mass. 395 461 V. Seaman, 1 Ind. 185 603, 60S, 607 V. Summers, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 11 435, 467, 486, 600 V. Vaughan-Sherrin Electrical Engi- neering Co., 3 Ch. 589 (1894) 188 V. Wells, 182 III. 144 635, 675 Hamilton Nat. Bank v. American Loan &c. Co., 66 Nebr. 67 237 Hamilton Provident &c. Soc. V. Stein- hoif, 23 Ont. App. 184 422 Hamlin v. Mansfield, 88 Maine 131 579 Hamlyn v. Houston (1903), 1 K. B. 81 _ 503 Hammond v. Aiken, 3 Rich, Eq. (S. Car.) 119 596, 604 V. Douglas, 5 Ves. 539 326 V. Hammond, 20 Ga. 556 718 v. Hopkins, 143 U. S. 224 276 V. Straus, 53 Md. 1 232 Hamner v. Ballantyne, 16 Utah 436 827 V. Barker (Tex. Civ. App), 144 S. W. 1180 91, 475, 848 Hamper, Ex parte, 17 Ves. 412 39, 76, 103 Hampton v. Bogan, 55 S. Car. 547 453 v. Wooley (Tex. Civ. App.), 136 S. W. 1140 673 Hampden Bank v. Morgan, Fed Cas. No. 6008 1028 Hamsmith v. Espy, 13 Iowa 439 826 Hancock v. Hancock, 24 Ky. L. 664 637 V. Heaton, 22 Wkly. Rep. 784 661 v. Hintrager, 60 Iowa 374 861, 905 V. Tharpe, 129 Ga. 812 990 Hand v. Rogers, 8 Misc. 79 854 Haney & Campbell Mfg. Co. v. Adaza Cooperative Creamery Co., 108 Iowa 313 491 Haney Mfg. Co. v. Perkins, 78 Mich. 1 506, 512, 513 Hanfek v. Held, 75 Nebr. 210 885 Hanff V. Howard, 56 N. Car. 440 627 Hanford v. Prouty, 133 111. 339 531 Hang V. Hang, 90 HI. App. 604 878 Hanger v. Abbott, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 532 186 Hankey v. Garrat, 3 Bro. C. C. 457 829 V. Garrat, 1 Ves. (Jr.) 236 829 Hanks v. Baber, 53 111. 292 350, 743, 751 V. Flynn, 108 Iowa 165 602 v. Wilcox, 2 Haw. 509 353, 637 Hanna v. Auter, 4 Rob. (La.) 221 762 V. Emerson, 45 Nebr. 708 817 V. Hyatt, 67 Mo. App. 308 364 V. McLaughlin, 158 Ind. 292 «02, 715 V. Wray, 77 Pa. St. 27 631 Hannah v. Fife, 27 Mich. 172 173 Hannahs v. Hannahs, 68 N. Y. 610 636 Hannaman v. Karrick, 9 Utah 236 576 Hannegan v. Roth, 12 Wash. 65 627 Hannigan v. Allen, 127 N. Y. 639 558, 5S9 Hanover Co. v. Sheldon, 9 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 240 822 Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 28 Fla. 209 . 298, 299 Hanover Nat. Bank v. Klein, 64 Miss. 141 527, 528 V. Sirrett, 15 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 334 1016 Hansen v. Miller, 44 111. App. 550 602 V. Morris, 87 Iowa 303 761 Hansley, Matter of, 36 Am. Bkr. R. 1 687, 691, 70S Hanson v. Hanson, 4 Nebr. (unof.) 880 628 V. Metcalf, 46 Minn. 25 453, 621, 626 V. Paige, 3 Gray (Mass.) 239 193 Hansteen v. Johnson, 112 N. Car. 254 496 Hanthorn v. Quinn, 42 Ore. 1 79 Han way v. Robertshaw, 49 Miss. 758 598, 624, 625, 626, 627, 836 Hapgood V. Cornwell, 48 HI. 64 307, 371, 526, 528, 531, 559 Haralson v. Campbell, 63 Ala. 278 533 832 Harbeck v. Pulin, 145 N. Y. 70 49ll 499 V. Pupin, 23 Abb. N. Cas. -(N. Y.) 190 491 Harbster's Appeal. 125 Pa. St. 1 641 Hard v. Klaus, 9 N. J. L. 370 ( 721 Hardie v. -SwafFord Bros. Dry Goods Co., 165 Fed. 588 707 Hardin v. Dolge, 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 416 260, 265, 301, 440, 471 V. Hardin, 25 S. Dak. 601 218, 281, 282, 284 V. Jamison, 60 Minn: 348 276, 399 Harding, Ex parte, L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 557 496 Harding v. Glover, 18 Ves. 281 721, 789 Hardisty v. Hardisty, 77 Md. 179 ' 633 Hardman v. Booth, 1 Hurlst. & C. 803 906 V. Sage, 124 N. Y. 25 233, 238 Hardt v. Levy, 72 Hun (N. Y.) 225 1008, 1013, 1015, 1019, 1022, 1026, 1032, 1033 Hardy v. Blazer, 29 Ind. 226 558 v. Donellan, 33 Ind. 501 829, 830 V. Jones, 13 Ga. App. 457 444, 802 V. Norfolk Mfg. Co., 80 Va. 404 1053 V. Overman, 36 Ind. 549 630' V. Weyer, 42 Ind. App. 343 775 Harford v. Street, 46 Iowa 594 817 Hargadine v. Gibbons, 114 Mo. 561 804, 835 v. Gibbons, 45 Mo. App. 460 804 Hargadine-McKittrick, Dry Goods Co. V. Belt, 74 III. App. 581 371, 536 v. Sappington, 105 Mo. App. 655 820 Harger v. McCullough, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 119 251 Hargis v. Campbell, 14 Fla. 27 650, 658, 773 Hargrave v. Conroy, 19 N. J. Eq. 281 75 Haring v. Hamilton, 107 Wis. 112 967 Harker v. Brinker, 24 N. J. L. 333 496 Harkins v. Buxton, 11 Pa. Dist. 159 850 Harlan v. Bennett, 127 Ky. 572 371 v. Moriarty, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 486 820 Harland v. Lilienthal, 53 N. Y. 438 176, 200 Harle v. Morgan, 29 S. Car. 258 847 Harlow, Ex parte, 3 App. D. C. 203 718 Harlow v. La Brum, 151 N. Y. 278 222, 381, 590, 775 V. La Brum, 82 Hun 292 589, 775 Harman v. Johnson, 3 C. & K. 272 503, 511 V. Stuart (Ky. App.), 119 S. W. 210 727, 729 Harmon v. Bowers, 78 Kans. 135 187 V. Kingston, 3 Camp. ISO 186 V. McRae, 91 Ala. 401 530 Harney v. First Nat. Bank, 52 N. J. Eq. 697 276, 281, 285, 371, 829, 830 Harper, Ex parte, 1 DeG. & J. 180 638, 650 Harper v. Anderson, 104 Cal. xvii 719 V. Cunningham, 8 App. D. C. 430 457 V. Devene, 10 La. Ann. 724 425, 471 V. Godsell, L. R. 5 Q. B. 422 458 V. Lamping, 33 Cal. 641 275, 517, 672 V. McKinnis, 53 Ohio St. 434 452 TABLE OF CASES Ixvii [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Harper V, Wrigley, 48 Ga. 495 416 Harrah v. Dyer, 180 Ind. 229 631, 636, 638, 667, 668, 672 V. Dyer (Ind. App.), 96 N. E. 41 633, 636, 637 V. State, 38 Ind. App. 495 617, 634, 716 Harrill v. Davis, 168 Fed. 187 244, 245 V. South Carolina &c. E. Co., 135 N. Car. 601 ' 196 Harrington v. Higham, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 660 459, 461 V. Higham, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 524 459, 465 V. Johnson, 10 Wash. 542 807 Harris, In re, 4 Dem. Sur. (N. Y.) 463 363, 637 Harris, Ex parte, 2 Ves. & B. 210 756 Harris v. Amery, L. R. 1 C. P. 148 175 V. Baltimore, 73 Md. 22 424, 426, 443, 486 V. Bryson, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 532 265 V. Carter, 147 Mass. 313 295, 360, 361, 362, 363, 674, 878 V. Crary, 67 Tex. 383 922 V. De Raismes (N. J. Eq.), 58 Atl. 637 283 V. Donovan, 33 Pitts. Leg. J. (N. S.) 286 850 V. Dotson, 149 Ky. 695 733 V. Farwell, 15 Beav. 31 562 v. Fleming, 13 Ch. D. 208 816 V. Harris, 132 Ala. 208 344, 717 v. Harris, 153 Mass. 439 290, 627 V. Harris, 39 N. H. 45 741, 743 V Heilig, 84 N. J. L. 40 435 v. Hillegass, 66 Cal. 19 718 V. Hillegass, 54 Cal. 463 718, 898 v. Lloyd, 11 Mont. 390 152, 591 V, Lindsay, 4 Wash. C. C. 271 499, 556, 562 V. Lindsay, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 98 556 V. McGregor, 29 Cal. 124 . 231, 239 V. Matthews, 107 Ga. 46 766 V. Miller, Meigs (Tenn.) 158 419 V. Murray, 28 N. Y. 574 1024, 1037 V. Peabody, 73 Maine 262 535 V. Phillips, 49 Ark. 58 831 V. Rosenberg, 161 Pa. St. 367 283, 661 V. Schultz, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 315 496, 812 V. Sessler, 67 Tex. 383 217, 908 V. Stevenson, 110 Ark. 632 729 V. Threefoot (Miss.), 12 So. 335 75 V. Umsted, 79 Ark. 499 168, 224 V. Visscher, 57 Ga. 229 118 V. Water & Light Co., 108 Tenn. 245 795 V. Wilson, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 57 825 V. Zier, 43 Wash. 573 ' 593, 596, 603 Harris County v. Donaldson, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 9 424, 508 Harris' Succession, 39 La. Ann. 443 349 Harrison v. Close, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 448 491 V. Dewey, 46 Mich. 173 358 V. Farrington, 36 N. J. Eq. 107 850 V. Fitzhenry, 3 Esp. 238 797 V. Jackson, 7 Term Rep. 203 301, 422, 425, 440, 501 V. McCormick, 122 Cal. 651 824 V. McCormick, 69 Cal. 616 121, 265, 496, 795, 796, 806, 811 V. Mader, 47 Nova Scotia 1 677 V. Mitchell, 13 La. Ann. 260 509 V. Neeley, 41 Ohio St. 334 888 V. Poole, 4 Rob. (La.) 193 418 V. Righter, 11 N. J. Eq. 389 657, 719 V. Tennant, 21 Beav. 482 587, 588 T. Timmins, 4 M. & W. 510 1046 V. Union Pac. R. Co., 13 Fed. 522 953 Harrod v. Hamer, 32 Wis. 162 238, 239, 245 Harryman v. Harryman, 93 Kans. 223 553 Hart V. Alexander, 7 C. P. 746 563 V. Anger, 38 La. Ann. 341 638 V. Bowen, 86 Fed. 877 635 V. Clark, 54 Ala. 490 371, 471 V. Clarke, 3 DeG. M. & G. 232 361, 575 V. Deitrich, 69 Nebr. 685 717 V. Finigan, 71 Cal. 578 730 V. Hart, 31 W. Va. 688 633 V. Hart, 117 Wis. 639 277, 362, 668, 729, 732 V. Hawkins, 3 Bibb (Ky.) 502 627 V. Hiatt, 2 Ind. T. 245 103, 297, 898 V. Kelley, 83 Pa. St. 286 80, 85, 561, 897 V. McDonald, 52 La. Ann. 1686 981. 983, 984 V. Myers, 25 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 478 356, 364 V. Tomlinson, 2 Vt. 101 561 V. United States, 15 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 414 186 V. Withers, 1 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 285 422 454 V. Woodruff, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 510 ' 600, 927 Harter v. Songer, 138 Ind. 161 367 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Dickenson, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 579 434 v. Ross, 23 Ind. 179 299 V. Wilcox, 57 111. 180 597 Hartford Nat. Bank v. Beinecke, 80 App. Div. (N. Y.) 546 1020 Hartley v. Henderson, 189 Pa. St. 277 677 V. Kirlin, 45 Pa. St. 49 563 V. Weideman, 175 Pa. St. 309 912, 917 Hartman, In re, 96 Fed. 593 706 Hartman v. Peters, 146 Fed. 82 702 V. Woehr, 18 N. J. Eq. 383 221, 223, 360, 576, 586, 587, 673, 674 768, 769 Hartness v. Thompson, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 160 848 V. Wallace, 106 N. Car. 427 371, 415 Hartnett v. Stillwell, 121 Ga. 386 281, 283, 620, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628 Hartney v. Gosling, 10 Wyo. 346 152, 153 Hart Pioneer Nurseries v. Coryell, 8 Kans. App. 496 958 Harts V. Byrne, 31 111. App. 260 371 Hartwell v. Becker, 181 Mo. App. 408 75, 825 Hartz V. Schrader, 8 Ves. Jr. 317 617, 720, 787 Hartzell v. Murray, 127 111. App. 608 767 V. Murray, 224 111. 377 744, 861 Harvey v. Childs, 28 Ohio St. 319 25, 83, 85, 411 V. Ford, 83 Mich. 506 301, 304, 440, 552 V. McAdams, 32 Mich. 472 448, 486, 514 V. Mowat, 2 Quebec Pr. 212 857 v. Stephens, 159 Mo. 486 820 V. Varney, 104 Mass. 436 729 v. Varney, 98 Mass. 118 656, 657 V. Walker, 59 Hun (N. Y.) 114 854 Harwood v. Jones, 10 Gill. & J. (Md.) 404 ' 808, 815, 835 V. Mulry, 8 Gray (Mass.) 250 912, 917 Harzburg v. Southern R. Co., 65 S. Car. 539 225 Hasbrouck v. Childs, 16 N. Y. Super. Ct. 105 357, 364 V. Childs, 3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 105 401, 670, 671 Haskell v. Adams, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 59 741, 743 V. Champion, 30 Mo. 136 265 V. Vaughan, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 618 743 Ixviii TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Haskins v. Alcott, 13 Ohio St. 210 121, 265, 795, 796 V. Burr, 106 Mass. 48 221 V. Curran, 4 Idaho 573 152, 743, 746, 749 V. D'Este, 133 Mass. 356 118, 260, 261, 421, 861 V. Everett, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 531 830, 831, 832 Haslet V. Kent, 160 Pa. St. 85 1007, 1008, 1020, 1021, 1051 V. Street, 2 McCord (S. Car.) 310 456, 818 Haslett V. Wotherspoon, 1 Strobh. Eq. (S. Car.) 209 960 V. Wotherspoon, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 395 236, 496, 965 Hassell v. Griffin, 2 Jones Eq. (N. Car.) 117 533 Hasselman v. Douglass, 52 Ind. 252 555 Hastings v. Hopkinson, 28 Vt. 108 1004 Hastings Nat. Bank t. Hibbard, 48 Mich. 452 420 Haswell v. Standring, 152 Iowa 291 71 72 899 Hatch V. Fritz, 48 Colo. 530 ' ' 715 V. Wood, 43 N. H. 633 797, 810 Hatchell v. Chew, 22 Ky. L. 738 554, 563 Hatcher v. Branch, 141 Ala. 410 796 Hatchett v. Sunset Brick &c. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. W. 174 445, 486 V. Blanton, 72 Ala. 423 276, 281, 498, 550, 591, 809 Hately v. Kiser, 162 111. App. 542 217 Hathaway v. Clendenning, 135 App. Div, (N. Y.) 407 990 V. Stone, 215 Mass. 212 804 Hatt, In re, 57 Misc. (N. Y.) 320 1053 Hatt, In re. 7 U. C. L. J. 103 306, 938 Hatton V. Royle, 3 H. & N. 500 460 V. Stewart, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 233 471, 474, 605 Hatzel V. Moore, 120 Fed. 1015 499 Hatzfeld v. Walsh, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 573 360 Haug V. Haug, 90 111. App. 604 895 Hauptniann v. Hauptmann, 91 App. Div. (N. Y.) 197 290, 291, 625, 627 Hausling v. Rheinfrank, 103 App. Div. (N. Y.) 517 834 Havana &c. R. Co. v. Walsh, 85 111. 58 802 Havemeyer v. Havemeyer, 13 Tones & S. (N. Y.) 464 769 Haven v. Goodel, 1 Disney (Ohio) 26 605 V. Wakefield, 39 111. 509 472, 741, 742 Havener v. Stephens, 22 Ky. L. 498 850 Havens v. Harris, 140 Ind. 387 621 V. Hussey, 5 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 30 458, 580, 1033 Haviland v. Chace, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) • 283 1008, 1020, 1026 Havner v. Stephens, 22 Ky. L. 498 587 Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co., 101 Mass. 385 232, 251 v. Dunton, 1 Bailey (S. Car.) 146 454 Hawk V. Johnson, 3 Sad. (Pa.) 511 639 Hawkes v. Taylor, 175 111. 34 980 Hawk Eye Woolen Mills v. Conklin, 26 Iowa 422 526 Hawkins v. Ball, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 816 492 V. Blackford, 1 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 142 421 V. Campbell, 48 App. Div. (N. Y.) 43 103 V. Capron, 17 R. L 679 598, 617, 804, 808, 835 V. Hastings Bank, 1 Dill. (U. S.) 462 304, 471 V. Hawkins, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1044 446, 787 V. Mclntyre, 45 Vt. 496 77 Hawkins V. Quinette, 156 Mo. App. 153 638 V. Spokane Hydraulic Min. Co., 3 Idaho 241 152, 153 V. Tinnen, 10 Tex. 188 819 V. Western Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 146 S. W. 1191 469, 526, 527, 529 Hawkins &c. Co. v. Lee, 8 Lea (Tenn.) 42 888 Hawley v. Dixon, 7 U. C. Q. B. 218 83 V. Hurd, 56 Vt. 617 848 V. Keeler, 53 N. Y. 114 125 V. Tesch, 88 Wis. 213 508 Hawley Bros. Hardware Co. v. Brown- stone, 123 Cal. 643 847 Hawn V. Seventy-Six Land &c. Co., 74 Cal. 418 451, 602 Hawtayne v. Bourne, 7 M. & W. 595 486 Hax V. Burnes, 98 Mo. App. 707 364, 638 Haycock v. Williams, 54 Ark. 384 210, 882 Hayden v. Cretcher, 75 Ind. 108 486, 603, 925 V. Crouch, 12 Ky. L. (abstract) 893 350 v.- Eagleson, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 639 979 Hayden Milling Co. v. Lewis, 3 Ariz. 277 437 Hayes v. Baxter, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 181 473 V. Bement, 3 Sandf. (N.. Y.) 394 ' 1024 V. Blaker, 138 Mo. App: 24 486, 487 V. Fish, 36 Ohio St. 498 386 V. ForskoU, 31 Maine 112 677 V. Heyer, 35 N. Y. 326 1024 V. Heyer, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 485 607 V. Johnson, 56 Ind. App. 238 835, 849 V. Knox, 41 Mich. 529 558, 809, 834 V. Reese, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 151 731 733 V. Treat, 178 Pa. St. 310 ' ' 276, 281, 283, 623 Hayman, Ex parte, L. R. 8 Ch. Div. 11 541 Hayman v. Weil, 53 Fla. 127 817 Haymond v. Camden, 22 W. Va. 180 186 Hayne v. Sealy, 71 App. Div. (N. Y.) 418 359, 360 Hayner v. Crow, 79 Mo. 293 435 V. Eberhardt, 37 Kans. 308 854 Haynes v. Brooks, 8 Civ. Proc. (N. Y.) 106 281, 641 V. Brooks, 116 N. Y. 487 621 V. Carter, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 7 596 V. Kent, 8 La. Ann. 132 10S5 V. Knowles, 36 Mich. 407 291, 292, 80S V. Seachrest, 13 Iowa 455 444 V. Short, 88 Ala. 562 718, 773, 850 Hays V. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 101 Ky. 201 439, 469 V. Lanier, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 322 796 V. Odom, 79 Mo. App. 425 634 Haysler v. Dawson, 28 Mo. App.. 531 854 Haythorn v. Lawson, 3 C. &. P. 196 805 Hayward v. Barron, 19 N. Y. S. 383 103 V. Burke, 151 111. 121 556, 557 V. French, 12 Gray (Mass.) 453 486 V. Grant, 13 Minn. 165 847 Haywood v. Harmon, 17 111. 477 854 Hazard v. Boyd, 4 Mart. (La.) (N. S.) 347 445 V. Caswell, 93 N. Y. 259 276, 328 V. Hazard, 1 Story (U. S.) 371 103 Hazell V. Clark, 89 Mo. App. 78 550, 574 H. B. Clafflin Col v. Evans, 55 Ohio St. 183 417, 458, 530 Head, In re (1894), 2 Ch. 236 562 Head In re [1893], 3 Ch. 426 562 Head, In re, 114 Fed. 489 , 693 Head v. Goodwin, 37 Maine 181 812, 848, 861 V. King, 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 89 715 V. Sleeper, 20 Maine 314 861 TABLE OF CASES Ixix [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] HeadJee v. Cloud, 51 Mo. 301 634 Heald v. Owen, 79 Iowa 23 237, 242, 244 Heap V. Dobson, IS C. B. (N. S.) 460 498 Heard v. Wilder, 81 Iowa 421 83, 169 Hearns, In re, 163 App. Div. (N. Y.) 897 276 Hearns, In re, 214 N. Y. 426 633, 726 Heartt v. Corning, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 566 369, 727, 856, 914 V. Walsh, 75 111. 200 450, 451, 602, 925 Heath v. Fisher, 38 L. J. Ch. 14 728 V. Goslin, 80 Mo. 310 157 V. Gregory, 46 N. Car. 417 436 V. Sansom, 4 B. & Ad. 172 591, 594 V. Van Cott, 9 Wis. 516 675 V. Waters, 40 Mich. 457 351, 354, 381, 616 Heathcot v. Ravenscroft, 6 N. J. Eq. 113 721, 789 Heaton v. Schaefer, 34 Okla. 631 817, 836 Heavrin v. Lack Malleable Iron Co., 153 Ky. 329 806, 817, 818, 827 Hebblethwaite v. Flint, 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 597 " 729 Hebert v. Dupaty, 42 La. Ann. 343 328 Heck V. Collins, 231 Pa. 357 716, 719, 851, 926 V. McEwen, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 97 573, 588, 591 Heckard v. Fay, 57 111. App. 20 350, 351 Heckert v. Fegely, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 139 445 Heckheimer v. Allen, 89 S. Car. 452 604 Heckman v. Manning, 4 Colo. 543 491 V. Messinger, 49 Pa. St. 465 530 Hedge's Appeal, In re, 63 Pa. St. 273 210, 881, 882, 1045, 1047, 1053 Hedges v. Armistead, 60 Tex. 276 817 V. Mountjoy, 149 N. Y. S. 869 982, 987, 991 Hedley v.. Bainbridge, 3 Q. B. 316 151, 425 Heegaard v. Dakota L. & T. Co., 3 S. Dak. 569 847 Heenan v. Nash, 8 Minn. 407 265 Hefferlin v. Karlman, 29 Mont. 139 825 Heffernan v. Sheridan, 11 Quebec K. B. 3 715, 754 Heffron v. Gore, 40 111. App. 257 666 V. Hanaford, 40 Mich. 305 427, 446, 454, 475, 888 V. Knickerbocker, 57 111. App. 336 631 Heflebower v. Buck, 64 Md. 15 721 Hefner v. Hefner, 26 S. Dak. 74 669 Hegeman V. Hegeman, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 1 328 Heidenheimer v. Franklin, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.) § 840 561 V. Walthew, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 501 75 Heidenreich v. Bremner, 260 111. 439 825, 834, 854 Heilbronner, v. Lloyd, 17 Mont. 299 529 Heimstreet v. Howland, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 68 79, 83, 126 Heinberg v. Thompson, 47 Fla. 163 231, 233, 238 Heineman v. Hart, 55 Mich. 64 527 528 529 Heins v. Tamblyn, 110 Iowa 478* ' 832 Heintz v. Cahn, 29 III. 308 854 Heinze v. South Green Bay &c. Dock , Co., 109 Wis. 99 232, 238 Hejrn v. McCaughan, 32 Miss. 17 S06, 507 Heise V. Earth, 40 Md. 259 877 Heitman v. GriiEth, 43 Kans. 553 424 Helios-Upton Co. v. Thomas, 96 App. Div. (N. Y.) 401 826 Hellebush v. Coughlin, 37 Fed. 294 670 Hellenbrand v. Bates, 21 Ky. L. 1759 718 Hellman v. Mendel, 6 Ohio Dec. (re- print) 829 667 Hellman v. Reis, 1 C. S. C. E. (Ohio) 30 396 V. Schwartz, 44 111. App. 84 557, 562 Hellyer v. Bowser, 76 Ind. 35 847 Helm V. O'Rourke, 46 La. Ann. 178 812, 834 Helme v. Littlejohn, 12 La. Ann. 298 721 V. Smith, 7 Bing. 709 749 Helmer v. Yetzer, 92 Iowa 627 674, 856, 858 Helmore v. Smith, 35 Ch. D. 449 722 Helsby v. Mears, 5 Barn. & C. 504 559 Heman v. Britton, 88 Mo. 549 953 Hembree v. Blackburn, 16 Ore. 153 304, 440 Hemenway v. Burnham, 90 Mich. 227 741, 746 Hemsley v. McKim, 119 Md. 431 216 Henderson, Ex parte, 4 Ves. 163 188 Henderson, In re, 142 Fed. 588 696 Henderson v. Anderson, 3 How. (U. S.) 73 429 V. Barbae, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 26 436 V. Cashman, 85 Maine 437 820 V. E. W. Emerson Co., 105 Ark. 697 882 V. Farley Nat. Bank, 123 Ala. 547 531, 715 V. Haddon, 12 Rich Eq. (S. Car.) 393 458, 823 V. Henrie, 68 W. Va. 562 218 V. Nicholas, 67 Cal. 152 444 V. Ries, 108 Fed. 709 659, 665, 669 V. Wild, 2 Campb. 561 451 Henderson Warehouse Co. v. Brand, 105 Ga. 217 854 Henderson Woolen Mills v. Edwards, 84 Mo. App. 448 965 Hendley v. Bittinger (Pa.), 94 Atl. 831 563 Hendren v. Wing, 60 Ark. 561 265 Hendricks v. Cameron, 3 Tex. App Civ. Cas. § 261 445 V. W. G. Middlebrooks Co., 118 Ga. 131 503, 513 Hendrickson v. Reinback, 33 III. 299 677 Hendrie v. Berkowitz, 37 Cal. 113 432, 487 Hendry v. Hendry, 32 Ind. 349 764 Hendy v. March, 75 Cal. 566 897, 898 Hengy v. Hengy (Tex. Civ. App.), 151 S. W. 1127 276, 392, 723, 726, 730, 929 Henkel, v. Heyman, 91 111. 96 1003, 1007, 1010, 1014. 1031, 1045 Henn v. Walsh, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 129 576, 587, 789 Hennegin v. Wilcoxin, 13 La. Ann. 576 364 Hennessy v. Griggs, 1 N. Dak. 52 591, 957, 962, 966 V. Western Bank, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 300 458 Henry v. Anderson, 77 Ind. 361 121, 291, 398, 625 V. Caruthers, 196 111. 136 630. V. Dietrich, 7 N. Y. S: 505 562 V. Gibson, 55 Mo. 570 493 V. Henry, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 314 721 V. Jackson, 37 Vt. 431 666, 1045 V. Mahone, 23 Mo. App. 83 563, 591 V. Mt. Pleasant, 70 Mo. 500 493 V. Simanton, 64 N. J. Eq. 572 247 V. Willard, 73 N. Car. 35 888 Henry County v. Gates, 26 Mo. 315 422 Henry C. Werner Co. v. Calhoun, 55 W. Va. 246 596 Henshaw v. Root, 60 Ind. 220 876, 886 Henslee v. Cannefax, 49 Mo. 295 466 Henson v. Byrne (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. 494 342, 389, 396, 652 Heran v. Hall, 1 B. Mon. 159 357, 401, 670, 675 Herbert v. Callahan, 35 Mo. App. 498 77, 83 V. Odlin, 40 N. H. 267 399, 469 Herbst v. Hagenaers, 137 N. Y. 290 677 Ixx TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Herd v. Delp, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 530 620 Hergman v. Dettleback, 11 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 46 820 Herlehy v. Ferguson, 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 237 414 Herman Kahn Co. V. Bowden, 80 Ark. 23 95, 138, 825 Hermann v. Louisiana State Ins. Co., 8 La. 285 260, 444, 911 Herndon v. Terrell, 12 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 96 350 Heroy v. Van Pelt, 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 60 606 Herrick, In re, 13 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 312 486 Herrick v. Ames, 21 N. Y. Super. Ct. 115 341, 385 V. Ames, 8 Bosw. (N. Y.) 115 652, 747 V. Conant, 4 La. Ann. 276 467, 600 Herring v. Armwood, 130 N. Car. 180 768 V. Herring (Tex. Civ. App.), 51 S. W. 865 723, 726 V. Sanger, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 71 499, 606 Herrington v. Walthal, 98 Ga. 776 659 Herriott v. Kersey, 69 Iowa 111 742 Herron v. Cole, 25 Nebr. 692 817 V. Wampler, 194 Pa. St. 277 616, 635 Hersch, In re, 97 Fed. 571 700 Hersey v. Tully, 8 Colo. App. 110 100 Hershey v. Fulmer, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 442 827 Hershfield v. Claflin, 25 Kans. 166 292 820 831 Hersom v. Henderson, 23 N. H. 498 ' 910 Herzog v. Sawyer, 61 Md. 344 422 Heshion v. Julian, 82 Ind. 576 77, 144 Hesketh v. Blanchard, 4 East 143 39, 83, 89, 983 Heslin .v. Fay, 15 L. R. Ir. 431 275 Hess V. Werts, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 356 245, 1022 Hester v. Smith, 5 Wyo. 291 888 Hetterman Bros. Co. v. Young, (Tenn.) 52 S. W. 532 466, 601 Hetzel V. Fadner, 167 III. App. 92 671, 729 Heuer v. Carmichael, 82 Iowa 288 231 239 Heward v. Slagle, 52 111. 336 ' 381 Hewes v. Parkman, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 90 825 Hewitt V. Hayes, 204 Mass. 586 344, 587, 616, 617 V. Rankin, 41 Iowa 35 290, 291, 301, 303, 441, 624, 625, 627 Hey V. Harding, 21 Ky. L. 771 675 Heydon v. Heydon, 1 Salk. 392 292 Heye v. Bolles, 33 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 266 528, 820 V. Tilford, 2 App. Div. (N. Y.) 346 104, 210, 861 Heyhoe v. Purge, 9 C. B. 431 83, 881 Heyman v. Decatur Street Bank (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 483 806, 817, 847 V. Heyman, 210 111. 524 191 Hibben v. Collister, 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 459 635 Hibberd v. Hubbard, 211 Pa. 331 631 V. McGill, ,129 Fed. 590 689 Kibbler v. De Forest, 6 Ala. 92 428 Hibbs V. Brown, 112 App. Div. (N. Y.) 214 1053 V. Brown, 190 N. Y. 167 1001, 1045 Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis &c. Transp. Co., 13 Fed. 516 953, 954 Hibernian Bank v. Everman, 52 Miss. 500 431 Hichens v. Congreve, 1 Rus. & M. 150 381 V. Congreve, 4 Russ. 562 815 Hickerson v. McFaddin, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 258 307 Hickman v. Branson, 1 Houst (Del.) 429 457 v. Kunkle, 27 Mo. 401 435, 852 v. Reineking, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 387 435 888 Hicks V. Branton, 21 Ark. 186 ' 796 811, 848, 861 V. Chadwell, 1 Tenn. Ch. 251 726, 727, 914 .V. Cram, 17 Vt. 449 476, 908, 910, 921 V. Maness, 19 Ark. 701 806 V. Russell, 72 111. 230 604 V. Wyatt, 23 Ark. 55 558 Hier V. Kaufman, 134 111. 215 457 Higgenbotham v. Stanley (Okla.), 128 Pac. 238 926 Higgins, Ex parte, 3 DeG. & J. 33 499 Higgins v. Armstrong, 9 Colo. 38 152, 486, 1048 v. Bailey, 7 Rob. (N. Y.) 613 722 v. Hopkins, 3 Exch. 163 244 V. Rector, 47 Tex. 361 535 Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co., 144 NT Y. 462 266 Highland v. Highland, 5 W. Va. 63 367 Hill, In re, 186 Fed. 569 443, 532 Hill V. Baker, 32 Iowa 302 186 v. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31 155, 240, 245, 290, 371, 399, 538, 624, 650, 820, 965 V. Bell, 111 Mo. 35 188, 291, 820 v. B. M. Creel Co. 18 Ky. L. 132 530 V. Cornwall, 95 Ky. 512 276, 290 V. Curtis, 154 App. Div. (N. Y.) 662 977 V. Draper, 54 Ark. 395 528, 622 V. Fearis (1905), 1 Ch. 466 553 V. Graham, 72 Mich. 659 935 V. Huston, 15 Grat. (Va.) 350 631 V. Jackson Stores, 137 Ga. 174 230 V. King, 3 DeG., J. & S. 418 360 V. Marcy, 49 N. H. 265 606 v. Marsh, 46 Ind. 218 796 v. Matta, 12 La. Ann. 179 350 V. Miller, 78 Cal. 149 275, 276, 277, 279, 389 V. Packard, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 375 834 V. Palmer, 56 Wis. 123 745, 768 v. Postley, 90 Va. 200 458 V. Stetler, 127 Pa. St. 145 1015, 1016, 1020, 1046 V. Treat, 67 Maine 501 634 V. Voorhies, 22 Pa. St. 68 486 Hilliard v. Walker, 11 111. 644 764 Hilligsberg v. Burthe, 6 La. Ann. 170 362 Hilliker v. Francisco, 65 Mo. 598 371, 421, 802 V. Loop, 5 Vt. 116, 796, 798 Hillman, v. Moore, 3 Tenn. Ch. 454 541 v. Roney, 78 111. App. 412 124 Hillock V. Grape, 111 App. Div. (N. Y.) 720 277 V. Traders Ins. Co., 54 Mich. 531 447 Hills V. Bailey, 27 Vt. 548 449 V. McRae, 9 Hare 297 836 V. Nasi, 10 Jur. 148 719 V. Reeves, 31 Wkly. Rep. 209 638, 722 V. Sommer, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 392 455 Hilton V. Vanderb'ilt, 82 N. Y. 591 598, 607, 925 Himmelreich . v. Shaffer, 182 Pa. St. 201 526, 541 Hind V. Low, 14 How. 438 677 Hinds, Ex parte, 3 DeG. & Sm. 613 276 Hinds V. Backus, 45 Minn. 170 455 V. Battin, 163 Pa. St. 487 1014 Hine v. Beddome, 8 U. C. C. P. 381 809, 834 Hines v. Dean, 1 White & W. (Tex.) Civ. App. Cas. Ct. App., § 690 291, 650, 796, 835 V. Driver, 72 Ind. 125 276 TABLE OF CASES Ixxi [References are to seeUons— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §g 615-1195.] Hinkley v. Gilligan, 34 Maine 101 467 V. Reed, 82 111. App. 60 967 V. Reed, 182 111. 440 967 V. St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co., 9 Minn. 55 820 Hinkson v. Ervin, 40 W. Va. Ill 717 Hinman v. Andrews Opera Co., 49 III. App. 135 795 V. Littell, 23 Mich. 484 901, 908 Hinton v. Odenheimer, 57 N. Car. 406 367, 499 Hirbour v. Reeding, 3 Mont. IS 218, 219 Hirsch v. Hutchison, 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 366 820 V. Shafer, 66 Miss. 439 854 Hirschberg v. Bacher, 159 Wis. 207 331, 660 Hirsch, Wickwire Co. v. Denison Cloth- ing Co., 158 Iowa 117 665 Hirsh V. Fisher, 138 Mich. 95 817, 826 Hirshberg v. Ciconett, 146 Ky. 642 727 Hirshfeld v. Weill, 121 Cal. 13 989, 992 Hirth, In re, 189 Fed. 926 89 Hirth V. Pfeifle, 42 Mich. 31 820 Hiscock V. Jaycox, Fed. Cas. No. 6531 289, 627, 672, 689 V. Phelps, 49 N. Y. ^1 275, 281, 301, 302, 371, 441, 442, 529, 535, 617, 624 V. Varick Bank, 206 U. S. 28 689 Hitchcock V. Peterson, 14 Hun (N. Y.) 389 822 Hite V. Hite, 1 B. Mon. (Ky.) 177 352, 353, 636, 637, 668 Hite Natural Gas Co.'s Appeal, 118 Pa. St. 436 1008, 1051 Hitt V. Allen, 13 111. 592 467, 888 Hittson V. Browne, 3 Colo. 304 200 Hixon V. Pixley, 15 Nev. 475 926 Hoadley v. Essex County, 105 Mass. 519 121, 937, 940, 943, 1046, 1050 Hoag T. Alderman, 184 Mass. 217 354, 667 Hoagland, Matter of, 79 App. Div. (N. Y.) 56 561 Hoaglin v. Henderson, 119 Iowa 720 191, 475 Hoard v. Clum, 31 Minn. 186 579, 615 Hobart v. Ballard, 31 Iowa 521 721, 789 Hobbs V. Chicago Packing &c. Co., 98 Ga. 576 503, 506, 511 V. McLean, 117 U. S. 567 371, 537 V. Wilson, 1 W. Va. 50 555 Hobbs Hardware Co. v. Kitchen, 17 Ont. 363 307 Hoboken Sav. Bank v. Beckman, 36 N. J. Eq. 83 466 Hobson V. Emanuel, 8 Port. (Ala.) 442 826 V. Porter, 2 Colo. 28 876 V. Whittemore, 13 La. 422 816 Hockin v. Whellams, 6 Manitoba 521 601 Hodel-Mutti Mfg. Co. v. Ham, 112 Mo. App. 718 825 Hodenpyl v. Hines, 160 Pa. St. 466 458, 473 Hodge V. Twitchell, 33 Minn. 389 169, 393 V. Whitall, 15 La. 503 602 Hodges V. Dawes, 6 Ala. 215 75 V. Harris, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 360 450 v. Holeman, 1 Dana (Ky.) SO 371, 669 V. Parker, 17 Vt. 242 359, 361, 668 V. Rogers, 115 Ga. 951 81 V. Strong, 10 Vt. 247 564 Hodges Distillery Co., In re, L. R. 6 Ch. 51 357 Hodgkinson, Ex parte, 19 Ves. Jr. 291 499 Hodgman v. Smith, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 302 69, 83 Hodgson, In re, 31 Ch. D. 177 630, 836 Hodgson T.' Baldwin, 65 111. 532 147, 1001, 1045 Hodgson V. Fowler, 24 Colo. 278 83, 219, 284 Hoeffler v. Westcott, IS Hun (N. Y.) 243 475 Hoeflinger v. Wells, 47 Wis. 628 434, 499, 849 Hoey V. Coleman, 46 Fed. 221 943 V. Twogood, 11 La. 195 835 Hoff V. Rogers, 67 Miss. 208 455, 743 Hoffman v. ^tna Fire Ins. Co., 19 Abb. Prac. (N. Y.) 325 299 V. Hauptner, 135 App. Div. (N. Y.) 148 572, 582, 715, 721 V. McMullen, 83 Fed. 372 173 V. Schoyer, 143 111. 598 526 V. Smith, 94 Iowa 495 419 V. Toll, 2 Ind. App. 287 449, 486 V. Westlecraft, 85 N. J. L. 484 459, 835, 836 Hoffmaster Sons' Co. v. Hodges, 154 Mich. 641 , 445, 486 Hogan V. Calvert, 21 Ala. 194 564 V. Cushing, 49 Wis. 169 825 V. Hadzsits, 113 Mich. 568 1008, 1026, 1028 V. Reynolds, 8 Ala. 59 267, 466 V. Reynolds, 21 Ala. 56 367, 499 V. Sullivan, 79 Vt. 36 492 V. Walsh, 122 Ga. 283 773 Hogarth v. Latham, 47 L. T. Q. B. 339 ^ 425 Hogendobler v. Lyon, 12 Kans. 276 499, 601, 925 Hogg V. Ashe, 2 N. Car. 471 644 V. Ellis, 8 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 473 1036 V. Hoag, 154 Fed. 1003 1053, 1055 V. Orgill, 34 Pa. St. 344 888, 1004, 1007, 1008, 1018. 1019, 1020, 1028 V. Skeen, 34 L. J. t. P. 153 429 Hogle V. Lowe, 12 Nev. 286 276, 290, 301 Hogue V. Capital Nat. Bank, 47 Nebr. 929 238 Hohnadel v. Ellsworth, 154 111. App. 484 592, 889 Hoile V. York, 27 Wis. 209 221, 763 Hoisting Machinery Co. v. Scofield En- gineering Co., 147 N. Y. S. 564 994 Holbert v. Keller, 161 Iowa 723 597, 599, 927 Holbrook v. Chamberlin, 116 Mass. 155 301, 422, 471, 472 V. Nesbitt, 163 Mass. 120 553, 599 V. Oberne, 56 Iowa 324 897 V. St. Paul &c. Ins. Co., 25 Minn. 229 245, 261 V. Wight, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 169 469 Holdane v. Butterworth, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 1 596 Holden v. Bloxum, 35 Miss. 381 260, 437 V. French, 68 Maine 241 75, 79, 897 V. Lynn, 30 Okla. 663 812 V. McMakin, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 270 326, 632, 638, 721 V. Peace, 39 N. Car. 223 360, 362, 668 V. Thurber (R. I.), 72 Atl. 720 366, 392 Holder v. Shelby (Tex. Civ. App.), 118 S. W. 590 344, 587, 715, 719, 789, 850 Holderman v. Tedford, 7 Kans. App. 657 451, 486 Holderness V. Shackels, 8 B. & C. 612 371 Holdridge v. Farmers' &c. Bank, 16 Mich. 66 499 V. McKewen, 107 Ark. 368 215, 401 Holdsworth, Ex parte, 1 Mont. D. & D. 475 158 Hole V. Bradbury, 12 Ch. Div. 886 118 Holgate V. Downer, 8 Wyo. 334 210, 215, 221, 487, 882 Holifield V. White, 52 Ga. 567 126 Holkirk v. Holkirk, 4 Madd. 50 819 Holladay v. Elliott, 8 Ore. 84 588 Ixxii TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Holladay V. Elliott, 3 Ore. 340 715, 850 V. Land &c. Imp. Co., 57 Fed. 774 623. 626, 675 Holland .v. Butler, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 255 265, 796 V. Cruft, 3 Gray (Mass.) 162 956 V. Drake, 29 Ohio St. 441 458 V. Fuller, 13 Ind. 195 528, 598, 626 V. King, 6 C. B. 727 638 V. Long, 57 Ga. 36 260, 594 Hollemback v. More, 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 107 517 Holliday v. Pegram, 89 S. Car. 73 825 V. Union Bag &c. Co., 3 Colo. 342 146, 1008, 1015 Hollingshead v. Curtis, 14 N. J. L. 402 820 Hollingswortli v. Atkins, 46 La. Ann. 515 818 V. Cameron (Tex. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 644 295 Hollis V. Staley, 3 Baxt. (Tenn.) 167 540 Hollister v. Barkley, 9" N. H. 230 720 V. Bluthenthal, 9 Ga. App. 176 415, 454 V. Simonson, 170 N. Y. 357 990 V. Simonson, 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 73 990 V. Simonson, 36 App. Div. (N. Y.) 63 366, 385, 590, 731 Hollond V. Teed, 7 Hare 50 118 HoUoway v. Brame, 83 Miss. 335 965 V. Frick, 149 Pa. St. 178 664 V. Holloway, 13 Beav. 209 261, 266 V. Turner, 61 Md. 217 361, 593, 668, 722, 728 Holman v. Carhart, 25 Ga. 608 857 V. Herscher (Tex.), 16 S. W. 984 910 V. Nance, 84 Mo. 674 598, 617, 751 Holme V. Hammond, L. E. 7 Ex. 218 46, 158, 213 Holmes v. Baker, 160 Fed. 922 692, 700 V. Blogg, 2 Moore 552 188 V. Burton, 9 Vt. 252 419, 433, 445, 486 V. Caldwell, 8 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 247 599 V. Daniels, 86 N. Y. S. 19 861 V. Darling, 100 N. E. 611 389, 394, 396, 652 V. De Camp, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 34 835 V. Ferguson-McKinney Dry Goods Co., 86 Miss. 782 532 V. Gilliland, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 568 238 V. Gilman, 138 N. Y. 369 631, 769 V. Higgins, 1 B. & C. 74 753 V. Hunt, 122 Mass. 505 716, 755 V. Jarrett, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) ^506 26S V. Kortlander, 64 Mich. 591 471, 487 V. McCray, 51 Ind. 358 169, 218 V. McDowell, 15 Hun (N. Y.) 585 458 V. McDowell, 76 N. Y. 596 722 V. McGee, 27 Mo. 597 625, 626, 757 V. Mentze, 4 A. & E. 127 830 V. Miller 19 Ky. L. 660 536 V. Old Colony R. Corp., 5 Gray (Mass.) 58 79, 126 V. Porter, 39 Maine 157 895 V. Self, 79 Ky. 297 289, 623, 624 V. Shands, 26 Miss. 639 834 V. Shands, 27 Miss. 40 599, 603 V. Stix, 104 Ky. 351 276 Holroyd v. Holroyd, 28 L. J. Ch. 902 289 Holt, In re, 98 Pa. St. 257 826 Holt v. Allenbrand, 52 Hun 217 596 V. Holt, 46 W. Va. 397 675 V. Howard, 77 Vt. 49 399 V. Kernodle, 23 N. Car. 199 882, 897 V. Simmons, 16 Mo. App. 97 426, 440, 443, 604 Holtenstein v. Conrad, 9 Kans. 435 789 Holtgreve v. Wintker, 85 111. 470 594, 596, 604 Holton V. Guinn, 65 Fed. 450 296, 626, 627, 672 V. Guinn, 76 Fed. 96 198 V. Holton, 40 N. H. 77 532 Holyoke v. Mayo, 50 Maine 385 675, 746, 754, 760 Homfray v. Fothergill, L. R. 1 Eq. 567 779 Honegger v. Wettstein, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 125 . 491 Honore v. Colmesnil, 7 Dana (Ky.) 199 668 V. Colmesnil, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 506 295, 352, 356, 522, 665, 667, 674 Honsinger v. Love, 16 Ont. 170 666 Hood V. Aston, 1 Russ. 412 787 V. Spencer, 4 McLean (U. S.) 168 564 Hook V. Stone, 34 Mo. 329 417 Hooker v. Williamson, 60 Tex. 524 350 Hooks V. Gila Valley Bank &c. Co., 12 Ariz. 315 496 Hooley v. Gieve, 82 N. Y. 625 638 V. Gieve, 9 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 8 638, 669 Hooper v. Keay, 1 Q. B. D. 178 562 V. Lusby, 4 Camp. 66 447 Hoopes V. McCan, 19 La. Am. 201 558, 562 Hoover v. Diffenderfer, 5 Lane. L. Rev. (Pa.) 245 827 V. Missouri P. R. Co. (Mo.), 16 S. W. 480 819 Hopfensack v. Hopfensack, 9 Daly (N. Y.) 457 732 Hopkins, Ex parte, 104 Ind. 157 297, 530 Hopkins v. Baker, 78 Md. 363 306 935 939 V. Banks, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 650* 600i 927 V. Boyd, 11 Md. 107 431 V. Kent, 17 Md. 72 810 V. Prichard, 51 W. Va. 385 625 V. Thomas, 61 Mich. 389 443 V. Watt, 13 111. 298 381, 400, 773, 775 Hopkins Mfg. Co. v. Ruggles, 51 Mich. 474 985 Hopkinson v. Lee, 6 Ad. & El. (N. S.) 964 493 Horbach v. Huey, 4 Watts (Pa.) 455 803 Horn V. Lupton, 182 Ind. 355 417, 716 V. Newton City Bank, 32 Kans. 518 437 Hornady v. Cowgill, 54 Ind. App. 631 261, 563, 579, 594. 615, 638 Home V. Greer (Tenn.), 43 S. W. 774 675 V. Ingraham, 125 III. 198 675, 718 V. Petty, 192 Pa. St. 32 820 Horner v. Wood, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 62 455 Horsey v. Heath, 5 Ohio 353 836 Horton, In re, 13 Pa. St. 67 591 Hortou V. Bloedorn, 37 Nebr. 666 301, 440, 444 v. Brown, 45 III. App. 171 835 V. Child, 15 N. Car. 460 437 V. Miller, 84 Ala. 537 260, 421, 911 V. New Pass Gold &c. Min. Co., 21 Nev. 184 152 V. Smith, 12 Ga. App. 232 421, 425, 604 V. Wilde, 8 Gray (Mass.) 425 459 Horton Mfg Co. v. Horton Mfg. Co., 18 Fed. 816 329 Hoskins v. Dickinson, 124 Mich. 11 399 V. Gentry, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 285 186 V. Johnson, 24 Ga. 625 820 Hoskinson v. Eliot, 62 Pa. St. 393 151, 411, 412, 418, 422, 424, 436, 486, 808, 919 Hosmer v. Burke, 26 Iowa 353 121 Hoss* Succession, 42 La. Ann. 1022 668 Hossack V. Ottawa Development Assn., 244 111. 274 1045, 1047, 1049, 1059 TABLE OF CASES Ixxiii [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ l-608i Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Hotchin V. Kent, 8 Mich. 526 411, 418, 461, 486, 919, 1057 Hotopp V. Huber, 160 N. Y. 524 1015, 1016, 1022, 1030, 1031, 1034 Hot Springs R. Co. v. Trippe, 42 Ark. 465 220 Hottel V. Mason, 16 Colo. 43 641 Hottenstein v. Conrad, 9 Kans. 435 344, 789 Hough V. Perkins, 2 How. (Miss.) 724 564 V. Stover, 46 Nebr. 588 826 Houghtaling v. Brinckle,. 7 Pa. Dist. 518 550 Houghton V. Bradley, 113 Mich. 599 591, 674 V. Houghton, 11 Sim. 491 289, 296, 627 V. Puryear, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 383 265, 795, 805 V. State Mut. L. Assur. Co., 110 Mich. 308 850 Houk V. Walker, 131 Ind. 231 555 Houlton's Case, 1 Meriv. 615 639 Hourquebie v. Girard, 2 Wash. C. C. 212 975, 978, 983, 990 House V. Linn, 179 111. App. 114 369, 391, 856 V. Thompson, 3 Head (Tenn.) 512 826 Houser v. Irvine, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 345 605, 607 Houssels V. Coe (Tex. Civ. App.), 159 S. W. 864 817, 826 Houston V. Brown, 23 Ark. 333 764 V. Polk, 124 Ga. 103 670, 850 V. Stanton, 11 Ala. 412 579, 626, 627 Houston &c. R. Co. v. Corsicana Fruit Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 170 S. W. 849 795, 861 v. McFadden, 91 Tex. 194 81 Houts V. Scharbaner, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 605 177 How V. Kane, 2 Finn. (Wis.) 531 139, 826 Howard v. Boorman, 17 Wis. 459 847, 849 V. France, 43 N. Y. 593 399, 745 v. Jones, 50 Ala. 67 297 v. Luce, 171 Fed. 584 153 v. Patrick, 43 Mich. 121 902 V. Patrick, 38 Mich. 795 727, 914, 918 V. Pratt, 110 Iowa 533 675 V. Priest, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 582 290, 303 V. Woodward, 52 Kans. 106 847, 848, 861 V. Yost, 6 Kans. App. 374 489 Howe V. Bristow, 65 Mo. App. 624 291 v. Howe, 99 Mass. 71 897 V. Jolly, 68 Miss. 323 655, 763 V. Lawrence, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 553 526, 531, 535 V. Morse, 174 Mass. 491 1055 V. Savory, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 403 798 995 V. Searing, 6 Bosw. (N. Y.) 354 632 V. Shaw, 56 Maine 291 . 506, 511 V. Thayer, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 91 594, 876 Howell V. Adams, 68 N. Y. 314 486 v. Brodie, 6 Bing. N. C. 44 221 V. Commercial Bank, 5 Bush (Ky.) 93 371 V. Earp, 21 Hun (N. Y.) 393 1056 V. Harvey, 5 Ark 270 25, 222, 573, 576, 582, 585, 587, 588, 589, 719, 729, 768, 775 V. Kelly, 149 Pa. St. 473 218 V. Reynolds, 12 Ala. 128 ■ 803, 834 T. Teel, 29 N. J. Eq. 490 533 V. Wallace, 37 App. Div. (N. Y.) 323 ' 635 V. Wilcox & G. Sewing Mach. Co., 12 Nebr. 177 559 Howell Bros. Shoe Co. v. Mars, 82 Tex. 493 S29 Howes V. Fiske, 67 N. H. 289 907 V. Patterson, 76 Ga. 689 826 Howland v. Davis, 40 Mich. 545 469 V. Roosevelt, 5 N. Y. S. 75 329, 553 Howze V. Patterson, 53 Ala. 205 25, 103, 124, 424 Hoxie V. Carr, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 173 276, 277, 289, 290, 525, 526, 623, 625, 628, 669, 719 V. Chancy, 143 Mass. 592 279, 316, 328 V. Farmers' &c. Nat. Bank, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 462 - 349, 506 Hoy v. Gronoble, 34 Pa. St. 9 768, 769 V. McMurray, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 364 815 Hoyt V. Bonnett, 50 N. Y. 538 630, 836 V. Hasse, 80 111. App. 187 561 V. Hoyt, 69 Iowa 174 296, 625 V. Kountze, 54 Nebr. 368 861 V. Paw Paw Grape Juice Co., 158 Mich. 619 1051 V. Reed, 16 Md. 294 861 V. Robinson, 10 Gray (Mass.) 371 820 V. Sprague, 103 U. S. 613 292, 371, 621, 677, 773, 956, 964 Hubbard v. Curtis, 8 Iowa 1 72S, 823, 829, 830 v. Guild, 8 N. Y. Super. Ct. 662 598 ■V. Matthews, 54 N. Y. 43 439 v. Miller, 27 Mich. 15 320 V. Moore, 67 Vt.'532 282, 284, 371, 455, 586 V. Morgan, Fed. Cas. No. 6817 1018 V. Winsor, 15 Mich. 146 290, 306, 935 Hubbardston Lumber Co. v. Covert, 35 Mich. 254 121, 291 Hubbell V. Buhler, 43 Hun (N. Y.) 82 576, 975, 981 V. Skiles. 16 Ind. 138 849 V. Woolf, 15 Ind. 204 83, 433, 494 Hubble V. Perrin, 3 Ohio 287 630, 832 Hubenthal v. Kennedy, 76 Iowa 707 419, 486 Huber v. Case, 93 App. Div. (N. Y.) 479 296, 625 Huckabee v. Nelson, 54 Ala. 12 ' 166 Hudgins v. Rix, 60 Ark. 18 531 Hudleson v. Boston, 169 111. App. 300 89, 91 Hudson V. Barrett, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 414 715 V. Hunt, 5 N. H. 538 820 V. Osborne, 21 L. T. 386 322 V. Robinson, 4 M. & S. 475 812 V. Simon, 6 Cal. 453 880 V. Spaulding, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 638 lOD Hudson's Bay Co. v. Stewart, 6 Mani- toba 8 419, 445 Hue V. Richards, 2 Beav. 305 715 Huey v. Christ, 232 Pa. 131 666 V. Fish, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 455 440 HufI V. Cameron, 1 Ont. Pr. 255 457 Huffman Vi Huffman, 63 S. Car. 1 554, 564, 744, 760 Huffman Farm Co. v. Rush, 173 Pa. St. 264 398 Huger V. Cunningham, 126 Ga. 684 670, 715 V. Ransom, 134 La. 696 901 Huggins V. Huggins, 117 Ga. 151 212, 617, "631, 639, 641 V. White, 7 Tex. Civ. App " Hughes, In re, 15 Quebec S 225 Hughes V. Allen, 66 Vt. 95 V. Boring, 16 Cal. 81 V. Came, 135 111. 519 V. Chambers, 14 Manitoba 163 V. Devlin, 23 Cal. 501 V. Ewing, 162 Mo. 261 V. Gross, 166 Mass. 61 498, 561, 599, 618, 619, 809 V. Love, 136 Mich. 169 673 V. Moles, 3 Lack. Jur. (Pa.) 382 861 V. Morris, 110 Mo. 306 453 v. Smither, 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 590 675 V. Trahern, 64 111. 48 620 563 iper. Ct. 529 599 290 80S 944 163 551 757 103 Ixxiv TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. 11, §§ 615-1195.] Hughes V. Twisden, 55 L. J. Ch. (Eng.) 481 508 V. Waldo, 14 La. Ann. 348 561 V. Walker, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 50 265, 795, 847 Huguenot Mills v. Tempson, 68 S. Car. 363 193, 196 Huiskamp v. Moline Wagon Co., 121 U. S. 310 303, 307, 441, 526, 528, 531 Hulett V. Fairbanks, 40 Ohio St. 233 168, 169, 341, 385, 881 Hull, Matter of, 34 Am. Bkr. R. 447 693, 696 Hull V. Cartledge, 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 54 635 V. Young, 30 S. Car. 121 422, 425, 436, 461, 473 Human v. Cuniffe, 32 Mo. 316 422 Humburg v. Lotz, 4 Cal. App; 438 978, 990, 994 Hume V. McNees, 10 Ky. L. 947 369, 726 Humes v. Higman, 145 Ala. 215 282, 283, 561 V. O'Bryan, 74 Ala. 64 267, 596, 901 Humphrey v. Mattox, 19 Ky. L. 1053 594, 825 Humphreys v. Drew, 59 Fla. 295 245 V. Mooney, 5 Colo. 282 231, 237, 238, 239, 241, 245 V. New York &c. R. Co., 121 N. Y. 435 1057 Humphries v. Chastain, 5 Ga. 166 604 V. McCraw, 5 Ark. 61 124, 579, 901 Hundley v. Farris, 103 Mo. 78 525, 528, 534 Hungerford v. Cushing, 8 Wis. 332 . 104, 125 Hunnewell v. Willow Springs Canning Co., 53 Mo. App. 245 1053 Hunnicutt v. Summey, 63 Ga. 586 290, 296 Hunt V. Adamson, 4 Ind. 108 826 V. Benson, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 459 276, 392, 624, 625 V. Chapin, 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 139 425, 426 V. Colorado &c. Co., 1 Colo. App. 120 596, 926 V. Drane, 32 Miss. 243 808 V. Gorden, 52 Miss. 194 850 . V. Joy, 1 Wkly. Notes Gas. (Pa.) 219 1030 V. Oliver, 118 U. S. 211 25 V. Reilly, 50 Tex. 99 747, 770 V. Rogers, 7 Allen (Mass.) 469 651 ~ V. Rousmanier, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 1 492 V. Rousmanier, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 174 492 V. Semonin, 79 Ky. 270 260, 496 V. Stuart, 53 Md. 225 675, 733 V. Wright, 47 N. H. 396 1056 Hunter v. Aldrich, 52 Iowa 442 912, 914 V. Big Four Auto Co., 162 Ky. 778 264 V. Conrad, 18 Mont. 177 80 V. Dowling (1895), 2 Ch. 223 579 V. Dowling (1893), 3 Ch. 212 631 V. Hubbard, 26 Tex. 537 467, 825, 857, 888 V. Hunter, 67 App. Div. (N. Y.) 470 499 V. Land, 81 Pa. St. 296 768, 769 V. Little, 17 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 500 350 V. Martin, 57 Cal. 365 848, 854 V. Martin, 2 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 541 827 V. Nolf, 71 Pa. St. 282 174 V. Patterson, 162 Ky. 778 264 V. Pfeiffer, 108 Ind. 197 170, 173, 655 V. Tolbard, 47 W. Va. 258 850 V. Wayneck, 67 Iowa 555 444 V. Whitehead, 42 Mo. 524 169, 589, 590 Huntington v. Burdeau, 149 Wis. 263 218 219 V. Potter, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 300 ' 602 Hurd V. Blackman, 19 Conn. 177 434 V. Culies, 18 111. 188 861 V. Haggerty, 24 111. 171 437 Hurlbut V. Johnson, 74 111. 64 291 V. Phelps, 30 Conn. 42 675 V. Postj 14 N. Y. Super. Ct. 28 599 Hurley v. Walton, 63 111. 260 160, 975, 990 Hursen v. Gavin, 59 111. App. 66 320 Hurst V. Brennen, 239 Pa 231 652 V. Brennen, 239 Pa. 216 389, 396, 652 V. Hayden, 94 Nebr. 704 901 V. Hill, 8 Md. 399 467, 603, 604 V. Litchfield, 39 N. Y. 377 677 Hurt V. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310 155, 231, 239, 240, 243, 245 Huse V. Guyot, 3 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 790 496 Huston V. Heyer, 3 Pa. Dist. 533 270 V. Neil, 41 Ind. 504 625, 627 Hutcheson v. Smith, S Irish Eq. 117 668, 732, 855 Hutchins v. Bank of Tennessee, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 418 596 V. Gilman, 9 N. H. 359 592, 593 V. Page, 204 Mass. 284 146, 660, 664, 674, 1011, 1020 V. Turner, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 415 515 Hutchinson v. Brassfield, 86 Mo. App. 40 455 V. Brock, 11 Mass. 119 186 V. Campbell, 13 Misc. (N. Y.) 152 658 V. Dubois, 45 Mich. 143 291, 292, 831 V. Murray (Tex. Civ. App.), 169 S. W. 640 754, 763 v. Nay, 183 Mass. 355 322, 326, 553 V. Nay, 187 Mass. 262 632 V. Onderdonk, 2 Halst. Ch. (N. J.) 2'77 352 V. Onderdonk, 6 N. J. Eq. 277 667 V. Sperry, 79 Misc. (N. Y.) 523 718 V. Sperry, 158 App. Div. (N. Y.) 704 591, 715, 718, 926 Hutchinson Shoe ' Co. v. Elko Mer- cantile Co., 143 Ga. 170 825 Hutchison v. Smith, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 26 621, 622 Huttig Sash &c. Co. v. McMahon, 81 Mo. App. 440 455 Hutton V. Eyre, 6 Taunt. 289 499 V. Laws, 55 Iowa 710 633 V. Murphy, 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 151 812 Huyck V. Meador, 24 Ark. 191 745 Huyssen v. Lawson, 90 Mo. App, 82 890, 891 Hyatt V. Van Riper, 105 Mo. App. 664 240 Hyde v. Casey-Grimshaw Marble Co., 82 111. App. 83 496 V. Easter, 4 Md. Ch. 80 554 V. Moxie Nerve Food Co., 160 Mass. 559 834 V. Van Valkenburg, 1 Daly (N. Y.) 416 810 Hydeville Co. v. Barnes, 37 Vt. 588 716 Hyer v. Burdett, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 325 657 H. Y. McCord Co. v. Callaway, 109 Ga. 796 301, 303, 418, 425, 440, 441 Hyman, In re, 97 Fed. 195 707 Hyman v. Peters, 30 111. App. 134 624, 628 Hynes v. Stewart, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 429 222, 589,-590, 775 Hyre v. Lambert, 37 W. Va. 26 445, 534, 731 Hyrne v. Erwin, 23 S. Car. 226 506, 509, 811, 812 I Iddings V. Bruen, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 223 398 V. Pierson, 100 Ind. 418 260, 486, 594, 604, 926 Ihmsen v. Huston (Pa.), 93 Atl. 601 627 V. Negley, 25 Pa. St. 297 852 TABLE OF CASES Ixxv [References are to sections — ^Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-119S.] Ijams V. Andrews, 151 Fed. 725 994 lUingworth v. Parker, 62 III. App. 650 899 Illinois &c. Co. v. Reed, 102 Iowa 538 897 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Avery (Ala.), 67 So. 414 796 V. Jones, 87 Miss. 489 220 V. Kilgore (Ala. App.), 67 So. 707 796 V. Owens, S3 III. 391 802 Illinois Malleable Iron Co. v. Reed, 102 Iowa 538 80, 216 Illstad V. Anderson, 2 N. Dak. 167 861 Illuminated Car Sign Co. v. Wilson, 31 Ohio Cir. Ct. 87 985 Iman v. Inkster, 90 Nebr. 704 326, 381, 382, 660, 675 Imeson v. Schriver, 11 Ky. L. 71 729 Imperial Shale Brick Co. v. Jewett, 169 N. Y. 143 1022 Inbusch V. Farwell, 1 Black (U. S.) 566 827, 832 Independence Mills Co. v. Burlington &c. R. Co., 72 Iowa 535 220 Indiana Bond Co. v. Ogle, 22 Ind. App. 593 247 Indiana B. & W. R. Co. v. Adamson, 114 Ind. 282 492 Indianapolis Furnace &c. Co. v. Herki- mer, 46 Ind. 142 239 •Indiana Pottery Co. v. Bates, 14 Ind. 8 276, 808, 835, 836 Industrial Lumber Co. v. Texas Pine Land Assoc, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 375 1047 Ingals V. Ferguson, 59 Mo. App. 299 210 Ingham Lumber Co. v. IngersoU, 93 Ark. 447 265 Inglebright v. Hammond, 19 Ohio 337 910 Inglis V. Floyd, 33 Mo. App. 565 349, 350, 352, 381, 364, 856 Ingols V. Plimpton, 10 Colo. 535 764 Ingraham v. Foster, 31 Ala. 123 775 V. Gildermester, 2 Cal. 88 817 V. Mariner, 194 111. 269 291, 386, 628 Inman v. Brookman, 28 S. Dak. 361 424, 448 Innes v. Evans, 3 Edw. (N. Y.) 454 855 ■ v. Lansing, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 583 1023, 1032 V. Stephenson, 1 M. & Rob. 145 450 Insley v. Shire, 54 Kans. 793 350, 351, 638 Insurance Policies, In re, 7 Pa. Dist. 17 193 International &c. R. Co. v. Tisdale, 74 Tex. 8 220, 854 International Bank v. Jones, 119 111. 407 764, 857 Interurban Const. Co. v. Hayes, 191 Mo. 248 506, 511 Iowa Leather & Saddlery Co. v. Hath- away (Iowa), 78 N. W. 193 476 Iowa Seed Co. v. Dorr, 70 Iowa 481 328 Ipock V. Atlantic &c. R. Co., 158 N. Car. 445 189 Irby V. Brigham, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 750 878 V. Cage, Drew & Co., 121 La. 615 983 V. Graham, 46 Miss. 425 535, 630, 836 V. Vining, 2 McCord L. (S. Car. 379 596 Iredell's Appeal, 10 Pa. Cas. 127 717, 718 Ireton v. Lewes, Rept. Finch 96 719 Irish V. Snelson, 16 Ind. 365 764 Iroquois Mfg. Co. v. Annan-Burg Mill- ing Co. (Mo. App.), 161 S. W. 320 796 Irvin V. Nashville &c. R. Co., 92 111. 103 220, 897 Irvine v. Campbell, 121 Minn. 192 975, 977, 979 V. Forbes, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 587 1047, 1054 V. Hervey, 47 Nova Scotia 310 728 V. Irvine, 13 Sess. Cas. (2d Series) 1367 623 V. Myers, 4 Minn. 229 847, 848, 854, 857, 861 Irvine & Muir Lumber Co. v. Holmes, 26 Cal. App. 453 87.3, 887, 901, 904 Irvine Co. v. Bond, 74 Fed. 849 249 Irving V. M'Lean, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 52 847 Irwin V. Bidwell, 72 Pa. St. 244 221, 529, 897 V. Everson, 95 Ala. 64 721 V. Williar, 110 U. S. 499 418, 426, 486, 825, 919 Isaacs, In re, 3 Sawy. 35 558 Isaacs V. Jones, 121 Cal. 257 719 Isbester v. Ray, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 79 598 Isenhart v. Hazen, 10 Kans. App. 577 592 732 Isham V. Phelps, 54 N. Y. 673 ' 815 Island City Sav. Bank v. Sachtleben, 67 Tex. 420 953 Island Sav. Bank v. Galvin, 19 E. I. 569 836 Isler V. Baker, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 85 499, 572, 579, 582, 583, 604 V. Outlaw, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 118 666 Isle Royale Land Corp. v. Secretary of State, 76 Mich. 162 247 Isles V. Tucker, 5 Duer (N. Y.) 393 855 Israel v. Finkelptein, 74 N. H. 604 445 Ives V. Ashelby, 26 111. App. 244 620, 677 V. Miller, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 196 741, 764 V. Muhlenburg, 135 111. App. 517 265, 796 V. Vanscoyoc, 81 111. 120 761 Ivie V. Blum, 159 N. Car. 121 529, 534, 536, 823 Ivinson v. Hutton, 98 U. S. 79 716 Ivy v. Walker, 58 Miss. 253 741 J. v. S. [1894], 3 Ch. 72 720 Jacaud v. French, 12 East 317 118 Jack V. McLanahan, 191 Pa. St. 631 468, 592, 600,_ 603, 607, 927 Jackman v. Fortson (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 215 (1896) 458 Jacks v. Greenhaw, 105 Ark. 615 425, 440, 924 Jackson v. Akron Brick Assn., 53 Ohio St. 303 170, 172 v. Alexander, 8 Tex. 109 810 v. Cornell, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 348 532 V. Crapp, 32 Ind. 422 275, 357, 671 V. Decker, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 418 186 v. Deese, 35 Ga. 84 587, 588, 757 V. De Forest, 14 How. Pr. (ISI. Y.) 81 327, 344, 722 v. Drake, 37 Can. S. Ct. 315 675 V. Gunton, 218 Pa. 275 ' 620, 626 V. Hart, 12 Ind. 605 564, 760 V. Haynie, 106 Va. 365 75 V. HoUoway, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 133 371, 455 V. Hooper, 76 N. J. Ch. 185 976, 978, 980, 990, 991 V. Jackson, 224 Fed. 888 295, 673, 674 V. Jackson, 9 Ves. Jr. 591 276, 623 V. Johnson, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 509 360, 668 V. Johnson, 74 N. Y. 607 668 V. King, 8 Leigh (Va.) 689 836 V. Lahee, 114 111. 287 722 V. Litchfield, 8 Q. B. D. 474 826 V. McLean, 100 KIo. 130 655 V. Porter, 8 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) , 200 268 V. Powell, 110 Mo. App. 249 754, 851 V. Robinson, 3 Mason 138 124 V. Stanford, 19 Ga. 14 281, 291, 552 V. Sheldon, 9 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 127 1023, 1032 V. Stanhope, 10 Jur. (O. S.) 670 823 V. Stopherd, 2 Cromp. & M. 361 675 V. Todd, 56 Ind. 406 Sll Ixxvi TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 61S-I195.] Jackson V. Town of Union, 82 Conn. 266 306, 939 Jackson Bank v. Durfey, 72 Miss. 971 307, 526, 528, 531 Jacksonville, etc., R., etc., Co. v. War- riner, 35 Fla. 197 599, 616 Jacksonville Nat. Bank v. Mapes, 85 111. 67 455 Jacobs vj Featherstone, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 346 190 V. Fountain, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 121 716 V. Goodman, 2 Cox Ch. 282 856 V. Shorey. 48 N. H. 100 213 Jacobson v. Landolt, 73 Wis. 142 719 V. McCullough, 113 Minn. 332 981 Jacquin v. Buisson, 11 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 385 579, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1020, 1035, 1055 Jaeger v. Hartman, 13 Minn. 55 847 Jaffe V. Krum, 88 Mo. 669 1020, 1024, 1034, 1036, 1055 Jaffray v. Jennings, 101 Mich. 515 497, 820 James, In re, 146 N. Y. 78 359, 668 James v. Alford, 15 La. Ann. 506 188 v. Bostwick, Wright (Ohio) 142 422 V. Browne, 1 Dall. (Pa.) 339 861 v. Jacobs, 147 N. Y. 710 727 V. Pope, 19 N. Y. 324 563 V. Stratton, 32 111. 202 . 830 Jameson v. Franklin, 6 How. (Miss.) 376 854 Jamison v. Cullom, 110 La. 781 473 J. & H. Clasgens Co. v. Silber, 93 Wis. 579 . 834 Janes, In re, 133 Fed. 912 694, 696 Janney v. Springer, 78 Iowa 61 103, 371, 415, 444, 455, 825 Jansen v. Grimshaw, 26 111. App. 287 499, 604 V. Jacobson, 112 Minn. 520 (1910) 92 January v. Poyntz, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 404 371 Jaoues V. Greenwood, 12 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 232 826 V. Hulit, 16 N. J. L. 38 748, 751, 774 Jardine.v. Hope, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 76 350, 360, 668 Jarecki v. Hays, 161 Pa. St. 613 291, 399 Jarecki Mfg. Co. v. McElwaine, 107 Fed. 249 694, 706 Jarmau v. Ellis, 52 N. Car. 11 450 Jarratt v. Gwathney, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 237 831 J. A. Euhl Clothing Co. v. Singleton, 161 Mo. App. 366 445 Jarvie v. Arbuckle, 163 App. Div. (N. Y.) 199 675, 729 Jarvis V. Brooks, 27 N. H. 37 276, 624 V. Hyer, 15 N. Car. 367 291, 292, 820 V. White, 7 Ves. 413 787 Jauncey v. Knowles, 29 L. J. Ch. 95 659 Jaynes v. Goepper, 147 Mass. 309 850 J. B. Inderrieden Co. v. Frost, 155 111. App. 575 820 Jefferson v. Markert, 112 Ga. 498 321 Jefferys v. Smith, 1 Jac. & W. 298- 721 Jeffreys v. Coleman, 20 Fla. 536 422, 454 Jeffreys v. Small, 1 Vern. 217 623 Jemison v. Deanng, 41 Ala. 283 428, 848, 1004, 1036, 1055 v. Walsh, 30 Ind. 167 741 Jenkins v. De Groot, 1 Caine's Case, in Error (N. Y.) 122 630 V. Howard, 21 La. Ann. 597 748 V. Jenkins, 81 Ark. 68 282, 301 V. Jenkins, 66 Ore. 12 666, 674, 729 V. Peckinpaugh, 40 Ind. 133 341, 342 Jenkins Bros. Shoe Co. v. Eenfrow, 151 N. Car. 323 596 Jenner v. Shope, 67 Misc. (N. Y.) 159 262, 263 Jenness v. Carleton, 40 Mich. 343 579, 635 V Smith, 58 Mich. 280 719 Jennings v. Baddeley, 3 Kay & J. 78 588 V. Beale, 146 Pa. St. 125 770, 1054 V. Broughton, 17 Beav. 234 590 V. Chandler, 10 Wis. 21 721, 789 V. Jennings (1898), 1 Ch. 378 316, 317 V. Jennings, 67 L. J. Ch. 190 276, 553, 579 V. Pratt, 19 Utah, 129 744 V. Rickard, 10 Colo. 395 277, 381, 396 V. Russell, 47 Mo. App. 160 86 V. Stannus, 27 Am. Bkr. R. 384 704 V. Whittemore, 2 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.) 377 719 Jenning's Appeal, In re, 2 Monag. (Pa.) 184 415, 416 Jenny v. Perkins, 17 Mich. 28 718 Jepsen v. Beck, 78 Cal. 540 651 v. Hall, 24 Maine 422 564 Jernee v. Simonson, 58 N. J. Eq. 282. 83, 85, 103 Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242 240 Jessup v. Carnegie, 80 N. Y. 441 155, 238, 245 V. Cook, 6 N. J. L. 434 381, 382, 383, 729 Jeter v. Burgwyn, 113 N. Car. 157 594 V. Johnson, 110 Ga. 308 723 Jewell V. Ketchum, 63 Wis. 628 564, 746 Jewett, In re. Fed. Cas. No. 7304 696 Jewett, In re, 7 Biss. (U. S.) 328 908 Jewett V. Bacon, 6 Mass. 60 820 V. Brooks, 134 Mass. 505 753, 768 V. Carter, 132 Mass. 335 508 V. Meech, 101 Ind. 289 528 Jewison v. Diendonne, 127 Minn. 163 504, 509, 826 J. M. Radford Grocery Co. v. Owens (Tex. Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 911 829 Johanning v. Wilson, 86 N. Y. S. 7 604 Johns V. Battin, 30 Pa. St. 84 422 V. Brown, 1 White & W. Tex. App. Civ. Cas., i 1016 965 Johnson, In re, L. R. 15 Ch. Div. 548 579, 639 Johnson v. Alexander, 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 6 75, 103 V. Ames, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 330 617 V. Arnold, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 46 770 V. Astin, 1 Sun. & L. 73 ■ 294 V. Barry, 95 111. 483 445, 559 V. Belanger, 85 Vt. 249 675 V. Brandt (La.), 10 Mart (O. S.) 638 294 V. Buttler, 31 N. J. Eq. 35 858 v. Carter, 120 Iowa 355 75, 80, 86, 103, 216, 260 V. Clark, 18 Kans. 157 579, 624, 625, 626 V. Clements, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 112 723 V. Collins, 20 Ala. 435 491 v. Corser, 34 Minn. 355 100, 242, 243, 245, 965 V. Crichton, 56 Md. 108 415, 455 v. Donvan, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 215 625 V. Dyess (Tex. Civ. App.), 149 S. W. 203 854 V. Emerick, 70 Mich. 215 557, 558, 559 v. Evans, 7 Man. & G. 240 292 V. Ewald, 82 Mo. App. 276 730, 743 v. Frix, 177 Ala. 251 469 V. Green, 4 Port. (Ala.) 127 819 v. Gordon, 102 Ga. 350 535 V. Hartshorne, 52 N. Y. 173 359, 362, 668 V. Harvey, 84 N. Y. 363 492 V. Hersey, 70 Maine 74 371 V. Hogan, 158 Mich. 635 276, 281, 282 v. Jackson, 130 Ky. 751 275, 357, 671 V. J. J. Douglass Co., 8 Okla. S94 861 V. Johnson, 132 Iowa 457 728 V. Jones, 39 Okla. 323 S58, 820 V. Judge, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 137 619 V. Kellogg, 41 Hun (N. Y.) 623 639 TABLE OF CASES Ixxvii [References are to sections — ^Vol. I, §§ l-608j Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Johnson V. King, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 233 534, 820 V. Levy, 109 La. 1036 475, 849 v. Lough, 22 Minn. 203 826 V. McClary, 131 Ind. 105 371, 473, 526 V. Marsh, 2 La. Ann. 772 605 v. Miller, 50 111. Ago. 60 731 V. Mon Lee, 30 N. Y. St. 392 486 T. Nelson, 2 Ohio Dec. 487 304 V. Norris, 190 Fed. 459 694 V. Okerstrom, 70 Minn. 303 238 V. Parmenter, 74 Vt. 58 706 V. Peck, 58 Ark. 580 666, 741, 744 V. Rankin (Tenn.), 59 S. W. 638 281, 424, 486, 820 V. Rogers, 15 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 2 291 826 V. Rothschilds, 63 Ark. 518 '86 V. Sanford, 13 Conn. 461 291, 730 V. Shirley, 152 Ind. 453 S34, 536 V, Shrewsbury & B. R. W. Co., 19 E. L. & E. 584 778 V. Smith, Morris (Iowa) 105 121, 265 V. Snyder, 7 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 395 719 V. Totten, 3 Cal. 343 592, 615 V. Weed &c. Mfg. Co., 103 Wis. 291 V. Weller, 54 Pa. Super. Ct. 481 ' 500, 835 V. Wilcox, 25 Ind. 182 597 V. Williams, 111 Va. 95 94, 541 V. Wilson, 54 111. 419 741 V. Wingfield (Tenn.), 42 S. W. 203 292 832 V. Young, 20 W. Va. 614 ' 558 Johnson's Appeal, In re, 115 Pa. St. • 129 389, 446 Johnson-Maakestad t. Johnson, 44 111. App. 593 772 John Spry Lumber Co. v. Chappell, 184 111. 539 371, 433, 526 Johnston v. Ballard, 83 Tex. 486 275, 357, 671, 727 V. Bernheim, 86 N. Car. 339 445 V. Brown, 18 La. Ann. 330 448, 504 V. Dulin, 10 Ky. L. (abstract) 403 677 V. Dunn (N. J.), 29 Atl. 361 530 V. Dutton, 27 Ala. 245 416, 425, 426 T. Eichelberger, 13 Fla. 230 221 V. First Nat. Bank, 145 Ala. 378 793, 796 V. Gaisell, 68 Wash. 700 601 V. Gumbel (Miss.), 19 So. 100 958 V. Mathews, 32 Md. 363 820 V. Moore, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 356 • 633 V. Freer, 51 Ga. 313 855 V. Standard Shoe Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 398 371, 529 V. Steele, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 335 75 V. Straus, 26 Fed. 57 531 V. Trask, 116 N. Y. 136 486 V. Warden, 3 Watts (Pa.) 101 922 Johnston's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 129 394 John V. Farwell Co. v. Jackson Stores, 137 Ga. 174 230 JoUey V. Hardeman, 111 Ga., 749 831 Joneiu V. Blanchard, 2 Rob. (La.) S13 1017 Jones' Case, 1 Overt. (Tenn.) 455 371, 455. 528, 603 Jones, Ex parte, 18 Ch. Div. 122 188 Jones, In re, 100 Fed. 781 693 Jones, In re, 116 Fed. 431 691 Jones T. Anderson, 76 Ala. 427 452 V. Anderson, 7 Leigh (Va.) 3q8 260 V. Aspen Hardw. Co., 21 (Solo. 263 239 V. Austin, 26 Ind. App. 399 825 V. Bailey, 5 Cal. 345 459, 461, 465 V. Bartlett, 50 Wis. 589 270 V. Beekman (N. J.), 47 Atl. 71 282, 283, 624 V. Bliss, 45 111. 143 555 V. Blun, 145 N. Y. 333 118, 121 V. Booth, 10 Vt. 268 825 Jones V. Burks, 110 Ark. 108 825 V. Butler, 87 N. Y. 613 670, 671 V. Butler, 146 N. Y. 55 233 V. Butler, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 367 275, 357 V. Call, 93 N. Car. 170 897 V. Cincinnati Type Foundry Co., 14 Ind. 89 155 V. Clark, 42 Cal. 180 „ . 152, 153, 1047, 1048 V. Davidson, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 447 175, 656, 982 V. Davies, 60 Kans. 309 83, 168, 169, 212, 218, 281 V. Davis, 48 N. J. Eq. 493 982, 987, 990 V. Davis (N. J.), 25 Atl. 370 301, 440 V. DeCamp, 2 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) „ 133 283 V. Dexter, 130 Mass. 380 . 341, 347, 381, 640, 652 V. Drapfer, 26 Ohio C. C. 785 469 V. Dugan, 124 Md. 346 283 v. Dulaney, 27 Ky. L. 702 617, 631 V. Fegely, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 1 817 v. Fields, 57 Iowa 317 399 V. Fletcher, 42 Ark. 422 371, 526, 531, 766, 816, 830 V. Gould, 123 App. Div. (N. Y.) 236 976, 980 V. Gould, 209 N. Y. 419 980, 1001 V. Hendrix (Ark.), 127 S. W. 720 475 V. Howard, 53 Miss. 707 797 V. Hurst, 67 Mo. 568 456 V. Johnson, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 276 499 V. Jones, 23 Ark. 212 659, 661 V. Jones, 13 Iowa 276 832 V. Jones, 99 Miss. 600 191 V. Jones, 36 N. Car. 332 295, 359, 361, 672, 674, 730 V. Jones, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 71 572, 601, 718 V. Kinney, 146 Wis. 130 978 V. Lester, 77 App. Div. (N. Y.) 174 723 725 v. Lloyd, L. R. 18 Eq. 265 583! 596 V. Lusk, 2 Met. (Ky.) 356 270, 307, 371, 527, 528, 529, 823 V. McMichael, 12 Rich. (S. Car.) 176 83, 103, 216, 579 V. McNally, 53 Misc. (N. Y.) 59 983, 990, 991 V. Mail &c. Pub. Co., 80 Hun (N. Y.) 368 233 V. Marshall, 24 Idaho 678 637, 667 V. Martin, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 351 796 V. Maund, 3 Y. & C. Exch. 347 562 V. Meyer Bros. Drug Co., 25 Tex. Civ. App. 234 823 V. Morehead, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 377 364, 732, 768, 769 V. Murphy, 93 Va. 214 77, 716 V. Neale, 2 Pat. & H. (Va.) 339 - 281, 444, 529 V. Noy, 2 Myl. & K. 12S 189, 583 V. O'Farrel, 1 Nev. 354 201, 420 V. Parsons, 25 Cal. 100 529 V. Patrick, 140 Fed. 403 218, 219 V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 97 Iowa 275 299 V. Proctor, 5 Ohio N. P. 315 579, 635 V. Purnell, 5 Pennew. (Del.) 444 71, 887, 902 V. Richardson, 99 Tenn. 614 830 V. Rives, 3 Ala. 11, 13 878 V. Sharp, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 660 626, 627 V. Smith, 31 S. Car. 527 276, 531, 757, 550 V. Stever, 154 Mo. App. 640 210, 216 V. Thompson, 12 Cal. 191 829, 830 v. Thorn, 2 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 463 604, 617 v. Walker, 51 Misc. (N. Y.) 624 103, l?t V. Walker, 103 U. S. 444 579, 638, 639 Ixxviii TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Tones V. Watson, 63 Ga. 679 265, 795 V. Way, 78 Kans. 535 291, 552 V. Webb, 8 S. Car. 202 733 V. Weir, 217 Pa. 321 589, 721, 775 V. Welch, 1 Jur. N. S. 994 732 V. Yates, 9 B. & C. 532 824, 831 Jones & Nixon v. First State Bank of Hamlin (Tex.), 173 S. W. 202 820 Joplin V. Cordrey, 9 Ky. L. 445 369, 641 V. Postlethwaite, 61 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 629 677 Jordan v, Ingram, 57 Ga. 92 825 V. Markham, 130 Iowa 546 982 V. Miller, 75 Va. 442 212, 454, 718, 721 V. Phillips, 126 Ala. 561 269 V. White, 4 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 335 727, 914 V. Wilkins, 3 Wash. (U. S.) 110 796, 811 V. Wilson, 64 111. App. 665 361 Joselove v. Bohrman, 119 Ga. 204 607, 720, 721 Joseph V. Davenport, 116 Iowa 268 1047 V. Fisher, 4 111. 137 910 V. Herzig, 198 N. Y. 456 326 V. Herzig, 135 App. Div. (N. Y.) 141 616, 855 V. Southwark &c. Co., 99 Ala. 47 926 V. Sulzberger, 136 App. Div. (N. Y.) 499 990, 992 Jos. Rosenheim Shoe Co. v. Home, 10 Ga. App. 582 232 Josselson v. Butler, 162 Ky. 229 537, 901 Jowers V. Phelps, 33 Ark. 465 104 Joy V. Wurtz, 2 Wash. (C. C.) 266 499 Joyslin v. Taylor, 24 N. H. 268 808, 849 Judd V. Wilson, 6 Vt. 185 743 Judge v. Braswell, 13 Bush (Ky.) 67 412 424 Judy, In re, 166 Mo. 13 ' 675 Judy v. St. Louis Ice Mfg. &c. Co., 60 Mo. App. 114 598, 835 Julian V. Wrightsman, 73 Mo. 569 633 Juliand v. Watson, 43 N. Y. 571 638 Julio V. Ingalls, 1 Allen (Mass.) 41 357 TuUiard v. Orem, 70 Md. 465 275, 359, 360, 668, 670 Julius Andrae & Sons Co. v. Peck, 176 Mo. App. 61 556 , Junck, In re, 169 Fed. 481 685, 687, 691, 692 Junck v. Hezeau, 11 La. Ann. 731 617 June V. Weyand, 9 Ohio Dec. (Re- print) 485 369 Jungk V. Reed, 9 Utah 49 742, 743 Tureens v.~ Ittmann, 47 La. Ann. 367 225, 583 Justice V. Lairy, 19 Ind. App. 272 351, 353, 577, 637 V. Meeker, 30 Pa. Super. Ct. 207 796, 826 K Kahley, In re, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 383 304, 528, 529, 693 Kahn v. Becnel, 108 La. 296 301, 440 V. Boltz, 39 Ala. 66 912, 916 V. Central Smelting Co., 102 U. S. 641 152, 1048 V. Central Smelting Co., 2 Utah 371 730 V. Thomson, 113 Ga. 957 261 Kaiser v. Fendrick, 98 Pa. St. 528 466 V. First Nat. Bank, 78 Fed. 281 432 V. Lawrence Sav. Bank, 56 Iowa 104 155, 230, 231, 237, 239, 245, 965 Kalamazoo Trust Co. v. Merrill, 159 Mich. 649 265, 743 Kalbfell, In re, 27 Pittsb. Leg. J. (N. S.) 210 635, 667 Kamm v. Harker, 3 Ore. 208 265, 795, 806 Kamp V. Bartlett, 164 111. App. 338 816, 817 Kanawha Hardwood Co. v. Evans, 65 W. Va. 622 291, 465 Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. ' Y.) 90 607 V. Smith, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 156 984, 985 Kansas City &c. Brick Co. v. National Surety Co., 167 Fed. 496 177 Kantrowitz v. Levin, 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 563 428 Kapp v. Barthan, 1 E. D. Smith (N. YT) 622 730 Karelsen v. Sun Fire Office, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 144 796 Karger v. Orth, 116 Minn. 124 706 Karraker v. Eddleman, 101 111. App. 23 559, 561 Karrick v. Hannaman, 168 U. S. 328. 573, 576, 587, 591, 601, 753, 769, 785 Karthaus v. Ferrer, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 222 459, 460, 461 V. Owings, 4 Harr. & J. (Md.) 263 669 Kasson v. Brocker, 47 Wis. 79 454 Kates V. Bok, 139 App. Div. (N. Y.) 640 660 V. Bok, 141 App. Div. (N. Y.) 925 318 Katsch V. Schenck, 13 Jur. 668 721 Katz V. Brewington, 71 Md. 79 344, 721, 789 Kauffman v. Fisher, 3 Grant (Pa.) 302 457 Kauffmann v. Cooper, 46 Nebr. 644 837 Kaufman, In re, 136 Fed. 262 706 Kaufman v. Carter, 67 S. Car. 312 262 V. Kaufman, 2 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 98 562 Kaufmann v. Kaufmann, 222 Pa. 58 291 V. Kaufmann, 239 Pa. 42 315, 635 Kavanaugh v. Mclntyre, 74 Misc. (N. Y.) 222 511 V. Mclntyre, 210 N. Y. 175 503 Kay V. Johnston, 21 Beav. 536 537 Kayser v. Maugham, 8 Colo. 339 144, 169. 276, 278,- 716 V. Sichel, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 84 811, 861 Kean v. Dufresne, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 233 606 V. Johnson, 1 Stockt. (N. J.) 401 778 v. Johnson, 9 N. J. Eq. 401 416 Keane v. Fisher, 9 La. Ann. 70 798 Kearney v. Snodgrass, 12 Ore. 311 486, 559, 561 Kearny v. Buttles, 1 Ohio St. 362 250 Keathley v. Stump, 147 Ky. 406 817 Keating v. Sherlock, 13 Ohio Dec. 536 606 Keaton v. Mayo, 71 Ga. 649 358 Keck V. Fisher, 58 Mo. 532 440, 453 Keech v. Sandford, 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. in Eq. 44 446 Keeler v. Mathews, 17 Vt. 125 424 v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 16 Wis. 523 299 Keeley v. Hargreaves, 236 111. 316 675 Keene v. Masterman, 66 Minn. 72 847, 848 Keeney v. Home Ins. Co., 71 N. Y. 396 299 Keerl v. Bridgers, 10 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 612 499 Keesey v. Old, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 1 798, 810 Keffler v. Wilds (Mont.), 146 Pac. 1103 263 Kehoe v. Carville, 84 Iowa 415 596, 926 Keiley v. Turner, 81 Md. 269 350, 353, 359, 360, 361, 668 Keilich V. Blum, 214 Pa. 54 976 Keim &c. Hardw. Co. v. Williams, 154 Mo. App. 716 475, 556 Keiser v. State, 58 Ind. 379 79 Keith v. Armstrong, 65 Wis. 225 820 V. Aubrey (Tex. Civ. App.), 127 S. W. 278 850 V. Fink, 47 HI. 272 270, 528, 529, 820 V. Ham, 89 Ala. 590 552 V. Kellerman, 169 Fed. 196 75 V. Pratt, 5 Ark. 661 847, 849 TABLE OF CASES Ixxix [References are to sections— Vol. I,§§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Keith V. Royal Ins. Co., 117 Wis. 531 299 Kell V. Nainby, 10 B. & C. 20 797 Kellar v. Self, S Tex. Civ. App. 393 458, 591, 601 V. Williams, 3 Rob. (La.) 321 448 Kelleher v. Tisdale, 23 111. 405 880 Keller, In re, 109 Fed. 118 689 Keller v. Fitzgerell, 158 111. App. 534 979, 988 V. Fitzgerell, 249 111. 451 218 V. Keller, 154 App. Div. (N. Y.) 919 729 V. Smith, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 314 417, 443 V. Swartz, 137 Pa. St. 65 718 V. West, B. & C. Mfg. Co., 39 Hun (N. Y.) 348 559 Kelley v. Bourne, 15 Ore. 476 103, 169, 260, 261, 265, 269, 882 V. Flory, 84 Iowa 671 531 V. Greenleaf, 3 Story (U. S.) 93 371, 389, 652 V, Hanes, 143 111. App. 1 574 V. Hurlburt, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 534 594 V. McNamee, 164 Fed. 369 153 V. Shay, 206 Pa. 208 728 Kelley-Goodfellow Shoe Co. v. Long- Bell Lumber Co., 86 Mo. App. 438 417, 454 Kelley Island Lime &c. Co. v. Master- son, 100 Tex. 38 71 Kellogg V. Cayce, 84 Tex. 213 599 V. Douglas Co. Bank, 58 Kan. 43 968 V. Fox, 45 Vt. 348 554 V. Griswold, 12 Vt. 291 83, 901 V. Moore, 97 111. 282 746 V. Olson, 34 Minn. 103 265 V. Totten, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 35 276, 328, 553 Kellogg &c. Co. V. Farrell, 88 Mo. 594 900 Kelly v; Bandini, 50 Cal. 530 826 V. Biddle, 180 Mass. 147 194, 195, 196 v. Delaney, 136 App. Div. (N. Y.) 604 291, 342, 400 V. Devlin, 58 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 487 170, 655 V. Devlin, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 555 880 V. Eckford, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 548 727, 913 V. Gaines, 24 Mo. App. 506 69 v. Hutton, L. R. 3 Ch. 703 440 V. Kelly, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 419 650 V. Murphy, 70 Cal. 560 596 V. Scott, 49 N. Y. 595 62, 541 Kelly's Appeal, In re, 16 Pa. St. 59 291 832 Kelsey v. Hobby, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 269 726, 760 Kelton V. Leonard, 54 Vt. 230 424, 475 Kemble v. Kean, 6 Sim. 333 778, 786 Kemmerer v. Kemmerer, 85 Iowa 193 362, 363, 371, 669 Kemp V. Carnley, 3 Duer (N. Y.) 1 458 V. Coffin, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 190 474, 592 V. Miller, 46 111. App. 213 444, 486 V. Smith, 88 Iowa 725 369 Kempe v. Andrews, Carth. 170 617, 623 Kemper v. Smith, 3 Mart. (O. S.) (La.) 622 445 Kemptner, In re, L. R. 8 Eq. 286 307, 554 Kendal v. Wood, L. R. 6 Exch. 243 455, 487 Kendall, Ex parte, 17 Ves. 514 492 Kendall v. (Jarland, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 74 422, 857 V. Hamilton, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 504 493, 495, 496, 497, 499, 826 V. Rider, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 100 276 Kendrick v. O'Neil, 48 Ga. 631 499 I V. Tarbell, 27 Vt. 512 716, 774 Kenmore Shoe Co., Ex parte, 50 S. Car. 140 967 Kennebec &c. R. Co. v. White, 38 Maine 63 982, 991 Kennebec Co. v. Augusta Ins. &c. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 204 486 Kennedy v. Bohannon, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 118. 486, 596,. 922, 923 V. Budd, 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 140 262, 264 V. Cassillis, 2 Swanst. 313 564 v. Hill, 89 S. Car. 462 357, 661, 664, 668, 671, 673, 722, 729, 732 V. Kennedy, 3 Dana (Ky.) 239 344, 582, 587 V. Lonabaugh, 19 Wyo. 352 172 V. M'Fadon, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 194 743 V. McKee, 142 U. S. 606 530, 820 V. National Union Bank, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 494 304, 529 V. Porter, 109 N. Y. 526 572, 574, 615, 638 V. Shilton, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 546 723 V. Tonabaugh, 19 Wyo. 352 170 Kennedy &c. Lumber Co. v. Taylor, 96 Cal. xvii 270 Kennett v. Hopkins, 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 259 601, 602 V. Hopkins, 58 App. Div. (N. Y.) 407 729 v. Hopkins, 174 N. Y. 545 730 V. Hopkins, 175 N. Y. 496 716, 725 Kenneweg v. Schilansky, 45 W. Va, 521 292 Kenney, In re, 97 Fed. 554 686 Kenney v. Altvater, 77 Pa. St. 34 445, 596 V. Howard, 68 Vt. 194 616 Kenniston v. Ham, 29 N. H. 501 798 Kent V. Cobb, 24 Colo. App. 264 25, 876, 901 V. Costin, 130 Minn. 450 977 V. Holliday, 17 Md. 387 496 V. Jackson, 2 DeG., M. & G. 49 416 V. Mojonier, 36 La. Ann. 259 262, 264 V. Norcross, 9 Pa. Dist. 754 715 V. Wells, 21 Ark. 411 848 V. West, 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 112 189 Kenton Furnace R., etc., Co. v. Mc- Alpin, 5 Fed. 737 598 Kenworthy v. Sawyer, 125 Mass. 28 491 Kenyon v. Sanders, 18 R. I. 590 187 Keogh v. Minrath, 56 Hun (N. Y.) 640 80 Keough V. Foreman, 33 "Lsl. Ann. 1434 675 Kepler v. Erie Dime Savings Bank, 101 Pa. St. 602 282, 623 Keppel V. Petersburg R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 7722 - 1055 Kerper v. Wood, 48 Ohio St. 613 468, 600, 888 Kerr v. Bell, 44 Mo. 120 188 V. Hawthorne, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 170 767 V. Potter, 6 Gill (Md.) 404 103 V. Sharp, 83 111. 199 511 Kerrick v. Stevens, 55 Mich. 167 223 Kerrigan v. Kelly, 17 Mo. 275 770 Kerrison v. Reddington, 11 Ir. Eq. 451 631 Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561 186 v. Matthews, 2 Euss. 62 789 Kersten, In re, 110 Fed. 929 702 Kessler, In re, 174 Fed. 906 371, 977, 989 Kessler v. First Nat. Bank, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 98 847, 848 Ketcham v. Clark, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 144 594 Ketcham Nat. Bank v. Hagen, 164 N. Y. 446 445 Ketchum v. Durkee, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 480 371, 531, 829 V. Larkin, 88 Iowa 21S 593 V. Lewis, 64 Hun (N. Y.) 638 850 Key V. Box, 14 La. Ann. 497 806 Keys V. Baldwin, 10 Ohio Dec. (Re- print) 271 295, 369, 674, 675, 727 Kibby v. Kimball, 63 Iowa 665 357, 564, 671 Ixxx TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. 11, §§ 615-1195.] Kidd V. Brown, 2 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 20 826 Kiehne v. Wessells, S3 Mo. App. 607 189 Kiersted v. Orange, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 151 ■ 186 Kifer v. Smyers (Pa.), 15 Atl. 904 897 KiggJns V. Munday, 19 Wash. 233 235, 236 Kilbourn v. Latta, 5 Mack (D. C.) 304 218, 381, 652 Kilbreth v. Root, 33 W. Va. 600 650 Kilgore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136 431, 508 V. Shannon, 60 So. 520 276, 503, 806, 861 Kilgour V. Finlyson, 1 H. Bl. 155 604; 888 Killam v. Preston, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 14 675 Killefer v. McLain, 70 Mich. 508 276, 636, 641, 659 Kilshaw v. Jukes, 3 Best & Smith 847 62 Kilworth v. Ice, 84 Kans. 458 _ _ 361 Kimball v. Bumgardner, 16 Ohio Cir. Ct. 587 189 V. Gearhart, 12 Cal. 27 575 V. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co., 8 Bosw. (N. Y.) 495 444 V. Lincoln, 99 III. 578 (1881) 626 V. Lincoln, 5 111. /App. 316 352, 353, 637, 667, 673 V. Longstreet, 174 Mass. 487 848, 904 V. Noyes, 17 Wis. 696 558 V. Thompson, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 283 526 V. Williams, 51 App. Div. (N. Y.) 616 984, 990 V. Wilson, 3 N. H. 96 451 Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512 152, 342, 389, 675 V. Jennings, 6 Sim. 340 778 Kimble v. Seal, 92 Ind. 276 850 Kimbro V. Bullitt, 22 How. (U. S.) 256 412, 424, 426, 429, 919 Kimmins v. Wilson, 8 W. Va. 584 215, 222, 775, 1055 Kincaid v. Hocker, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 333 • 365 V. National Wall-Paper Co., 63 Kans. 288 528, 531 King, Ex parte, 1 Rose 212 537 King, In re. Fed. Cas. No. 7779 1035 King, In re, 30 Misc. 575 937 King V, Accumulative L. Fund &c. Assur. Co., 3 C. B. (N. S.) 151 224 V. Barnes, 109 N. Y. 267 218, 976, 985, 990, 993. V. Bell, 13 Nebr. 409 846 V. Board of Canvassers &c. of Prov- idence (R. I.), 92 Atl. 569 292 V. Chuck, 17 Beav. 325 779 V. Courson, 57 Ga. 11 650 V. Duncan, 38 Hun (N. Y.) 461 232 V. Faber, 22 Pa. St. 21 432, 435 V. Haines, 23 111. 340 861 V. Hamilton, 16 111. 190 351, 362, 718 V. Harrison, 8 T. R. 508 795 V. Hoare, 13 Mees. & W. 494 490, 493, 811 V. Leighton, 100 N. Y. 386 616, 674 V. Levy (Miss.), 13 So. 282 424, 486 V. Mecklenburg, 17 Colo. App. 312 427, 857 V. Moore, 72 Ark. 469 743 V. National Oil Co., 81 Mo. App. 155 469 V. Randlett, 33 Cal. 318 121, 795, 1058 V. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 103, 469 V. Sarria, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 167 1004 V. Sarria, 69 N. Y. 24 . 1004 V. Shaw, 9 Ky. L. (abstract) 577 371 V. Smith, 4 C. & P. 108 593 V. Sutton, 42 Kans. 600 562 V. Timmons, 23 Okla. 407 861 V. Wartelle, 14 La. Ann. 740 718 V. Weeks, 70 N. Car. 372 624, 625 King V. White, 63 Vt. 158. 659. 716 V. Whiton, 15 Wis. 684 295, 396 V. Winants, 71 N. Car. 469 170, 172, 655, 656 V. Wise, 43 Cal. 628 978, 982 Kingman v. Mowry, 182 111. 256 967 V. Perkins, 105 Mass. HI 188 V. Soule, 132 Mass. 285 499 V. Spurr, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 235 201, 552, 1047, 1055 Kingsbury v. Tharp, 61 Mich. 216 103, 371, 455, 767, 897, 898 Kings County Bank v. Courtney, 69 Hun (N. Y.) 152 826 Kingsland v. Braisted, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 17 742, 811 Kingsland &c. Mfg. Co. v. Mitchell (Tex.), 36 S. W. 757 795, 819 Kinkead, In re, 3 Biss. (U. S.) 405 191 Kinloch v. Hamlin, 2 Hill Eq. (S. Car.) 19 576, 659, 747 Kinney v. Maher, 156 Mass. 252 350 V. Robinson, 66 Mich. 113 717 V. Robison, 52 Mich. 389 746, 764 Kinney County Land Co. v. Cubbage (Tex. Civ. App.), 155 S. W. 591 561, 834 Kinsey v. Archer, 80 Wis. 201 511 Kinsler v. McCants, 4 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 46 615, 808 Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. (U. S.) 289 390 Kintrea v. Charles, 12 Grant Ch. 117 366, 381 Kiralfy v. Macauley, 17 Ohio Wkly. L. Bulletin 331 770 Kirby v. Cannon, 9 Ind. 371 491 V. Carpenter, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 373 538 v. Carr, 2 Jur. (Eng.) 741 583 V. Cogswell, 1 Cai. (N. Y.) 505 430, 803 V. Hewitt, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 607 265, 596, 603 V. Ingersoll, Har. (Mich.) 172 411, 458 V. Ingersoll, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 477 721 V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 8 Fed. 462 804 V. McDonald, 70 Fed. 139 440, 498 V. Schoonmaker, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 46 270, 304, 371, 528, 529 Kirk V. Blurton, 9 M. & W. 284 261, 265 V. Garrett, 84 Md. 383 512 V. Hiatt, 2 Ind. 322 602, 888, 928 V. Hodgson, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 400 416 Kirkman v. Booth, 11 Beav. 273 615 Kirkman v. Kirkman, 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 211 329, 632 Kirkpatrick v. Sime, 5 Paton Scotch Ap. Cas. 525 623 Kirkwood v. Cheetham, 2 Fost. & F. 798 906 V. Smith, 47 Misc. (N. Y.), 301 80, 716, 719, 721, 723 V. Smith, 132 App. Div. (N. Y.), 758 668 Kirwan v. Henry, 13 Ky. L. 199 727 V. Kirwan, 2 Cromp. & M. 617 557, 562 Kiser v. CarroUton Dry Goods Co., 96 Ga. 760 529 Kisling v. Barrett, 34 Ind. App. 304 715, 716 Kistner v. Sindlinger, 33 Ind. 114 528 Kitner v. Whitlock, 88 111. 513 260, 421, 486, 916 Kittel v. Callahan, 46 N. Y. St. 404 466 Kittrell v. Blum, 77 Tex. 336 458, 474 Kleckner v. Turk, 45 Nebr. 176 237 Kleine V. Shanks, Fed. Cas. No. 7870 289 Kleinerk v. Knoop, 147 Mich. 387 796 TABLE OF CASES Ixxxi [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Kleinsmith v. Kempner, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 246 820 Kletnik v. Henricksen Jewelry Co., 122 Minn. 380 847 Kliger v.- Rosenfeld, 120 App. Div. (N. Y.) 396 726 Kline v. Kline, 3 Ch. Chamb. (U. C.) 137 658, 718 Kling V. Taylor, 90 111. App. 16S 826 V. Tunstall, 109 Ala. 608 487 Klingensmith v. Kepler, 41 Ind.^ 341 517 Klbck V. Beekman, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 502 888 Klopfer V. Levi, 33 Mo. App. 322 424 Klosterman v. Hayes, 17 Ore. 325 103 Klotz V. Macready, 39 La. Ann. 638 389, 607, 636, 659, 668. 672 Klumpp V. Gardner, 114 N. Y. 153 453, 458 Knapp v. Edwards, 57 Wis. 191 369 715 727 732 V. Hanley, 153 Mo. App. 'l69 ' 16o| 494 V. Hanley, 108 Mo. App. 353 975, 976, 982 V. McBride, 7 Ala. 19 579, 615, 852, 876 V. Reed, 88 Nebr. 754 342, 381, 394, 446, 660 Knard v. Hill, 102 Ala. 570 907 Knaus v. Givens, 110 Mo. 58 398, 604 Knauss v. Gaboon, 7 Utah 182 673 Kneeland v. McLachlen, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 203 675 Kneib v. Graves, 72 Pa. St. 104 832 Kneisley Lumber Co. v. Edward B. Stoddard Co., 131 Mo. App. 15 487 Knerr v. Hoffman, 65 Pa. St. 126 751, 761, 830 Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Theiss, 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 625 825 Knight, In re, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 518 696 Knight v. Hinton, 11 Gin. Wkly. Law Bui. 199 743 V. Marjoribanks, 2 Hall & Tw. 308 728 V. Ogden, 2 Tenn. Ch. 473 657, 832 Knipe v. Livingston, 209 Pa. 49 382, 387 Knoch V. Funke, 59 N. Y. Super. Ct. 240 727 Knopsnyder v. Quinn, 68 W. Va. 577 850 Knott V. Knott, 6 Ore. 142 190 Knottsville Rollei^ Mill Co. v. Mat- tingly, 18 Ky. L. 246 1055 Knowlton v. Dolan, 151 Ind. 79 731 v. Reed, 38 Maine 246 486, 579 Knox v. Bates, 79 Ga. 425 836 V. Gye, L. R. 5 H. L. 656 262, 598, 631, 644, 718 V. Pearson, 64 Kans. 711 675 V. Schepler, 2 Hill (S. Car.) 59S 291, 622, 820, 830 V. Summers, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 477 291, 830 ICnudson v. George, 157 Wis. S20 978, 991 Kobre, In re, 224 Fed. 106 687 Koch V. Endriss, 97 Mich. 444 446, 471 Koehler v. Roshi, 28 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 373 720 Koelz V. Brinkman, SO W. Va. 270 729, 730 Koenig v. Adams, 37 Kans. 52 573 Kohler v. Lindenmeyr, 129 N. Y. 498 912, 914, 916, 1029 V. Matlage, 72 N. Y. 259 564 Kohlsaat v. Gay, 126 111. App. 4 237 Kohn V. Marsh, 3 Rob. (La.) 48 728 Kolb V. Dubois, 150 Ky. 92 675 Konheim v. Meryash, 115 N. Y. S. 96 496 Koningsburg v. Launitz, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 215 307 Koons V. Bute, 2 Phila. Pa. 170 855 Kootz V. Tuvian, 118 N. Car ,393 104, 899 Kossakowski v. People, 177 111. 563 1045 Kountz V. Holthouse, 85 Pa. S*. 235 558, ool, oU^ Koyer v. Willmon, 150 Cal. 785 392 Kraft v. Greenough, 175 111. App. 124 508 Krall v. Forney, 182 Pa. St. 6 741 Kramer, Matter of, 33 Am. Bkr. R. 223 687 Kramer v. Arthurs, 7 Pa. St. 165 147, 291, 623 V. Dinsmore, 152 Pa. St. 264 472, 486 Kraniger v. People's Bldg. Soc, 60 Minn. 94 250 Krans v. Luthy, 56 111. App. 506 476 Krapp V. Aderholdt, 42 Kans. 247 360, 768 Krbel v. Krbel, 84 Nebr. 160 491 Krebs v. Blankenship, 73 W. Va. 539 216, 267, 342, 384, 400 Kreis v. Gorton, 23 Ohio St. 468 278, 633 Kreling v. Kreling, 118 Cal. 413 559 Krigbaum v. Vindquest, 10 Nebr. 435 672 Kringle v. Ehomberg, 120 Iowa 472 284 Kritzer v. Sweet, 57 Mich. 617 475 Kroll v. Union Trust Co., 133 Mich. 638 270 Krom V. Levy, 47 How. Prac. (N. Y.) ^1 912 Krouskop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204 578 Krueger, In re, 2 Lowell 6^ 476 Krueger v. Speith, 8 Mont. 482 _ 644, 835 Krumbeck v. Clancy, 41 App. Div. (N, Y.) 397 719 Krupp V. Adams, 124 Mich. 215 829 Kruschke v. Stefan, 83 Wis. 373 276, 291, 292, 601, 672, 741, 757 Kruse v. Tripp, 129 Minn. 252 902 Krutz V. Craig, 53 Ind. 561 765, 850 V. Paola Town Co., 20 Kans. 397 231 Kubillus V. Ewert, 40 Wash. 38 444 Kuhn V. Newman, 49 Iowa 424 897 V. Weil, 73 Mo. 213 456, 514, 820 Kuhne v. Law, 14 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 18 533, 535, 832 Kunneke v. Mapel, 60 Ohio St. 1 743, 772 Kunze V. Cox, 113 Mich. 546 292, 536 Kuriger v. Joest, 22 Ind. App. 633, 475 Kurner v. O'Neil, 39 W. Va. 515 528 Kutz V. Dreibelbis, 126 Pa. St. 335 716, 741, 743, 748 V. Naugle, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 179 371, 602 Kwapil T. Bell Tower Co., 55 Wash. 583 741 Kyle V. Connelly, 3 Leigh (Va.) 719 260 V. Griffin (W. Va.), 85 S. E. 559 267, 285, 350, 389 V. Kyle, 1 Gratt. Va. 526 914 V. McKerrall, 52 La. Ann. 1235, 27 So. 667 675 V. Roberts Exr., 6 Leigh (Va.) 495 269 Labouchere v. Dawson, L. R. 13 Eq, 322 316, 317, 319 V. Tupper, 11 Moore P. C. 198 39 Lacaze v. Sejour, 10 Rob. (La.) 444 594 Lacey v. Cowan, 162 Ala. 546 119, 371, 580 V. Hill, 4 Ch. Div. 537 469 LaChaise v. Lord, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 213 1031, 1032 V. Marks, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 610 1003, 1008, 1027, 1028 Lachett v. Rnmbaugh, 45 Fed. 23 818 Lachmann v. Benson, 167 111. App. 85 759 LaCho'mette v. Thomas, 1 La. Ann. 120 1028 V. Thomas, 5 Rob. (La.) 172 1007, 1020 Lacon v. Davenport, 16 Conn. 331 673 Lacotts V. Pike, 91 Ark. 26 75, 83, 104, 115, 217, 731 La Crosse Milling Co. v. Williams, 2 Kans. App. 160 „ ^ 469 Lacy v. &eenlee (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 921 820 V. Hall, 37 Pa. St. 360 276, 389, 446 V. Le Bruce, 6 Ala. 904 742 V. McNeale, 4 D. & R. 7 598 Ixxxii TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §S 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Lacy V. Wilkinson, 7 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 104 866 Ladd V. Griswold, 4 Gilm. (111.) 25 270, 371, 496, 526, 528, 559, 836 Ladiga' Saw Mill Co. v. Smith, 78 Ala. 108 817, 826 Lafayette Ins. Co. V. French, 18 How. (U. S.) 404 1046 Lafayette Land Co. v. Caswell, 59 Fla. 544 284 Lafayette Sav. Bank v. St. Louis &c. Co., 2 Mo. App. 299 960 Laferty v. Sheriff, 2 Monaghan (Pa.) 202 854 Laffan v. Naglee, 9 Cal. 662 389, 390 Lafferty v. Evans, 17 Okla. 247 249 V. Lafferty, 174 Pa. St. 536 733 La Flex v. Burss, 77 Wis. 538 75 Laflin &c. Powder Co. v. Sinsheimer, 46 Md. 315 237 Laflin Powder Cp. v. Steytler, 146 Pa. St. 434 148, 1008, 1051 Lafon V. Chinn, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 305 81, 995 Lafond v. Deems, 52 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 41 587, 588 V. Deems, 81 N. Y. 507 111, 166 Lago V. Walsh, 98 Wis. 348 854 Lagrone v. Timmerman, 46 S. Car. 372 247 Laidlay v. Lord Advocate, 15 App. Cas. 468 937 Laing v. Campbell, 36 Beav. 3 562, 675 V. Craig, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 134 848 Laird v. fvens, 45 Tex. 621 596 Lake v. Craddock, 3 P. W. 158 623 V. Gibson, 1 Ch. Cas. Abr. 290 623 V. Munford, 4 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 312 561, 722 Lamalere v. Caze, 1 Wash. (C. C.) 435 416, 675 Lamar v. Hale, 79 Va. 147 152 v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452 186 Lamb v. Durant, 12 Mass. 54 304, 444 v. North, 22 Man. 360 666 v. Rowan, 83 Miss. 45 358, 362, 668, 715, 829 V. Saltus, 3 Brev. (S. Car.) 130 602 V. Singleton, 2 Brev. (S. Car.) 490 604 v. Wilson, 3 Nebr. (unof.) 496 350, 352, 353, 637, 667 Lambden v. Sharp, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) ■224 422 Lamberson v. Bashore, 167 Cal. 387 263 Lambert v. Converse, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 265 599 V. Griffith, 44 Mich. 65 914 v. GrifSth, 50 Mich. 285 291 v. Ingram, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 265 651 V. Lambert, L. R. 16 Eq. 320 673 Lambert's Case, Godb. 244 444 Lamkin v. Baldwin &c. Mfg. Co., 72 Conn. 57 958, 961 v. Phillips, 9 Port. (Ala.) 98 434 Lamoille Val. R. Co. v. Bixby, 55 Vt. 235 193, 823, 829 Lamon, In re, 171 Fed. 516 486 Lament v. Reynolds (Colo. App.), 144 Pac. 1131 153 La Montagne v. Bank of New York Nat. Banking Assoc, 183 N. Y. 173 559, 564 Lamphire v. Cowan, 39 Vt. 420 370, 677 Lampkin v. Chisom, 10 Ohio St. 450 494 Lamwersick v. Boehmer, 77 Mo. App. 135 421, 428 Lanahan v. Lanahan, 110 Md. 176 616 Lancaster v. Allsup, 57 L. T. N. S. 53 638 v. Amsterdam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y. 576 238, 249 V. Choate, 5 Allen (Mass.) 530 1003, 1004, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1026, 1036, 1055 Lancaster &c. Bank t. Boffenmyer, 163 Pa. St. 559 138, 907 Lancaster Bank v. Myley, 13 Fa. St. 544 282 Lance v. Butler, 135 N. Car. 419 75 301 303 Landa v. Shook, 87 Tex. 608 579,' 615! 618 Landauer v. Littman, 135 N. Y. S. $ 435 Landfield, In re, 80 111. App. 417 531 Land Grant Ry. & Trust Co. v. Coffey Co., 6 Kans. 245 240, 249 Landmann v. Entwisle, 7 Exch. 632, 244 Landry v. Landry, 23 La. Ann. 312 675 Landsberg v. Bullock, 79 Mich. 278 826 Landwerlen v. Wheeler, 106 Ind. 523 489 Lane, In re, 2 Lowell (U. S.) 333 528 Lane v. Albertson, 78 App. Div. (N. Y.) 607 1045 V. Arnold, 11 Daly (N. Y.) 293 262, 264, 632 v. Arnold, 99 N. Y. 648 638 V. Bishop, 65 Vt. 575 191 V. Brainerd^ 30 Conn. 565 961 V. Doty, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 530 492 V. Fenn, 65 Misc. (N. Y.) 336 980, 994 V. Jones, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 627 371, 535 V. Lanfest, 40 Minn. 375 292, 832 V. Lodge, 139 Ga. 93 215, 853, 863 V. Roche, Riley Eq. (S. Car.) 215 350, 355 V. Smythe, 46 N. J. Eq. 443 328 v. Sterne, 3 Giffard 629 722 v. Thomas, 37 Tex. 157 176, 655, 674, 763 V. Tyler, 49 Maine 252 276, 277, 603, 624, 745 Laney, In re, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 15 359, 360, 579, 615, 638 Laney, In re, 119 N. Y. 607 674 Laney v. Fickel. 83 Mo. App. 60 1053 V. Laney, 6 Dem. Surr. (N. Y.) 241 615 Lanford v. Patton, 44 Ala. 584 795 817 826 Lang V. Jenkins, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. ' 634 ' 854 V. Keppele, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 123 835 V. Oppenheim, 96 Ind. 47 741, 743, 856 V. Waring, 17 Ala. 145 290, 454, 468, 624, 626 V. Waring, 25 Ala. 625 288, 289, 624, 626, 627 Langan v. Hewett, 13 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 122 418 V. Iowa &c. Const. Co., 49 Iowa 317 231 250 Langdell v. Harney, 36 111. App. 406 ' 854 Lange v. Kennedy, 20 Wis. 279 592, 604, 925 v. Werk, 2 Ohio St. 519 320 Langell v. Langell, 17 Ore. 220 729 Langley v. Sanborn, 135 Wis. 178 75, 218 Langlois v. Dubray, 17 Quebec Super. Ct. 328 601, 672 Langmead, In re, 20 Beav. 20 554 Langmead, In re, 7 De G. M. & G. 353 371 Langslow, In re, 98 Fed. 869 699, 705 Lanier v. Chappell, 2 Fla. 621 466 v. McCabe, 2 Fla. 32 426 Lannan v. Clavin, 3 Kans. 17 730, 731 Lansing v. Bever Land Co., 158 Iowa 693 818, 826, 827 V. Gaine, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 300 596, 600, 604 Lantz v. Ryman, 102 Iowa 348 291 V. Tumlin, 74 W. Va. 196 731, 902 Lapenta v. Lettieri, 72 Conn. 377 210, 476, 573, 576, 582, 601 Lapeyre v. Gales, 2 Cranch (C. C.) 291 847 Larbig v. Peck, 174 N. Y. 513 270 Large v. Ditmars, 27 N. J. Eg. 283 720 Larkin v. Martin, 46 Misc. (N. Y.) 179 218 Larned v. Beal, 65 N. H. 184 237, 238 I Larson v. Newman, 19 N. Dak. 153 597 TABLE OF CASES Ixxxiii [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 613-1195.] Larzelere v. Taber, 119 App. Div. 81 (N. Y.) 75 V. Tiel, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 109 529 Lash V. Arnold, 53 N. Car. 206 826 V. Morris County Bank (Tex. Civ. App.). 54 S. W. 806 817 Lasher v. Colton, 225 111. 234 797 Lasky v. Coverdale, 84 Misc. (N. Y.) 34 743 La Societe Francaise &c. v. Weidmann, 97 Calif. 507 104, 125, 826 Lassiter v. Jackman, 88 Ind. 118 350, 354 V. Stainback, 119 N. Car. 103 371, 398 Laswell v. Bobbins, 39 111. 210 276, 730 Latch V. Wedlake, 11 Ad. & L. 959 888 Latham v. Kenniston, 13 N. H. 203 893 V. Simmons, 48 N. Car. 27 291, 832 V. Skinner, 62 N. Car. 292 531, 554 Lathrop v. Atwood, 21 Conn. 117 564, 771 V. Knapp, 27 Wis. 214 83 V. Knapp, 37 Wis. 307 398 Latimer v. Newman, 69 Mo. App. 76 835 Latrobe V. Deitrich, 114 Md. 8 188 Latta V. Kilbourn, 150 U. S. 524 221, 342, 348, 387, 389, 392, 393, 396, 653, 654 Lattimer, Matter of, 174 Fed. 824 687 Laucks V. Martin, 6 Sad. (Pa.) 352 557 Lauer v. Ba»dow, 48 Wis. 638 493 V. .Kaufman, 27 Colo. App. 419 994 Lauferty v. Wheeler, 11 Daly (N. Y.) 194 261, 263 Lauffer v. Cavett, 87 Pa. St. 479 290 Laughlin, In re, 96 Fed. 589 706 Laughlin v. Lorenz's Admr., 48 Pa. St. 275 579, 638 Law V. Ford, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 310 728 V. Garrett, 8 Ch. Div. 26 677, 721 V. Law (1905), 1 Ch. 140 400, 551 Lawes v. Lawes, 9 Ch. Div. 98 675 Law Reporting Co. v. Texas Grain &c. Co. (Tex.. Civ. App.), 168 S. W. 1001 795 Lawrence v. Batchelder, 131 Mass. 504 1004, 1030, 1036 V. Clark, 9 Dana (Ky.) 257 741, 744, 748, 755 V. Hull, 169 Mass. 250 262, 553 V. Leake, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 577 836 v. Mangold, 1 Walk. (Pa.) 202 746 V. Merrifield, 42 N. Y. Super. Ct. 36 1016, 1029 V. Robinson, 4 Colo. 567 573 V. Rokes, 61 Maine 38 , 718 V. Streeter, 130 Minn. 64, 153 N. W. 126 980 V. Taylor, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 107 444 V. Times Printing Co., 90 Fed. 24 322 V. Westlake, 28 Mont. 503 825 Lawrence Lumber Co. v. Lyon, 93 Miss. 859 ^ _ 721 Lawson v. Bank of London, 18 C. B. 84 261 V. Dunn, 66 N. J. Eq. 90 , _„„ 535, 537, 538, 665, 728 V. Morgan, 1 Price 303 720, 721, 773 Lawton Saw Co. v. Machum, 2 N. Brunsw. Eq. 191 661, 671 Lay V. Emery, 8 N. Dak. 515 342, 356, 381, 384, 389, 392, 652, 675, 729 Laylin v. Knox, 41 Mich. 40 364, 367 Lays V. Hurley, 215 Mass. 582 471 Layton v. Hall, 25 Tex. 204 ^ _ 878 V. Hastings. 2 Har. (Del.) 147 422 Lazelle v. Miller, 40 Ore. 549 558 Lea V. Guice, 13 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 656 486, 888, 889, 922 Leabo v. Goode, 67 Mo. 126 ~ 499, 606 V. Renshaw, 61 Mo. 292 764, 861 Leach v. Church. 15 Ohio St. 169 499, 606 V, Cook, 10 tt. 239 820 Leach V. Leach, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 68 389, 401, 672 V. Milburn Wagon Co., 14 Nebr. 106 121, 796 Leacock v. State, 136 Ind. 217 405 Leader v. Plante, 95 Maine 343 552 Leaf, In re, 105 Pa. St. 505 289, 579, 627, 672 Leaf V. Coles, 1 DeG. M. & G. 171 583 Leafgreen v. Telford, 169 111. App. 582 451 Leahey v. Kingon, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 192 826 Leak v. MacDowall, 3 New Reports 185 118 Leake & Watts Orphan House v. Law- rence, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 80 496, 814 Learned v. Ayres, 41 Mich. 677 555, 773 Leary v. Boggs, 41 Hun (N. Y.) 643 276, 281, 617, 626, 628 v. Shout, 33 Beav. 582 587 Leatherman v. Times Co., 88 Ky. 291 817 Leavenworth v. Brandon, 76 Wash. 394 559 Leavet V. Sherman, 1 Soot (Conn.) 159 805 Leavitt, In re. Fed. Cas. No. 8169 707 Leavitt v. Peck, 3 Conn. 124 418, 464, 486, 824, 825 V. Windsor Land Inv. Co., 54 Fed 439 126 Leavitt's Estate, In re, 20 N. Y. S. 58 633 Leber v.Dietz, 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 524 216 Leckie v. Bennett, 160 Mo. App. 145 924, 954' v.- Scott, 10 La. 412 421 Ledden v. Colby, 14 N. H. 33 808, 849, 861 Ledford v. Emerson, 140 N. Car. 288 762, 990 Ledsinger v. Central Line Steamers, 75 Ga. 567 193 Ledyard v. Bull, 119 N. Y. 62 675 Lee V. Abrams, 12 111. Ill 774 V. Bradley Fertilizer Co., 44 Fla. 787 297, 531, 693 V. BuUard, ,3 La. Ann. 462 291, 820 V. Burnley, 195 Pa. St. 58 146, 1015, 1020, 1026 V. Cravens, 9 Colo. App. 272 72, 85, 900 V. Davis, 70 Ind. 464 350, 564, 760 V. Dolan, 12 Stew. (N. J.) 193 . 637 V. Dolan, 39 N. J. Eq. 193 364 V. First Nat. Bank, 45 Kans. 8 412, 424, 426 V. Flood, 2 Wkly. Rep. 26 630 . V. Fontaine, 10 Ala. 755 558, 559, 809 , -V. Haley, L. R. 5 Ch. 155 261, 266 V. Hamilton, 12 Tex. 413 451, 854 V. Hassett, 41 W. Va. 368 496, 827 V. Larkin, 125 App. Div. (N. Y.) 302 434 450 V. Lashbrooke, 8 Dana (Ky.) 214 ' 275, 350, 351. 360, 361, 362, 665, 668, 729 V. Longbottom, 173 Pa. St. 408 763 V. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.), 162 S. W. 437 509 V. Onstott, 1 Ark. 206 444 V. Orr, 70 Cal. 398 847 V. Page, 7 Jur. (N. S.) 768 659 V. Stowe, 57 Tex. 444 603 V. Templeton, 6 Gray Mass. 579 940 V. Wimberly, 102 Ala. 539 579, 638, 900 V. Wysong, 128 Fed. 833 283 Leedom v. Ham, 116 Cal. xvi 371, 525 Leeds, In re, 49 La. Ann. 501 468 Leeds v. Holmes, 6 Mart. (La.) (N. S.) 655 555 V. Townsend,- 74 III. App. 444 721, 789 V. Townsend, 89 111. App. 646 278 Ixxxiv TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Leeds V. Townsend, 228 111. 451 56 Leeds &c. R. Co. v. Fearnley, 4 Ex. 26 188 Lees V. Laforest, 14 Beav. 250 602 Lefavour v. Yandes, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 240 888 Lefebvre v. Aubry, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 602 715 Lefever v. Underwood, 41 Pa. St. 505 389 Lefevre, In re, 69 Pa. St. 122 276 Lefevre v. Silo, 112 App. Div. (N. Y.) 464 104 Leffingwell v. Elliott, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 455 956 Leffler v. Rice, 44 Ind. 103 412, 424 Leftwitch v. Leftwitch, 6 La. Ann. 346 727 Leggat V. Leggat, 79 App. Div. (N. Y.) 141 499 V. Leggat, 176 N. Y. 590 836 Leggett V. Hyde, 58 N. Y. 272 54, '74, 75, 80, 83, 103, 195, 897 Leggott r. Barrett, L. R. 15 Ch. Div. 306 317 Lehman v. Heuston, 73 Wash. 154 675, 927 V. Knapp, 48 La. Ann. 1148 247, 250 Lehow V. Simonton, 3 Colo. 346 558, 809, 834 Leidy v. Messinger, 71 Pa. St. 177 741, 743, 746, 748 Leigh V. Thomas, 2 Ves. 313 815 Leighton v. Clarke, 42 Nebr. 427 729 V. Hosmer, 39 Iowa 594 385 V. Knapp, lis N. Y. S. 1040 250 Leihy v. Briggs, 33 111. App. 534 398, 557 Leinbach v. Wolle, 211 Pa. 629 726 Leinkauff v. Munter, 76 Ala. 194 533 Leith V. Freeland, 24 U. C. Q. B. 132 564 Leithauser v, Baumeister, 47 Minn, 151 558, 559 Leieune v. Vanfrey Planting" &c. Co., 123 La. 871 834 Leland v. Newton, 102 Mass. 350 633 Lell v. Hardesty, 23 Ky. L. 2073 355 Lellman v. Mills, 15 Wyo. 149 291, 486 Le Mars Nat. Bank v. Gehlen, 85 Iowa 716 433 Lemiette v. Starr, 66 Mich. 539 602 Lemon v. Fox, 21 Kans. 152 _ 444, 486 Lempriere v. Lange, 12 Ch. Div. 675 188 Lenahan v. Casey, 46 Mont. 367 716, 723, 731, 902 Lendholm v. Bailey, 16 Colo. App. 190 718 L'Engle v. Smith, 48 Mo. 276 983 Lenhart v. Allen, 32 Pa. St. 312 888 Lennig v. Lennig, 11 W. N. C. 18 637 Lenoir v. Moore, 61 Miss. 400 493 Lenoir-Cross & Co., Matter of, 226 Fed. 227 687 Lenow v. Fones, 48 Ark. 557 290, 296, 625, 627 Lentz, In re, 97 Fed. 486 297 Leola Lumber Co. v. Bozarth, 91 Ark. 10 265 Leon & H. Blum Land Co. v. Dunlap, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 315 421, 453 Leonard v. Boyd, 24 Ky. L. 1320 650 V. Leonard, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 342 774 V. Martin, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 113 664 V. Poole, 114 N. Y. 371 172 V. Sparks, 109 La. Ann. 543 882 V. Wildes, 36 Maine 265 425 V. Winslow, 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 139 371, 455 Leon Exch. Bank v. Gardner, 104 Iowa, 176 729 Leonhardt v. Citizens' Bank, 56 Nebr. 38 963, 965 Le Page v. McCrea, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 164 367, 390, 496, 499 Leppel V. Lumley, 19 Colo. App. 413 728 Lerch v. Bard, 177 Pa. St. 197 417, 424 Le Roy v. Johnson, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 186 260, 261, 486, 878 Le Roy v. Mathewson, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 389 276 Lesamis v. Greenberg, 225 Fed. 449 672 Leschen &c. Rope Co. v. Moser (Tex. Civ. App.), 159 S. W. 1018 249 Leserman v. Bernheimer, 113 N. Y. 39 358, 364, 593, 662, 665, 666, 668, 672, 731 Lesh V. Bailey, 49 .Ind. App. 254 716 V. Davison, 181 Ind. 429 855 Lesley v. Rosson, 39 Miss. 368 716, 773 Leslie v. Bartlett, 164 111. App. 346 817 V. Hill, 25 Ont. L. Rep. 144 218 Leslie E. Keeley Co. v. Hargreaves, 236 111. 316 381 Lessem v. Wilson, 43 Iowa 488 866 Lesseps v. Architect Co., 13 La. 414 1055 Lesserman v. Bernheimer, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 590 668 Lessig V. Langton, Brightly (N. P.) (Pa.) 191 ' ' •" ' '■ ^ g54 Lessing v. Sulzbacher, 35 Mo. 445 848, 861 Lestapies v. Ingraham, 5 Pa. St. 71 655 Lester v. Givens, 74 Mo. App. 395 291, 292, 371, 830, 831 V. Pollock, 26 N. Y. Super. Ct. 691 529 Lesure v. Norris, 65 Mass. (11 Cush). 328 764 Letson v. Hall, 1 Ala. App. 619 91, 92, 425, 426, 475, 835, 854, 876, 887, 901 Letts-Fletcher Co. v. McMaster, 83 Iowa 449 304, 440, 529 Levally v. Ellis, 13 Iowa 544 806 Leveck v. Shaftoe, 2 Esp. 468 798 Level V. Farris, 24 Mo. App. 445 526 Leverson v. Lane, 13 C. B. (N. S.) 278 857 Levi v. Karrick, 8 Iowa ISO 327, 587, 729, 730, 731 V. Karrick, 13 Iowa 344 212, 350, 354, 652, 850 V. Latham, 15 Nebr. 509 424, 435 Levick, In re Appeal of, 1 Sad. (Pa.) 36S 472 Levine v. Michel, 35 La. Ann. 1121 778, 781 Levingston v. Blanchard, 130 Mass. 341 -357 Levins v. Stark, 57 Ore. 189 861 Levinson v. Boas, 150 Cal. 185 200 Levy, In re, 95 Fed. 812 700 Levy v. Abramsohn, Z9 Misc. (N. Y.) 781 472 V. Alexander, 9S Ala. 101 825 V. Archenhold (Tex. Civ. App.), 44 S. W. 46 631 V. Cadet, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 126 592, 600, 927- v. Cowan, 27 La. Ann. 556 292, 831 V. Levy, 11 La. 577 761 V. Lock, 5 Daly (N. Y.) 46 1003, 1008, 1014, 1020 V. McDowell, 45 Tex. 220 880 v. Pyne, Car. & M. 453 425, 426 V. Walker, 10 Ch. Div. 436 261, 329, 553, 599 V. Williams, 79 Ala. 171 297 Levystein v. Gerson &c. Co., 147 Ala, 251 796 L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 193 Fed. 242 261 Lewin v. Barry, 15 Colo. App. 461 454 Lewinson v. Albuquerque First Nat. Bank, 11 N. Mex. 510 _ 817, 832 Lewis V, Alexander (Tex, Civ, App.), 31 S. W. 414 832 V. Allen, 17 Ga. 300 466 V. Buford, 93 Ark. 57 276, 283, 291, 371 V. Cline (Miss.),. 5 So. 112 265 V. Conrad, 11 Iowa 153 630, 820 TABLE OF CASES Ixxxv [References are to sections — Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Lewis V. Crane, 78 Vt. 216 806 V. Crane, 50 W. Va. 239 536 V. Davidson, 39 Tex. 660 262 V. Dean, 76 Wash. 596 994 V. Graham, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 106 'l025 V. Greider, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 606 75 V. Harrison, 81 Ind. 278 529, 537 V. Langdon, 4 L. J. Ch. 258 326, 632 V. Locke, 41 Vt. 11 847 V. Loper, 54 Fed. 237 369, 381, 667, 729 V. Lowery, 31 Tex. 663 854 V. McEIvain, 16 Ohio 347 1059 V. Moffett, 11 111. 392 351, 354, 355 V. Moore, 9 Rob. (La.) 196 836 V. Paine, 1 Leg. Gaz. (Pa.) 508 820 V. Pease, 85 111. 31 450 V. Reilly, 1 Q. B. 349 605 V. Smith, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 327 329 V. Tilton, 64 Iowa 220 166, 1045, 1053 V. United States, 82 U. S. 622 630 V. United States, 92 U. S. 618 533, 535 V. Whitehall Lumber Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.) 637 360. 361 V. Wilkins, 62 N. Car. 303 126 V. Woolfolk, 2 Pin. (Wis.) 209 850 Liberty Sav. Bank v. Campbell, 75 Va. , .534 , 291, 433, 444, 455 Lichenstem v. Murphree, 9 Ala. App. 108 413, 449, 574, 596, 603, 919 Lieb V. Craddock, 87 Ky. 525 594, 923 Liebold v. Green, 69 III. App. 527 506 Ligare v. Peacock, 109 111. 94 350, 360, 574, 586, 661, 668 Liggett V. Hamilton, 24 Can. Sup. Ct. T-^^^. ., . 352, 667 Lighthiser v. Alhson, 100 Md. 103 475, 861 Likens v. McCormick, 39 Wis. 313 817 Lill V. Egan, 89 111. 609 486 Lilliendahl v. Stegmair, 45 N. T. Eq. 648 716 Lilly V. Kroesen, 3 Md. Ch. 83 369, 675 V. Yeary (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 823 826 Lime Rock Bank v. Phetteplace, 8 R. I. 56 281, 624 Lime Rock F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Treat, 58 Maine 415 437 Lincoln v. Ball, 6 La. 685 719 V. Orthwein, 120 Fed. 880 638 V. White, 30 Maine 291 276 Lincoln Park &c. v. Swatek, 204 III. 228 882 Lincoln Sav. Bank v. Gray, 12 Lea. (Ten'n.) 459 715 Lind V. Webber, 36 Nev. 623, 134 Pac. 461 982, 992 Lindemann v. Advance Stove Works, 170 111. App. 423 167 Lindh v. Crowley, 29 Kans. 756 417, 424 Lindley v. Davis, 7 Mont. 206 290, 307 Lindmeier v. Monahan, 64 Iowa 24 503 Lindner v. Bank, 49 Nebr. 35 620, 644 Lindsay v. Guy, 57 Wis. 200 912, 918 v. Jaffray, 55 Tex. 626 854 V. Race, 103 Mich. 28 276, 282, 283 Lindsay v, Edmiston, 25 III. 359 486, 500, 922 V. Stranahan, 129 Pa. St. 635 350, 354 Lineweaver v. Slagle, 64 Md. 465 1015, 1016, 1020, 1023, 1033 LJngard v. Bromley, 1 V. & B. 114 364 Lingen v. Simpson, 1 Sim. & St. 602 371, 386, 551, 779 Liagenfelser v. Simon, 49 Ind. 82 434, 499 Lingood v. Bade, 2 Atk. 501 370 Link V. Allen, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 318 819 Linkauf v. Lombard, 137 N. Y. 417 250 Linke v.. Fleming, 25 Grat. (Va.) 704 555 Linn v. Downing, 216 111. 64 835 V. Ross, 16 N. J. L. 55 516 V. Valz, 11 Ky. L. 846 426, 604 Lintner v. Millikin, 47 III. 178 103 Linton v. Hurley, 14 Gray (Mass.) 191 504, 509 Liotard v. Graves, 3 Caines (N. Y.) 226 668 Lipewitz v. Siglin, 17 Pa. Dist. Ct. 655 • 817 Lippincott v. Low, 68 Pa. St. 314 746 V. Shaw Carriage Co., 25 Fed. 577 817 Lippman v. Joelson, 1 N. Y. Code (N. S.) 161 826 Lipsett V. Hassard, 158 Mich. 509 1059 Liquidating Comrs. of Bank v. Dodson, 131 La. 990 555, 559 Lisco V. Husmann, 98 Nebr. 276 586 Litchfield, In re, 5 Fed. 47 696 Littell V. Fitch, 11 Mich. 525 878 V. Hackley, 126 Fed. 309 635 Little V. Britton (Ala.), 66 So. 694 413, 418, 444, 446, 450 V. Caldwell, 101 Cal. 553 353, 616, 637, 661 V. Caldwell, 112 Cal. 27 674 V. Cambridge, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 298 940 V. Clark, 36 Pa. St. 114 596 V. Ferguson, 11 Mo. 598 888 V. Grayson, 30 Pittsb. Leg. Jour. (Pa ) 222 578 V. Hamilton, 61 N. Car. 29 805 V. Hazlett, 197 Pa. 591 190, 578, 594 V. Hazzard, 5 Har. (Del.) 291 444 V. Little, 2 N. Dak. 175 675 V. Merrill, 62 Maine 328 858 V. Snedecor, 52 Ala. 167 276, 626 V. Stanton, 32 Pa. St. 299 675 V. Staples, 98 Wis. 344 826 Littlefield v. Beamis, 5 Rob. (La.) 145 861 Littlewood v. Caldwell, 11 Price 97 720 Livermore v. Truesdell, 9 Colo. App. 332 , 536 Liverpool &c. L. &c. Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 566 1050 Liverpool, B. & R. P. Nav. Co. v. Agar, 4 Woods (U. S.) 201 119 Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 566 1046, 1058 Livingston v. Blanchard, 130 Mass. 341 275 V. Cox, 6 Pa. St. 360 509, 630 V. Harvey, 10 Ind. 218 265, 795, 796, 806 V. Livingston, 7 Ont. W. N. 406 667, 728 V. Livingston, 26 Ont. L. 246 652 V. Lovgren, 27 Wash. 102 817 ■v. Lynch, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 573 214, 416, 1046, 1047, 1052 v. Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 219 473 v. Roosevelt, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 251 303, 426, 433, 441, 831, 895, 919 Llewelyn v. Levi, 157 Cal. 31 342, 389, 392, 652 Llorens v. Costa, S N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 484 587 Lloyd, Ex parte, 1 Glyn & J. 389 562 Lloyd, In re, 22 Fed. 88 535 Lloyd V. Archbowle, 2 Taunt. 324 922 v. Ashby, 2 B. & Ad. 23 425 V. Carrier, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 364 361, 668 V. Freshfield, 2 Car. & P. 325 424 V. Loaring, 6 Ves. Jr. 773 815 V. Thomas, 79 Pa. St. 68 605, 607 Lobb's Appeal, 3 Walk. (Pa.) 374 730 Lobdell V. Baldwin, 93 Mich. 569 550 V. Bushnell, 24 La. Ann. 295 716 V. Slawson, 90 Mich. 201 444 Lobeck v. Lee-Clarke-Andreesen Hard- ware Co., 37 Nebr. 158 326, 632, 635 Lobsitz V. E. Lissberger Co., 154 N. Y. S. 556 977, 990, 1001 Locke V. Filley, 14 Hun (N. Y.) 139 677 V. Hall, 9 (ireeiil, (Maine) 133 540, 558 Ixxxvi TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Locke V. Lewis, 124 Mass. 1 455, 475, 486, 1004, 1020 V. Stearns, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 560 504, 508 Lockhart t. Harrell, 6 La. Ann. 530 804, 815, 835 V. Lytle, 47 Tex. 452 651, 741, 743, 746 Lockridge v. Wilson, 7 Mo. 560 877 903 910 Lockwood V. Bartlett, 54 Hun (N. Y.) 636 512, 514 V. Bartlett, 130 N. Y. 340 503, 515 V. Beckwith, 6 Mich. 168 342, 381, 396, 466 V. Comstock, 4 McLean 383 592, 603, 604, 605 V. Doane, 107 III. 235 216, 899 V. Roberts, 171 Mass. 109 _ 359 Lodge & Fendal, Ex parte assignees of (1790), 1 Vesey Jr. 166 538 Lodge V. Ainscow, 1 Pennew. (Del.) 327 468 V. Dicas, 3 Barn. & Aid. 611 557 V. Pritchard, 4 Giffard 295 732 V. Pritchard, 1 DeG., J. & S. 610 630 V. Pritchard, 3 DeG., M. & G. 906 727, 914 V. Weld^ 139 Mass. 499 262, 632 Loeb V. Firemen's Ins. Co., 78 App. Div. (N. Y.) 113 262 T. Huston (Nebr.), 152 N. W. 553 617, 620 V. Pierpont, 58 Iowa 469 458, 530 V. Stern, 198 111. 371 469 Loeschigk v. Hatfield, 51 K. Y. 660 620, 621 Loesser v. Loesser, 81 Ky. 139 675 Loeweuberg v. Gilliam, 72 Ark. 314 796, 847 V. Loewenstein, 114 App. Div. (N. Y.) 65 598 Lofan V. Chinn, 6 B. Men. (Ky.) 305 985 Loftus V. Ivy, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 701 800 Logan V. Bond, 13 Ga. 192 275, 517 v. Brown, 20 Okla. 334 219 v. Dixon, 73 Wis. 533 295, 631, 766, 772, 878 V. Greenlaw, 25 Fed. 299 289, 290, 626, 627 V. McNaugher, 88 Pa. St. 103 1052 V. Stranahan, 12 U. C. Q. B. 15 422 v. Trayser, 77 Wis. 579 364, 751 V. Wallis, 76 N. Car. 416 806 Logic V. Black, 24 W. Va. 1 77 Lomas v. Bradshaw, 9 C. B. 620 802 Lombard v. Johnson, 75 111. 599 SIS Lomita Land & Water Co. v. Robinson, 154 Cal. 36 978 Lomme v. Kintzing, 1 Mont. 290 897 London v. Bynum, 136 N. Car. 441 958, 967 London & N. W. R. Co. v. M'Michael, 5 Ex. 114 188 London Assur. Corp. v. Drennen, 116 U. S. 461 242, 244 Lonergan v. Lonergan, 60 Kans. 855 389 Loney v. Bayly, 45 Md. 447 728 Long V. Carter, 25 N. Car. 238 487 V. Garnett, 59 Tex. 229 364, 604, 651, 926 V. Hoban, 7 Ohio Dec. 688 297 V. Majestre, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 305 ■ 396 V. Slade, 121 Ala. 267 269, 289, 301, 440, 535 V. State, 27 Ala. 32 200 V. Story, 10 Mo. 636 60S V. Watts, 7 Ky. L. (abstract) 375 290 Longman v. Pole, M. & M. 223 381 Longstaff v. Hurd, 66 Conn. 350 722 V. Keogh, 3 Victorian L. R. Eq. 175 381 Longstreet v. Rea & Co., 52 Ala. 195 494, 826 Longworth, In re, Johns. 465 364 Looby V. West Troy, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 78 455 Look V. Bailey (Tex. Civ. App.), 164 S. W. 407 358, 825 Loomis V. Armstrong, 49 Mich. 521 350, 353, 637, 667 V. Hoyt, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 287 1011, 1020, 1027 V. McKenzie, 31 Iowa 425 587, 721, 789 V. Marshall, 12 Conn. 69 75, 76, 81, 86, 88 V. Wallblom, 94 Minn. 392 697, 706 Looney v. GiUenwaters, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 133 385, 389, 661, 747 Loorya v. Kupperman, 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 518 573 Loosen v. Schissler, 149 Wis. 449 91, 469 Loper v. Welch, 3 Duer (N. Y.) 644 847 Lopez V. Deacon, 6 Beav. 254 913 Lord V. Anderson, 16 Kans. 185 731 V. Baldwin, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 348 291, 500 V. Devendorf, 54 Wis. 491 533 V. Downs, 112 Maine 396 834 V. Hull, 178 N. Y. 9 650, 651, 659, 715, 773 V. Peaks, 41 Nebr. 891 754 V. Proctor, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 630 53, 80 Lorenz v. Reynolds, 7 Ohio N. P. 17 650 Loring v. Brackett, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 403 _ 819 Los Angeles Holiness Band v. Spires, 126 Cal. 541 237 Lothrop v. Adams, 133 Mass. 471 512, 513 v. Blake, 3 Pa. St. 483 564 V. Wightman, 41 Pa. St. 297 291, 830, 832_ Lott V. Young, 109 Fed. 798 686' Lottman &c. Mfg. Co. v. Houston Waterworks Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 357 963 Loubat V. Nourse, 5 Fla. 350 276, 290, 296, 624, 625, 626, 628 Loucks V. Paden, 63 111. App. 545 887 Louden v. Ball, 93 Ind. 232 826, 832 Louderback v. Lilly, 75 Ga. 855 434 Loudon Sav. Fund Soc. v. Hagerstown Sav. Bank, 36 Pa. St. 498 441, 486, 825 Louis V. Elfelt, 89 Cal. 547 579, 619 Louisiana Bank v. Kenner, 1 La. 384 638 Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Scott, 42 La. Ann. 785 386 Louisiana Purchase Exposition Co. v. Mueller (Mo. App.), 155 S. W. 881 603 Louisiana &c. Bank v. Henderson, 116 La. 413 239 Louisville v. Tatum, 111 Ky. 747 306, 938 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Morse, 143 Ga. 110 835 Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Alexander, 16 Ky. L. 306 191 Love V. Adams, 23 La. Ann. 66 559 V. Blair, 72 Ind. 281 297 V. Carpenter, 30 Ind. 284 389, 392, 652 V. Payne, 73 Ind. 80 201, 454, 473, 498, 591, 884 V. Ramsey, 139 Mich. 47 238 V. Van Every, 18 Mo. App. 196 291, 399 Lovegrove v. Hunt, 58 Maine 9 250 Lovejoy v. Bailey, 214 Mass. 134 384, 586, 657. 658, 668. 715, 719, 729 V. Bowers, 11 N. H. 404 302, 441, 529, 830 V. Commonwealth, 13 Ky. L. 976 200 TABLE OF CASES Ixxxvii [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II. §§ 615-1195.] Lovejoy V. Murray, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 1 507 V. Spafford, 93 U. S. 430 596 Lovelady v. Bennett (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 1124 808, 835 Loveland v. Peter, 108 Mich. 154 729 Lovell V. Beauchamp (1894), A. C. 607 188 V. Gibson, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 280 639 Loverin v. McLanghlin, 161 III. 417 239, 246, 965 Lovett V. Perry, 98 Va. 604 275 398 836 Lovewell v. Schoolfield, 217 Fed.' 689* 626 Lovins V. Laub, 85 Misc. (N. Y.) 336 536, 580 Lowber v. LeRoy, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 202 278 V. Richardson, 1 Clark 263 827 'Lowden Sav. Bank v. Neiting, 147 Iowa 119 235 Lowe, In re. Fed. Cas.' 8564 689 Lowe V. Dixon, 16 Q. B. D. 455 984 V. Lowe, 13 Bush (Ky.) 688 289, 290, 296, 627 V. Penny, 7 La. Ann. 356 604, 605 Lowenberg v. Lewis-Herman Co., 94 ' Miss. 916 445, 486 Lowenstein v. Flauraud, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 399 458 V. Keller (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 878 88/ V. Schiflfer, 38 App. Div. (N. Y.) 178 «35 Lower V. Denton, 9 Wis. 268 741, 743 Lowery v. Drew, 18 Tex. 786 422 Lowman v. Sheets, 124 Ind. 416 444 Lowry v. Brooks, 2 McCord (S. Car.) 42 73 341, 389 825 V. Cobb, 9 La. Ann. 592 V. Tivy, 71 N. J. L. 681 Lowther v. Lowther, 105 App. Div, (N. Y.) 638 726 Loy V. Alston, 172 Fed. 90 118, 152, 344, 366, 591 Loyd v. Ashby, 2 Car. & P. 138 922 v. Hicks, 31 Ga. 140 _ 826 L. S. Meharg Liquor Co. v. Davis (Ala.), 66 So. 576 93 Lucas V. Atwood, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 378 526, 534 V. Baldwin, 97 Ind. 471 848, 878 V. Bank of Darien, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 280 448, 594, 596, 828 V. Bruce (Ky.), 4 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 95 510 V. Cole, 57 Mo. 143 882 V. Cooper, 15 Ky. L. 642 219, 276, 675 V. Coulter, 104 Ind. 81 419, 559 V. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648 847 V. Lament, 190 111. App. 47 V. Laws, 27 Pa. St. 211 V. Sanders, 1 McMul. (S. 311 V. Wasson, 3 Dev. (N. Car.) 398 756 Luce V. Hartshorn, 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 331 401 Lucker v. Iba, 54 App. Div. (N. Y.) 566 432, 455 Luckie v. Forsyth, 3 Jo. & Lat. 388 598, 729 Ludington v. Bell, 77 N. Y. 138 499, 557, 562, 606 v. Taft, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 447 850 Ludlow v. Cooper, 4 Ohio St. 1 169, 289, 290, 291, 444, 623, 624, 635, 672, 675 v. McCrea, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 228 491 Lufkin Rule Co. v. Fringeli, 57 Ohio St. 596 315 861 292, 820 Car.) 422 Luke ,. Rhodes (Ark.), 176 S. W. Ill 716, 718 Lull v. Korf, 84 111. 225 421 Lumberman's Bank v. Pratt, 51 Maine 563 604 Lundburg v. Northwestern Elevator Co., 42 Minn. 37 802 Lunt V. Lunt, 8 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 76 263 V. Stephens, 24 Maine 534 803 Lurie v. Pinanski, 215 Mass. 229 394, 715 Lurton v. Gilliam, 1 Scam. (III.) 577 489 Lusk V. Graham, 21 La. Ann. 159 659 V. Riggs, 70 Nebr. 713 253 V. Smith 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 570 604 Luzier v. Naylor Line &c. Co., 8 Pa. Dist. 632 719 Lyden v. Spohn-Patrick Co., 155 Cal. 177 75 Lyford v. Haines, 21 Ky. L. 948 732 Lyie v. Howard, 24 Ky. L. 143 215 V. Jacques, 101 111. 644 935 Lyles V. Styles, 2 Wash. (U. S.) 224 383, 975, 978, 979, 983 Lyman v. Gedney, 114 111. 388 269 V. Lyman, 2 Paine (U. S.) 11 142, 276, 278, 289, 350, 352, 601, 667, 766 V. Schwartz, 13 Colo. App. 318 152 Lynch v. Englehard-Winning-Davison Mercantile Co., 1 Nebr. (Unof.) 528 297 v. Flint, 56 Vt. 46 471, 472 V. Foley, 32 Colo. 110 719 V. Hillstrom, 64 Minn. 521 486, 825 V. Thompson, 61 Miss. 354 418 Lyndon v. Gorham, 1 Gall. (U. S.) 367 820 Lyon V. Clochessy, 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 67 559 V. Denison, 80 Mich. 371 1045 V. Johnson, 28 Conn. 1 596 V. Lyon, 1 Tenn. Ch. 225 296 V. Malone, 4 Port. (Ala.) 497 651, 746 V. Plum, 75 N. J. L. 883 599 V. Snyder, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 172 350 V. Fitch, 18 N. Y. S. 867 430 V. Tweddell, 17 Ch. D. 529 659, 730 Lyons v. Jackson, 1 How. (Miss.) 474 819 V. Lyons, 199 Pa. St. 302 730 V. Lyons, 207 Pa. 7 383, 672, 729 V. Murray, 95 Mo. 23 364, 367, 532, 666 Lyster v. Dolland, 1 Ves. Jr. 431 623 Lyth v. Ault, 7 Exch. 669 557 M Maas v. Lonstorf, 194 Fed. 577 985, 994 Mabbett v. White, 12 N. Y. 442 304, 444 McAdams v. Hawes, 9 Bush (Ky.) IS 186, 389, 577, 591 McAlister v. Montgomery, 3 Hayw. (Tenn.) 94 289, 290, 623, 624, 626, 627, 628, 672 McAUester v. Sprague, 34 Maine 296 489, 491 McAllister v. Payne, 108 Ga. 517 350, 351, 354, 361, 729 McAIpise V. Miller, 104 Minn. 289 104, 369 McArdle v. Thames Iron Works, 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 139 262, 264 McAreavy v. Magirl, 123 Iowa 605 556, 558 Macarthur, Ex parte, 40 L. J. Bankr. 86 ' ^ ' gg9 McArthur v. Chase, 13 Grat. (Va.) 683 1003, 1008, 1023, 1030, 1034 Ixxxviii TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] McArthur V. Ladd, 5 Ohio 514 747 V. Oliver, 53 Mich. 299 461, 593 McAuley v. Cooley, 45 Nebr. 582 746, 756, 760 V. Palmer, S3 Hun (N. Y.) 635 487, 572 McBain v. Austin, 16 Wis. 87 445 McBlair v. Gibbes, 17 How. (U. S.) 232 655 McBrayer v. Mills, 62 S. Car. 36 718 V. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 145 S. W. 1053 7S McBride v. Hagen, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 326 , 422, 460, 461 V. Ricketts, 98 Iowa 539 722 V. Stradley, 103 Ind. 465 350 McBurnie v. Semple, 14 Ky. L. 30 587 732 McCabe v. Gpodfellow, 133 N. Y. 89* 166, 1046 V. Franks, 44 Iowa 208 929 v. Morrison, 2 Har. (Del.) 66 798 V. Sinclair, 66 N. J. Eq. 24 223, 715, 720, 786 McCahan v. Smith, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 318 468 McCain v. Smith, 172 Mich. 1 1057 McCall V. Moschowitz, 14 Daly (N. Y.) 16 323, 331, 553, 660, 726, 730 V. Moss, 112 111. 493 398, 550, 555, 579, 591, 615, 668 McCallum, In re, 11 Am. Bkr. R 447 697 McCament v. Gray, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 233 850 McCampbell v. Brown, 48 Fed. 795. ■ 814, 815 McCandless v. Crouse, 220 111. 344 659 V. Hadden, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 186 804, 815, 835 McCann v. Hazard, 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 7 158 V. McDonald, 7 Nebr. 305 475, 889 v. Minot, 107 Maine 393 306, 939 McCarragher v. Gaskell, 42 Hun (N. Y.) 451 503, 509 McCarteney v. Wyoming Nat. Bank, 1 Wyo. 382 558, 809 McCartey v. Kittrell, 55 Miss. 253 265, 795 McCarthy v. Donnelly, 90 Minn. 104 564, 760 v. Nash, 14 Minn. 127 905 V. Seisler, 130 Ind. 63 440 McCartney v. Boyd (Wis.), 152 N. W. 820 715, 718, 849 McCarty v. Caledonia Coal Co., 164 Mich. 692 1053 V. Stanwix, 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 132 721, 789 McCaskey v. Gantt Bros., 184 Ala. 642 889 V. Pollock, 82 Ala. 174 817, 908 McCaskill v. Lancashire, 83 N. Car. 393 276, 626, 835 McCaughey, In re, 3 Ont. 425 517 McCauley v. .Fulton, 44 Cal. 355 269, 371, 552, 624, 62S, 628 V. Gordon, 64 Ga. 221 430 V. McFarlane, 2 Desauss. Eq. (S. Car ) 239 539 McCay v. Black, 36 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 471 728 McClaren v. Citizens' Oil &c. Co., 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 167 835 McClaskey v. Barr, 79 Fed. 408 492 McClean v. Kennard, L. R. 9 Ch. 336 633, 641, 661 v. Miller, 2 Cranch C. C. 620 531 McClelland v. Remsen, 42 N. Y. (3 Keyes) 454 443 McCIinch v. Sturgis, 72 Maine 288 245 McClintock v. Thweatt, 71 Ark. 323 218 McCloskey v. Strickland, 7 Iowa 259 846, 848 McClung V. Capehart, 24 Minn. 17 McClure v. Hill, 36 Ark. 268 ' 511 McClurg V. Howard, 45 Mo. 365 468 McClurkan v. Byers, 74 Pa. St. 405 420, 469 McClusky V. Klosterman, 20 Ore. 108 673 McCollum V. Carlucci, 206 Pa. 312 753, 769 V. Gushing, 22 Ark. 540 854 McConeghy v. Kirk, 68 Pa. St. 200 430 McConnell, Matter of, 32 Am. Bkr. R. 589 693, 704 McConnell v. Denver, 35 Cal. 365 1047, 1057 V. Stettinius, 7 111. 707 606 McConomy v. Reed, 152 Pa. St. 42 550 McCoombe v. Dunch, 2 Dall. (Pa.) 73 820 . McCoon V. Galbraith, 29 Pa. St. 293 607, 618, 824 McCord V. Field, 27 U. C. C. P. 391 215 V. West Feliciana R. Co., 1 Rob. (La.) 519 835 McCord Brady Co. v. Mills, 8 Wyo. 258 530 McCord Co. V. Callaway, 109 Ga. 796 857 McCorkle v. Doby, 1 Strob. L. (S. Car.) 396 888 McCormick v. Bailey, 17 W.'Va. 585 672 v. Gray, 13 How. (U. S.) 26 677 V. Largey, 1 Mont. 158 748 V. Littler, 85 111. 62 189 v. McCormick, 7 Nebr. 440 362, 363 V. Stofer, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 398 364, 666 McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. V. Coe, 53 111. App. 488 457 V. Reiner, 4 Kans. App. 725 454 McCormick's Appeal, 98 Am. Dec. 197 218 McCormick's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 252 538, 631 McCormick's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 54 276, 282, 626 McCouns V. Holmes, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 389 826 McCowin V. Cubbison, 72 Pa. St. 358 604, 607 McCoy, In re, 150 Fed. 106 697 McCoy V. Anderson, 47 Mich. 502 121, 306, 941 V. Bell, 1 Wash. 504 817, 826 V. Boley, 21 Fla. 803 304, 453 V. Brennan, 61 Mich. 362 297 V. Crosfield, 54 Ore. 591 276, 366, 385, 592, 729 V. Jack, 47 W. Va. 201 265, 556, 557, 558 V. McCoy, 202 Pa. 497 399 V. Watson, 51 Ala. 466 832 McCrackan v. Ware, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 688 720 V. Milhous, 7 111. App. 169 559, 561 McCrae v. Robeson, 6 N. Car. 127 383 McCraith v. National Mohawk Val. Bank, 104 N. Y. 414 961 McCraney v. McCool, 19 Ont. 470 599 McCrary, In re, 169 Fed. 485 704 McCrary v. Slaughter, 58 Ala. 230 83, 126, 151, 424, 426, 486 V. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 496 405 McCreary v. Van Hook, 35 Tex. 631 559 M'Credy v. Vanneman, 3 N. J. L. 870 265, 795 McCreery v. Green, 38 Mich. 172 975, 981, 986 McCrillis v. Hawes, 38 Maine 566 499, 506, 812 McCrimmon v. Linton, 4 Colo. App. 420 297 McCulloch v. Judd, 20 Ala. 703 836, 848 McCulloch County Land & Cattle Co. V. Whiteford, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 314 f: 265, 268, 453 TABLE OF CASES Ixxxix [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] McCuUoh V. Dashiell, 1 Har. & G. (Md.) 96 496, S33 McCuUough V. Barr, 145 Pa. St. 459 276, 350, 637, 667, 672 V. DeWitt, 163 Mo. 306 733 V. Sommerville, 8 Leigh (Va.) 415 458 McCutchin v. Bankston, 2 Ga. 244 888 McCutchon v. Davis (Tex.), 8 S. W. 123 832 V. Smith, 173 Pa. St. 101 978 McDaniel v. Wood, 7 Mo. 543 604 McDermot v. Laurence, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 438 296, 529, 623 McDonald, In re (Iowa), 149 N. W. 897 91, 93, 'il, 901, 90S McDonald v. Beach, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 55 528 V. BuckstaflF, 56 Nebr. 88 173 V. Campbell. 96 Minn. 87 69 V. Cash, 45 Mo. App. 66 529, 531 V. Clough, 10 Colo. 59 486, 500, 825 V. Edgcomb, 68 Wash. 393 902 V. Eggleston, 26 Vt. 154 422 V. Fleming, 178 Mich. 206 167 V. Franchere, 102 Iowa 496 847 V. Holmes, 22 Ore. 212 364, 651, 718, 741, 850 V. Lund, 13 Wash. 412 655 V. McDonald, 62 Hun (N. Y.) 621 826 V. McKeen, 28 Nova Scotia 329 603, 861 V. McLeod, 3 Colo. App. 344 445 V. Matney, 82 Mo. 358 72, 103, 900 V. Meek, 57 Mo. App. 254 532, 536 V. Millaudon, 5 La. 403 563 V. Parker, Ky. Dec. 208 419 V. Richardson, 1 Giffard 81 661, 729 V. Trojan Button Fastener Co., 9 N. Y. S. 383 261, 601, 721 V. Western Tube Co., 64 111. App. 458 487 V. Woodruff, 2 Dill. (U. S.) 244 513 McDonnell v. Battle House Co., 67 Ala. 90 79 V. Ford, 87 Mich. 198 796 McDonough v. Carter, 98 Ga. 703 121 McDougald v. Banks, 13 Ga. 451 399 V. Bellamy, 18 Ga. 411 232 V. Jersey &c. Hotel Co., 2 Hem. & M. 528 416 V. Lane, 18 Ga. 444 232 V. McDonald (Wash.), 150 Pac. 628 472 McDowell V. Joice, 149 111. 124 1045, 1053 V. North, 24 Ind. App. 435 354, 602, 675 V. Tyson, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 300 764 Mace V. Heath, 30 Nebr. 620 437, 486 McElroy v. Allfree, 131 Iowa 518 538 V. Ludlum, 32 N. J. Eq. 828 888 V. Melear, 7 Coldw. (Tenn.) 140 474, 605 T. Swope, 47 Fed. 380 218 V. Whitney, 12 Idaho 512 352, 353, 637, 638 McElvey v. Lewis, 76 N. Y. 373 573, 721, 788, 789 McEvoy V. Bock, 37 Minn. 402 886 McElwee Mfg. Co. v. Trowbridge, 62 Hun (N. Y.) 471 957, 960 McEwen v. Shannon, 64 Vt. 583 503 McFadden v. Erwin, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 37 757 V. Hunt, S Watts & S. (Pa.) 468 741, 742 V. Leeka, 48 Ohio St. 513 358, 364, 666, 1047, 1049, 1057 V. Stanley (Ariz.), 141 Pac. 732 400, 445, 803 McFadgen v. Stewart, 11 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 272 836 McFall V. McKeesport &c. Ice Co., 123 Pa. St. 259 100, 230 McFarland v. Bate, 45 Kans. 1 530 McFarland V. McCormick, 114 Iowa 368 352, 362, 667, 668 V. McHugh, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct, 485 563 MacFarlane v. MacFarlane, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 238 125, 213, 628 McFaun, In re, 96 Fed. 592 706 McGahan v. Bank of Rondout, 156 U. S. 218 ,269, 301, 440, 471 McGahey v. Oregon King Min. Co., 165 Fed. 86 392, 393, 396 McGee v. Potts, 87 Ga. 615 603 - McGehee v. Dougherty, 10 Ala. 863 751 V. McCord, 14 La. 362 817 V. Powell, 8 Ala. 827 _ 1006, 1020 McGeorge v. Harrison Chemical Mfg. Co., 141 Pa. St. 575^ 1034, 1057, 1058 McGhee v. Montgomery, 85 S. Car. 207 486, 496 McGhees v. McCutchen, 82 Ga. 788 455 McGibbon v. Tarbox, 144 App. Div. (N. Y.) 837 636, 637, 641 V. Walsh, 109 Wis. 670 809, 834 McGill V. Dowdle, 33 Ark. 311 83, 225, 861 V. McGill, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 258 517, 618, 639 McGillis V. Hogan, 190 III. 176 536 McGilvery v. McGilvery, 23 Idaho 116 552, 561, 760 McGillvray v. Moser,- 43 Kans. 219 731 McGinn v. Benner, 180 Pa. St. 396 675, 731 McGinniss v. Fink, 198 Pa. 404 658 McGinty v. Flannagan, 106 U. S. 661 • 642 V. Orr, 110 Mo. App. 336 751 McGlensey v. Cox, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 387 291, 550, 721 McGorray v. O'Connor, 87 Fed. 586 598 McGovern v. Mattison, 116 N. Y. 61 103, 418 V. Robertson, 116 N. Y. 61 83 McGowan v. American &c. Tan Bark Co., 121 U. S. 575 138 V. Bank of Kentucky, 5 Lit. (Ky.) 271 430 V. New Orleans, 118 La. 429 174 McGowan Bro. Pump & Machine Co. V. McGowan, 22 Ohio St. 370 329, 787 McGown v. Sprague, 23 Ala. 524 371, 554, 773 McGrath v. Cowen, 57 Ohio St. 385 201, 440, 444, 579, 615, 638, 722 V." Sinclair, 55 Miss. 89 276 McGraw v. Dole, 63 Mich. 1 661 McGray v. Cobb, 130 Minn. 434 825 McGreary v. Chandler, 58 Maine 537 1001 McGregor v. Anderson, 6 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 354 554 V. Balch, 17 Vt. 562 811 V. Cleveland, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 475 151, 260, 261, 437, 847, 877 V. Ellis, 2 Disn. (Ohio) 286 471, 554 v. Hubbs, 125 Ind. 487 848 V. McGregor, 130 Mich. 505 174 McGrew v. City Produce Exch., 85 Tenn. 572 247, 250 V. Earnest, 167 Ala. 531 817 V. Walker, 17 Ala. 824 877, 879, 887 McGuire v. Blanton, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 361 454 V. Ramsey, 9 Ark. 518 718, 719 McGunn v. Hamlin, 29 Mich. 476 170, 651, 675, 677, 763 McHaney v. Cawthorn, 4 Heisk. (Tenn.) 508 291 Machias Hotel Co. v. Coyle, 35 Maine 405 1055 Machinists' Bank v. Krum, 15 Iowa 49 862 Machinists' Nat. Bank v. Dean, 124 Mass. 81 ' 147 Machuca v. Chuidian, 2 Philippine 210 664 xc TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Mcllroy v. Adams, 32 Ark. 31S 508, 512 Mcllvain v. James I. Leeds Co., 189 Pa. St. 638 457 Mclndoe v. Hazelton, 19 Wis. 567 826 Mclnnis v. Casualty Co., 113 Minn. 156 760 Mclntire, Appeal of, 118 Pa. St. 421 295, 674 Mclntire v. Carr, 164 Mich. 37 ' 991 V. McLaurin, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 71 430 Mcintosh V. Kelly, 31 La. Ann. 649 199 V. Perkins, 13 Mont. 143 1048 V. Zaring, 150 Ind. 301 492, 493, 808, 835, 847, 857 Mclntyer v. Houseman, 98 111. App. 76 496 V. Johnston, 63 Wash. 323 929 V. Massey, 11 Ga. App. 458 558, 563 V. Park, 11 Gray (Mass.) 102 422 Mclver v. Clarke, 69 Miss. 408 200 V. Humble, 16 East 169 563 Mcjunkin v. Placek, 80 Nebr. 373 847 Mack V. Engel, 165 Mich. 540 361, 1053, 1059 V. Fries, 5 Ohio Dec. 174 425 V. Mack, 26 Nova Scotia 24 633 V. Spencer, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 411 848, 861 V. Woodruff, 87 111. 570 669 McKaig V. Hebb, 42 Md. 227 718 719 723 McKallip V. Geese, 30 Okla. 33 ' 79, 91 McKasy v. Huber, 65 Minn. 9 103, 854 McKay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 285 460, 461 V. Joy, 70 Cal. 581 598, 617. V. Overton, 65 Tex. 82 362 V. Rutherford, 13 Jur. 21 212 McKean v. Vick, 108 111. 373 «20, 627 McKee v. Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 7 Ohio 522 457, 828 V. Covalt, 71 Kans. 772 269, 283, 601, 623, 624, 625, 628 V. Cowles, 161 111. 201 672 V. Cunningham, 2 Cal. App. 684 494 V. Hamilton, 33 Ohio St. 7 434, 437, 466, 508, 888 V. Stroup, Rice (S. Car.) 291 450 McKeen v. Morse, 49 Fed. 253 455 McKellar v. Stout, 14 Iowa 359 231 McKelvy's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 409 580, 708, 718 M'Kenna, Ex parte, 3 DeG., F. & J. 645 289 McKenzie v. Dickinson, 43 Cal. 119 389, 390, 392, 396 V. Jackson, 4 Ala. 230 559 V. School Trustees. 72 Ijid. 193 796 Mackey v. Auer, 8 Hun (N. Y.) 180 751, 850, 855, 863 McKibben v. Day, 71 Nebr. 280 825 Mackie v. Mott, 146 Mo. 230 72, 103 McKillip V. Cattle, 12 Nebr. 477 558 McKinley v. Lloyd. 128 Fed. 519 219 V. Lynch, 58 W. Va. 44 342, 384, 400 McKinney v. Baker, 9 Ore. 74 307 V. Brights, 16 Pa. St. 399 371, 455, 487 V. Peck, 28 111. 174 854 V. Rosenband, 23 Fed. 785 529 McKinnon v. McKinnon, 56 Fed. 409 215, 219, 276, 281 Mackintosh v. Fatman, 38 How. Fr. (N. Y.) 145 558 V. Kimball, 101 App. Div. (N. Y.) 494 600 McKinzie v. United States, 34 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 278 579, 615 McKissack v. Witz, 120 Ala. 412 854 Macklin v. Crutcher, 6 Bush (Ky.) 401 499 McKnight v. Lowitz, 176 Mich. 452 834 V. Ratcliff, 44 Pa. St. 156 504, 1003, 1036 McLain v. Carson, 4 Ark. 164 ' ■ 496, 630, 836 McLanahan v. EUery, 3 Mason (U. S.) 269 ' 601 McLane v. Sharpe, 2 Harr. (Del.) 481 824 McLaren, In re, 125 Fed. 835 685 McLaren v. Whiting, 16 Ont. Pr. 552 721 McLaughlin v. Barnum, 31 Md. 425 641 V. Bieber, 56 N. Y. S. 490 558, 602 •V. Mulloy, 14 Utah 490 420 McLean v. City State Bank, 210 Fed. 21 70, 977 V. Crow, 88 Cal. 644 263 V. McAllister, 30 Mo. App. 107 630 V. McLean, 109 Mich. 258 731 V. Wohltjen, 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 742 264 McLeary v. Dawson, 87 Tex. 524 957 McLellan v. Detroit File Works, 56 Mich. 579 953 McLelland v. Ridgeway, 12 Ala. 482 499 McLennan v. Anspaugh, 2 Kans. App. 269 100 V. Hopkins, 2 Kans. App. 260 155, 240, 965 McLinden v. Wentworth, 51 Wis. 170 419, 424, 455, 486, 559 McMahon, In re, 66 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 190 306, 939 McMahon v. Bro*n, 219 Mass. 23 661, 718 V. McClernan, 10 W. Va. 419 381, 389, 396, 573, 652, 673, 721 V. Meehan, 2 Alaska 278 153 V. O'Donnell, 20 N. J. Eq. 306 720 V. Rauhr, 47 N. Y. 67 157, 166, 744 V. Thornton, 4 Mont. 46 850 McManus v. Cash, 101 Tex. 261 291 V. Smith, 37 Ore. 222 440, 536 McMartin v. Stevens, 37 Wash. 616 328 McMaster v. City Nat. Bank of Law- ton, 23 Okla. 550 493, 494, 496 McMichael v. Mackey, 7 Ga. App. 773 675 V. Raoul, 14 La. Ann. 307 929 McMillan v. Hadley, 78 Ind. 590 534, 535, 825 V. James, 105 111. 194 361, 367 V. Otis, 74 Ala. 560 861 V. Parker, 109 N. Car. 252 296 V. Whitley (Utah), 113 Pac. 1026 983 McMillen v. Pratt, 89 Wis. 612 218 McMullan v. McKenzie, 2 Greene (Iowa) 368 825, 876, 878 McMullen v. Harris, 165 Iowa 703 984 V. Hoffman, 174 U. S. 639 173, 175, 655, 656, 674, 763 V. Hoffman, 75 Fed. 547 987 McMurray v. Rawson, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 59 716, 850 McMurtrey, In re, 142 Fed. 853 686 McMurtrey v. Smith, IS Am. Bkr. R. 427 685 McMurtrie v. Bennette, Har. (Mich.) 124 778 V. Guiler, 183 Mass. 451 660 McNabb v. Bank of Le Roy, 198 U. S. 583 696 McNair v. Gourrier, 40 La. Ann. 353 721 V. Piatt, 46 111. 211 371, 455 V. Ragland, 7 N. Car. 139 381, 718 V. Rewey, 62 Wis. 167 486 V. Wilcox, 121 Pa. St. 437 444. 455 McNally v. Kerswell, 37 Maine 550 835 McNamara v. Gaylord, 1 Bond (U. S.) 302 552 McNamee v. Huffman, 3 Harr. (Del.) 425 826 McNaughten v. Partridge, 11 Ohio 223 471 McNeal v. Blackburn, 7 Dana (Ky.) 170 562 V. Gossard, 6 Okla. 363 426, 454 TABLE OF CASES XCl [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] McNeal Pipe &c. Co. v. Woltman, 114 N. Car. 17-8 301, 440 McNealy v. Bartlett, 123 Mo. App. 58 71 McNeill V. Reid, 9 Bing. 68 770 McNeill V. Reynolds, 9 Ala. 313 896, 918 McNeish v. United States &c. Oat Co., 57 Vt. 316 147, 579, 615, 638 McNiel V. Holmes (Ore.), 150 Pac. 255 978 McNutt V. King, 59 Ala. 597 580 V. Strayhorn, 39 ' Pa. St. 269 458 Macomber v.. Eudion Grape Juice Co., 160 Mich. 54 • 1051 V. Wright, 35 Maine 156 820 McPeters v. Ray, 85 N. Car. 462 725 McPherson \. Bristol, 115 Mich. 258 265, 426, 486, 445, 825 V. Harding, 40 App. D. C. 404 217 V. Pemberton, 46 N. Car. 378 291, 80S V. Swift, 2:2 S. Dak. 165 276, 285, 290, 291, 616, 617, 626, 628, 644, 657, 718 McPike V. McPherson, 41 Mo. 522 819 McQuiddy Printing Co. v. Head, 7 Ala. App. 384 230 McRae v. Campbell, 101 Ga. 662 435 V. McKenzie, 22 N. Car. 232 602, 650 V. Stillwell, 111 Ga. 65 284 . V. Warnack, 98 Ark. 52 177 Macready v. Schenck, 43 La. ^nn. 479 607, 634, 635 McRee v. Quitman Oil Co. (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 487 237, 244, 975 McSherry v. Brooks, 46 Md. 103 855 McTigue V. Arctic Ice Cream Supply Co., 20 Cal. App. 708 193 Macveagh v. Wild, 95 Fed. 84 826 McVeigh v. United States, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 259 186 McVicker v. American Opera Co., 40 Fed. 861 953 V. Cone, 21 Ore. 353 239, 825 McWhorter v. McMahon, Clarke Ch. (N. Y.) 400 - 444 McWilliams v. Elder, 52 La. 995 75 Macy V. Combs, 15 Ind. 469 75, 76, 904, 910 Madar v. Norman, 13 Idaho 585 153, 1048 Maddeford v. Austwick, 1 Sim. 89 222 Maddock v. Astbury, 32 N. J. Eq. 181 289, 623, 672 Maddock v. Skinker, 93 Va. 479 536 V. Steel, 68 Hun (N. Y.) 522 657 V. Steel, 81 Hun (N. Y.) 509 419 Madge v. Pine, 12 Hun (N. Y.) 15 762 Madgwick v. Wimble, 6 Beav. 495 721 Madison v. Henderson, 86 111. App. 113 370, 763 Madison County Bank v. Gould, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 309 1000, 1008, 1012, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1020, 1027, 1028, 1031, 1036 Maffet V. Lenckel, 93 Pa. St. 468 424, 429, 433, 434 Mafflyn v. Hathaway, 106 Miss. 414 554, 598 Magee v. Dunbar, 10 La. 546 861 Magi, Succession of, 107 La. Ann. 208 912 Magill V. Merrie, S B. Mon. (Ky.) 168 594, 878 Magilton v. Stevenson, 173 Pa. St. 560 358, 365, 497, 666 Maginn v. Lawrence, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 235 1011, 1016, 1029 Maginnis v. Crosby, 11 La. Ann. 400 364, 365, 666, 733 Magnolia Shingle Co. v. J. Zimmern's Cfo., 3 Ala. App. 578 901 Magovern v. Robertson, 59 Hun (N. Y.) 627 214 V. Robertson, 116 N. Y. 61 103, 418, 897 Magruder v. McCandlis, 3 Ohio Dec. 269, 349 Maguire v. Kiesel, 86 Conn. 453 769 V. Pingree, 30 Maine 508 741 Mahan v. Sherman, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 378 743 Maher v. Bull, 44 111. 97 401, 586, 789 V. Carman, 38 N. Y. 25 233 Mahnke v. Neale, 23 W. Va. 57 675 Mahoney v. Ward, 100 Fed. 278 688, 703 Mahoney-Jones Co. v. Sams, 128 Tenn. 207 496 Maiden v. Webster, 30 Ind. 317 861 Maier v. Canavan, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 272 558 V. Homan, 4 Daly (N. Y.) 168 320 Main v. Flanagan, 9 Ore. 425 354 V. Howland, Rich. (S. Car.) Eq. Cas. 352 675 Mainet Oil &c. Co. v. Staley, 218 Fed. ,45 ■ 669 Maingay v. Lewis, Ir. Rep. 5 C. L. 229 558 Mair v. Beck (Pa.), 2 Atl. 218 599 V. Glennie, 4 M. & S. 240 75 Maisch v. Order of Americus, 223 Pa. 199 817 Maitland v. Purdy, 49 Wash. 575 ^ , 358, 371 Major V. Hawkes, 12 HI. 298 602, 925 V. Todd, 8^ Mich. 85 350, 351, 573, 587, 855 Makee v. Dominis, 3 Haw. 579 623, 624 Malanaphy v. Fuller & J. Mfg. Co., 125 Iowa 719 558 Maiden Bridge v. Salem Turnpike &c. Bridge Corp., 112 Mass. 152 650 Mallett V. Uncle Sam Gold &c. Min. Co., 1 Nev. 188 152 Malley v. Atlantic Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 51 Conn. 222 275, 299 Mallon V. Buster, 121 Ky. 379 218 V. Craig, 3 Ont. 541 194 Mallory v. Hananer Oil-Works, 86 Tenn. 598 193 V. Russell, 71 Iowa 63 . 289, 290, 296, 627 Malloye v. Coubrough, 96 Cal. 649 453 Maloney, In re, 233 Pa. 614 158 Maloney v. Bruce, 94 Pa. St. 249 1008, 1051 Maloy V. Associated Lace Makers' Co., 55 Hun (N. Y.) 604 625 Maltby v. Northwestern Virginia R. Co., 16 Md. 422 418, 486 Manahan v. Varnum, 11 Gray (Mass.) 405 956, 957 Manchester Bank, Ex parte, 48 L. J. Bkr. 94 531 Manchester Commercial Bank v. Lewis, 13 S. & M. (Miss.) 226 430 Mancuso v. Rosso, 81 Nebr. 786 219 Mandeville v. Courtright, 142 Fed. 97 246, 247, 250 V. Harman, 42 N. J. Eq. 185 331 Maneely v. Mayers, 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 380 ■ 499, 826 Manegold v. Dulan, 30 Wis. 541 803 V. Grange, 70 Wis. 575 825 Mangels v. Shaen, 21 App. Div. (N. Y.) 507 472, 742 Manhattan Co. v. AUin, 35 111. App. 336 1021, 1022 V. Kaldenberg, 165 N. Y. 1 238 V. Laimbeer, 17 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) . 123 1010 V. Laimbeer, 21 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 27 1007, 1010, 1014 V. Laimbeer, 108 N. Y. 578 146, 1003, 1007, 1020, 1055 V. Ledyard, 1 Cai. (N. Y.) 192 861 V. Phillips, 109 N. Y. 383 1012, 1016 Manhattan Brass & Mfg. Co. v. Sears, 45 N. Y. 797 54, 103, 195, 261, 882, 897 xcu TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Webster, 59 Pa. St. 227 298 Manitoba Mortg. Co. v. Montreal Bank, 17 Can. Sup. Ct. 692 425, 430, 486 Manker v. Tough, 79 Kans. 46 977 Manley v. Taylor, 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 26 364 Manlove v. Metzger, 124 III. App. 383 ^1 Mann v. ^tna Ins. Co., 40 Wis. 549 422, 564 V. Clapp, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), § 502 878 V. Flanagan, 9 Ore. 425 350 V. Higgins, 7 Gill (Md.) 265 371, 532, 538 V. Paddock, 108 Va. 827 284 V. Taylor, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 267 75 Manning v. Brickell, 3 N. Car. 133 602 V. Gasharie, 27 Ind. 399 1001, 1049 V. Hays, 6 Md. 5 852 V. Smith, 16 Nev. 85 804 V. Williams, 2 Mich. 105 496, 835, 836 Manny v. Frasier, 27 Mo. 419 558, 809 Mansfield v. New York Cent. &c. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 205 803 Manship v. Newton, 94 S. Car. 260 719, 729 Manson v. Williams, 153 Fed. 525 121, 685 Mansur-Tebbetts ImplemenfT Co. v. Ritchie, 159 Mo. 213 528, 536 Manuel v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 433 405 Manufacturers' &c. Mechanics* Bank v. Gore, 15 Mass. 75 486, 516 V. Winship, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 11 261, 425, 428, 433, 852, 878, 923 Manufacturing &c. Co. v. Schoolly, Tapp. (Ohio) 271 767 Manufacturers' Nat. Bank v. Cox, 2 Hun (N. Y.) 572 381, 389, 396, 652, 654, 675 Manville v. Parks, 7 Colo. 128 152 153 857 Many, In re, Fed. Cas. No. 9054* 43l| 466 Maples V. Cellar, 1 Nev. 233 808 Maquoketa v. Willey, 35 Iowa 323 528, 531, 559 Marble v. Lypes, 82 Ala. 322 907, 910 V. Marble, 4 Ky. L. 360 290, 808, 835 Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 339 781 Marchand v. Coyle, 18 La. Ann. 632 186 Marcum v. Marcum, 154 Ky. 401 724, 727, 728, 729 Marcus v. McFarland, 119 Md. 269 277 307 329 Mardis v. Shackleford, 4 Ala. 493 ' 509 Mare v. Malachy, 1 Myl. & C. 559 815 Marget v. Wood, 3 Cranch (C. C.) 2 796 Maria Anna & Steinbank Coal & Coke Co., In re, 6 Ch. Div. 447 365 Marietta &c. R. Co. v. Mowry, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 79 593 Marine Bank v. Ogden, 29 111. 248 193, 195 Marine Co. v. Carver, 42 111. 66 371, 473 Marine &c. Ins. Bank v. Megar (Ga.) Dud. 83 175 Maritime Bank v. Rand, 24 Conn. 9 817 ■ Marjoram v. Saundeford, Rom. Cas. 110 631 Mark v. Bowers, 4 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 95 ■ 593 Markell v. Matthews, 3 Colo. App. 49 472 V. Ray, 75 Minn. 138 236 Markham v. Buckingham, 21 Iowa 494 806, 811 V. Calvit, 5 How. (Miss.) 427 533 V. Hazen, 48 Ga. 570 419, 559 V. Merrett, 7 How. (Miss.) 437 290 Markle v. Wilbur, 200 Pa. St. 457 416, 732 Markowitz v. Greenwall Theatrical Cir- cuit Co. (Tex. Civ App.), 75 S. W. 74, 317 194 Marks v. Chumos, 82 Kans. S62 446 V. Deposit Bank, 21 Ky. L. 117 489 V. Fordyce, 5 Ohio Dec. 81 818 V. Gates, 2 Alaska 519 153, 1048 V. Hardy, 117 Ky. 663 892, 910 V. Hastings, 101 Ala. 165 512, 515 V. Hill, 15 Grat. (Va.) 400 270, 528, 529 V. Sigler, 3 Ohio St. 358 893, 894 V. Stein, 11 La. Ann. 509 897 V. Wright, 1 N. Brunsw. 174 454 Marlatt v. Scantland, 19 Ark. 443 598, 616, 658 Marlett v. Jackman, 3 Allen (Mass.) 287 579, 592 Marlin, Ex parte, 2 Bro. Ch. IS 731 Marlin v. Kirksey, 23 Ga. 164 820 Marnet Oil & Gas Co. v. Staley, 33 Am. Bkr. R. 270 585, 669, 687 Marquand v. New York Mfg. Co., 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 525 201, 275, 576, 580, 591, 664 Marr v. Smithwick, 2 Porter (Ala.) 351 496 Marrett v. Murphy, Fed. Cas. No. 9103 289 V. Murphy, 11 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 132 627 Marseilles Land & Water Power Co. v. Aldrich, 86 111. 504 757 Marsh v. Bennett, 5 McLean (U. S.) 117 559 V. Chicago &c. R. Co., 79 Iowa 332 847 " ""' 218 151 Davis, 33 Kans. 326 V. Gold, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 285 v. Joseph (1897), 1 Ch. 213, 75 L, T. 558 421 v. Marsh, 9 Rob. (La.) 45 816 v. Mathias, 19 Utah 350 238 V. Mead, 57 Iowa 535 826 V. Mueller, 96 Mich. 488 83 V. Thompson Nat. Bank, 2 111. App. 217 '"' 454 V. Wheeler, 77 Conn. 449 230, 412, 425, 426, 596, 604 Marsh's Appeal, 69 Pa. St. 30 350, 351, 354, 356, 366, 385, 389, 747 Marshall v. Colman, 2 Jack. & W. 266 773 V. Harris, 55 Iowa 182 231, 237, 240 V. Hill, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 101 265, 795, 796 V. Johnson, 33 Ga. 500 396, 786 V. Lambeth, 7 Rob. (La.) 471 1018, 1022, 1035 V. MaClure, L. R. 10 App. Cas. 325 443 V. Watson, 25 Beav. 501 720, 787 Marshall's Estate (Pa.), 34 Pitts. Leg. J. (O. S.) 382 641 Marsteller v. Weaver, 1 Grat. (Va.) 391 718 Marston v. Dewberry, 21 La. Ann. 518 292, 820 V. Durgin, 54 N. H. 347 1053 V. Gould, 69 N. Y. 220 342, 975, 979, 990 Marten v. Van Scbaick, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 479 327, 344, 722, 789 Martien v. Manheim, 80 Pa. St. 478 857 Martin v. American Express Co., 19 Wis. 336 854 V. Baird, 175 Pa. St. 540 210, 221 V. Baugh, 1 Ind. App. 20 493 V. Bowker, 163 Mass. 461 262 V. Burns, 80 Tex. 676 817 V. Carlisle (Okla.), 148 Pac. 833 525, 537, 665 V. Cropp, 61 Mo. App. 607 72, 104 V. Crompe, 1 Ld. Raym. 340 617, 623, 630 V. Davis, 21 Iowa 535 827 TABLE OF CASES XCIU [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Martin V. District Court of First Dist., 13 Nev. 85 121, 796 V. Feivell, 79 Mo. 401 155, 239, 243, 245, 253, 926, 965 V. Good, 14 Md. 398 746 V. Hunt, 1 Allen (Mass.) 418 619 V. Hurley, 84 Mo. App. 670 721 V. Johnson, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 541 261 V. Kelly, Cheves L. (S. Car.) 215 „. , 265, 795, 796, 847 V. Kirk, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 529 605 V. Lutkwitte, 50 Mo. 58 342, 381 V. Martin, 1 N. B. Eq. 515 103 V. Morris, 62 Wis. 418 290, 624. 627, 630 V. Moulton, 8 N. H. 504 511 V. Muncy, 40 La. Ann. 190 425 V. Root, 17 Mass. 222 467 V. Seabaugh, 128 La. 442 715 V. Searles, 28 Conn. 43 596 V. Simkins, 116 Ga. 254 515 V. Smith, 11 Cent. Rep. 748 381 V. Smith (N. J.), 13 Atl. 398 675 V. Smith, 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 277 717 V. Smith, 25 W. Va. 579 290, 296, 627 V. Solomon, 5 Harr. (Del.) 344 675 V. Stout (Iowa), 127 N. W. 49 654 V. Stubbings, 20 111. App. 381 752, 773 V. Taylor (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 S. W. 1009 358, 364 V. Trainer, 125 III. App. 474 854 V. Wade, 37 Cal. 168 174 V. Wagener, 1 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.) 509 832 V. Walton, 1 McCord (S. Car.) 16 596, 926 V. Wilson, 84 Wash. 625 721, 722 Martine v. Albro, 26 Hun (N. Y.) 559 913 V. International L. Ins. Soc, S3 N. Y. 339 597 Martinez v. Cordoba, 5 Philippine 545 866 V. Ong Pong Co., 14 Philippine 726 727 Martyn v. Arnold, 36 Fla. 446 806 Marvel v. Jonah, 81 N. J. Eq. 369 550 .Marvin v. Buchanan, 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 468 260, 421 V. McRae, Rice (S. Car.) 171 630 V. Trumbull, Wright (Ohio) 386 535 V. Wilber, 52 N. Y. 270 ' 504 V. Yates, 26 Wash. 50 993, 994 Marx, Matter of, 106 App. Div. (N. Y.) 212 638 Marx V. Culpepper, 40 Fla. 322 ' 861 V. Goodnough, 23 Ore. 545 657 Mary v. Lampre, 6 Rob. (La.) 314 878 Marye v. Jones, 9 Cal. 335 722 Maslin v. Hiett, 37 W. Va. 15 491 Mason v. Connell, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 381 138, 552, 576, 582, 780, 884 V. Connors, 129 Fed. 831 819 V. Cooper, 15 Ont. Pr. 418 818 v. Dawson, IS Misc. (N. Y.) 595 326, 329, 632 V. Denison, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 64 826 V. Eldred, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 231 457, 489, 493, 496, 817, 826 V. Gibson, 73 N. H. 190 349, 358, 665 V. Hackett, 4 Nev. 420 83 V. Hicks, 76 Vt. 287 657 V. Mason, 76 Vt. 287 719 V. Parker, 16 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 230 440 T. Partridge, 66 N. Y. 633 418, 897 V. Secor, 76 Hun (N. Y.) 178 619 V. Sieglitz, 22 Colo. 320 83, 103, 754 V. Slevin, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. . Ct. App. (Tex.), i 11 638 V. Stevens, 16 S. Dak. 320 247 V. Tiffany, 45 111. 392 616, 630, 639, 836 V. Tipton, 4 Cal. 276 759 Mason V. Wickersham, 4 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 100 606 V. Wright, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 306 188 Masonic Sav. Bank v. Bang's Admr., 10 Ky. L. 743 362 Massey v. Citizens Building &c. Assn., 22 Kans. 624 155 V. Pike, 20 Ark. 92 863 V. Tingle, 29 Mo. 437 718 Master v. Kirton, 3 Ves. Jr. 74, 30 Eng. Reprint 901 850 Masters v. Brooks, 132 App. Div. (N. Y.) 874 261, 572, 732 v. Freeman, 17 Ohio St. 323 741, 743, 767 V. Gardner, 50 N. Car. 298 677 Masterson v. Heitmann (Tex, 'Civ. App.), 87 S. W. 227 825 v, Mansfield, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 262 265, 420 Masury v. Whiten, 43 Hun (N. Y.) 638 362 V. Whiten, 111 N. Y. 679 668, 677 Mathers v. Patterson, 33 Pa. St. 485 275 Matherson v. Belden, 14 App. Div. (N. Y.) 519 551 V. Wilkinson, 79 Maine 159 804, 835 Mathews v. Colburn, 1 Strobh. L. (S. Car.) 258 563 V. Hardt, 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 653 967 Mathewson v. Clarke, 6 How. (U. S.) 122 150, 657 Mathison v. Field, 3 Rob. (La.) 44 617 Matlack v. James, 13 N. J. Eq. 126 281, 455, 535 v. Matlock, 5 Ind. 403 290, 291, 301, 371, 624, 627 Mattern v. Canavan, 3 Cal. App. 493 342 Matteson v. Nathanson, 38 Mich. 377 638 Matthews v. Adams, 84 Md. 143 361, 364, 665, 666, 668, 718 V. Dare, 20 Md. 248 418 V. Hunter, 67 Mo. 293 281, 625, 626 V. J. H. Luers Drug Co., 110 Iowa 231 77 V. Kerfoot, 64 111. App. 571 987 V. McStea, 91 U. S. 7 186, 577 V. Paine, 47 Ark. 54 834 V. Perdue, 79 Mo. App. 149 399 Matthies v. Berth, 31 Wash. 665 475, 825 Mattingly v. Elder. 19 Ky. L. 1647 675 V. Moore, 17 Ky. L. 220 449 V. Stone, 18 Ky. L. 187 351, 354, 667, 741 Mattison v. Childs, 5 Colo. 78 492 V. Demarest, 4 Rob. (N. Y.) 161 1023 V. Farnham, 44 Minn. 95 579, 638, 639 Mauck V. Mauck, 54 111. 281 290, 624, 625, 728 Maude v. Rodes, 4 Dana (Ky.) 144 731 Maugham v. Sharpe, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 443 261 Maughlin v. Tyler, 47 Md. 545 458, 530 Mauldin v. Branch Bank, 2 Ala. 502 270, 435, 596 v. Mobile Branch Bank, 2 Ala. 502 454, 596 Maunder v. Lloyd, 2 Johns. & H. 718 716 Mauney v. Coit, 80 N. Car. 300 439, 607 Maunsell v. Willett, 36 La. Ann. 322 876 Mauny v. Frazier, 27 Mo. 419 809 Maupin v. Daniel, 3 Tenn. Ch. 223 876, 929 Maurin v. Lyon, 69 Minn. 257 413, 487 Maverick v. Maury, 79 Tex. 435 809 Mawman v. Gillett, 2 Taunt. 325 138 Maxey v. Averill, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 107 630, 836 V. Strong, 53 Miss. 280 467, 604 Maxfield v. Schwartz, 43 Minn. 221 558 V. Seabury, 75 Minn. 93 400 Maxwell v. Day, 45 Ind. 509 434, 499 V. Higgins, 38 Nebr. 671 885 XCIV TABLE OF qASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, S§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Maxwell V. McWilliams, 145 111. App. 155 978, 982, 990, 991 May V. Cahn, 34 Nebr. 652 733 V. International Loan &c, Co., 92 Fed. 445 79 V. New Orleans, 44 La. Ann. 444 276, 281 V. Pagett, 2 Pa. Dist. 276 , 722 V. Troutman, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 42 364 V. Walker, 35 Minn. 194 530, 820, 1033 V. Western Union Tel. Co., 112 Mass. 90 796 Mayberry v. Sainton, 2 Harr. (Del.) 24 454 V. Willoughby, 5 Nebr. 368 468, 600 Maybin v. Moorman, 21 S. Car. 346 276 Mayer v. Bernstein, 69 Miss. 17 458, 474 V. Clark, 40 Ala. 259 526, 531 V. Garber, 53 Iowa 689 291 V. Soyster, 30 Md. 402 191 V. Wilson, 242 Pa. 473 901 Mayer Bros. Co. v. Bricca, 122 N. Y. S. 197 93 Mayes v. Palmer, 208 Fed. 97 878 Mayfield v. Turner, 180 111. 332 75, 169, 210 Mayhew v. Herrick, 7 Com. B. 229 830, 832 Mayuard v. Fellows, 43 N. H. 255 437 V. Ponder, 75 Ga. 664 825, 847, 848 y. Railey, 2 Nev. 313 721 V. Richards, 166 111. 466 350, 353, 615, 616, 631, 636, 637, 667, 715 Mayor, Ex parte, 4 DeG., J. & S. 664 675 Mayou, Ex parte, 4 DeG., J. & S. 664 307, 526, 531 Mayrant v. Marston, 67 Ala. 453 191 Mays V. Melat, 29 Pa. Super. Ct. 365 733 Mayson v. Beazley, 27 Miss. 106 579, 641 Meacham v. Batchelder, 3 Pin. (Wis.) 281 848 Mead v. Bank, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 180 697 V. Byington, 10 Vt. 116 633 V. O'Keefe, 15 Ont. 84 386 V. Raymond, 52 Mich. 14 861 V. Shepard, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 474 449 V. Stegall, 77 111. App. 679 189 Meador v. Hughes, 14 Bush (Ky.) 652 191, 371, 561 Meadowcraft v. Walsh, 15 Mont. 544 307, 471 Meadows v. Mocquot, 110 Ky. 220 670 Meagher v. Reed, 14 Colo. 335 103, 152, 218, 219, 221 Meaher v. Cox, 37 Ala. 201 103, 201, 370, 552, 586, 587, 588, 677, 884, 1047 Mears v. James, 2 Nev. 342 420 Meason v. Kaine, 63 Pa. St. 335 276, 754, 757, 778 Mebane V. Spencer, 28 N. Car. 423 606 Mechanics* Bank v. Godwin, 5 N. J. Eq. 334 302, 529, 591 Medberry v. Soper, 17 Kans. 369 418, 434, 499 Medbury v. Watson, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 246 805 Medill V. Collier, 16 Ohio St. 599 240, 241, 245, 250 Medsker v. Bonebrake, 108 U. S. 66 691 Meech v. Allen, 17 N. Y. 300 533, 826 Meehan v.. Valentine, 145 U. S. 611 28, 67, 69, 79, 80, 83, 85, 104, 121, 878, 922 Meeks v. Min. Co., 141 Mo. App. 648 854 Meggett V. Finney, 4 Strob. (S. Car.) 220 467, 600 Megibben v. Perin, 49 Fed. 183 617, 626 Meguiar v. Helm, 91 Ky. 19 „ . 359, 360, 369, 912, 914, 938 Meguire v. Corwine, 101 U. S. 108 174 Mehlhop V. Rae, 90 Iowa 30 188 Meier v. First Nat. Bank, 55 Ohio St. 446 260, 496 Meikel v. German Sav. Fund See, 16 Ind. 181 155 Meily V. Wood, 71 Pa. St. 488 121, 290, 301, 623, 625 Meinhard, Schaul Co. v. Bedingfield Mercantile Co., 4 Ga. App. 176 344 Melick V. Foster, 64 N. J. L. 394 493 Melledge v. Boston Iron Co., 5 Cush. (Mass.) 158 ■ 434, 499 Mellish V. McMahon, 64 Hun (N. Y.) 638 718 Mellor V. Lawyer, 55 111. App. 679 498, 561 V. Smither, 114 Fed. 116^ 650 Mellors v. Shaw, 1 Best & S. 437 503, 509 Melsheimer v. Hommel, 15 Colo. 475 437 Melville v. Kruse, 69 App. Div. (N. Y.) 211 215 Memphis Water Co. v. Magens, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 37 953 Menage v. Burke, 43 Minn. 211 169, 265, 269 Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146 270, 292, 307, 371, 526, 528, 552, 830 Menard v. Brouillet, 16 Quebec Super. Ct 148 820 Mendenhall v. Benbow, 84 N. Car. 646 ■290, 292, 371, 535, 537, 601, 672 Mendez v. Schleuter, 30 N. Y. St. 150 364, 666 Mendonca v. Russel (Okla.), 150 Pac. 1061 825 Meneely v. Meneely, 62 N. Y. 427 261, 266 Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. 514 328 Menkins v. Lightner, 18 111. 282 189 Mdnsing v. Atchison (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 509 531, 591 Menzie v. Wolff, 120 N. Y. S. 53 861 Mercantile Bank v. Cox, 38 Maine 500 433, 852 Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Lauth, 143 Pa. St. 53 1057 Mercein v. Andrus, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 461 454, 919 . Mercer v. Sayre, Anth. N. P. (N. Y.) 119 (2d ed. 162) 600 Merchant v. Belding, 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 344 421 Merchants &c. Bank v. Evans, 9 W. Va. 373 826 v. Gardner, 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 143 1031 •V. Johnston, 130 Ga. 661 422, 436, 475 V. Stone, 38 Mich. 779 • 237, 238 Merchants' Bank v. McLachlan, 23 Can. Sup. Ct. 143 675 V. Thomas, 121 Fed. 306 270, 689, 693 V. Thompson, 3 Ont. R. Ch. Div. 541 381 Merchant Banking Co. v. Merchants' Joint Stock Bank, 9 Ch. Div. 560 261 Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Bonnet (Tex. Civ. App.), 48 S. W. 1110 299 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Pendleton, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 579 155, 238 V. Standard Wagon Co., 6 Ohio (N. P.) 264 104, 193 V. Stebbins, 15 S. Dak. 280 825 Mercur, In re, 116 Fed. 655 692 Mercur, In re, 122 Fed. 384 685 Meredith v. Ewing, 85 Ind. 410 741, 746, 856 Merfca v. Burget, 36 Ind. App. 453 321 Meriden Britannia v. Zingsen, 48 N. Y. 247 961 Meridian Nat. Bank v. Brandt, 51 Ind. 56 291, 624 V. McConica, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. '106 276, 541 V. Gallaudet, 120 N. Y. 298 212, 260, 825, 895 Meriwether, In re, 107 Fed. 102 704 TABLE OF CASES XCV [References are to sections— Vol. I, |§ 1-608; Vol. II, §i 615-1195.] Merkley v. Gravel Switch Roller Mills Co.'s Assignee, 28 Ky. L. 1010 526 Merrall v. Dobbins, 169 Pa. St. 480 897 Merrick v. Brainard, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 574 291, 550, 552 V. Giddings, 1 Mackey (12 D. C.) 394 491 V. Gordon, 20 N. Y. 93 220 V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 11 Ohio Sup. Ct. Com PI. Dec. 293 722 V. Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. 208 249 Merrill, In re, 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) 221 1003, 1008, 1015, 1016, 1020, 1036 Merrill v. Blanchard, 7 App. Div. (N. Y.) 167 563 V. Blanchard, 158 N. Y. 682 835 V. Caro Inv. Co., 70 Wash. 482 263 V. Green, 55 N. Y. 270 558, 752, 764 Merriman v. Magiveny, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 494 238 Merrit v. Pollys, 16 B. Mon (Ky.) 355 604 Merritt V. Bucknam, 90 Maine 146 491 V. Day, 38 N. J. L. 32 190, 600 V. Dickey, 38 Mich. 41 623, 624, 626, 835 V. Smith, 158 Ala. 186 741 V. Walsh, 32 N. Y. 685 897 Merriwether v. Hardeman, 51 Tex. 436 741, 747 Merry v. Hoopes, 111 N. Y. 415 276, 553 Mersereau v. Norton, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 179 292 Mershon v. Hobensack, 22 N. J. L. 372 265, 901 Mertens, Matter of, 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 512 633 Mertens v. Mertens, 87 App. Div. (N. Y.) 295 719 Merzlak v. Barbie, 32 Pittsb. L. J. (N. S.) (Pa.) 314 855 Meserve v. Andrews, 104 Mass. 360 881 V. Andrews, 106 Mass. 419 364, 674 Messer v. Messer, 59 N. H. 375 301, 625 Messinger, Appeal of, 43 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 101 449 Messinger v. Second Nat. Bank of To- ledo, 6 Ohio C. D. 197 54 Mestier v. Chevalier Pavement Co., 108 La. 562 160, 193, 196, 975, 994 Metal Stamping Co. v. Crandall, Fed. Cas. No. 9493c 265, 795 Metcalf V. Arnold, 110 Ala. 180 967 V. Bruin, 12 East 400 118, 837 V. Denson, 4 Baxt. (Tenn.) 565 471 V. Fonts, 27 III. 110 602 V. Officer, 2 Fed. 640 138, 139 V. Redmon, 43 111. 264 210, 214, 221, 882 Metcalfe v. Bradshaw, 145 111. 124 29S, 396, 654 Methodist &c. Church v. Pickett, 19 N. • Y. 482 238 Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Palmer, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 641 1016, 1020, 1022, 1027 ■I. Sirret, 97 N. Y. 320 1012, 1016, 1024, 1026, 1029 v. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13 832 Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. Adams Ex- press Co. (Mo. App.), 130 S. W. 101 1058 Metropolitan Trust Co. v.> Northern Trust Co., 61 Minn. 462 458 Metz V." Commercial Bank, 4S S. Car. 216 ■ 225, 591, 608, 962 Metzger v. Manlove, 241 111. 113 496 Metzner v. Baldwin, U Minn. 150 (Gil. 92) 419, 486 Mewburn v. Mackelcan, 19 Ont. App. 729 564 Meyberg V. Steagall, 51 Tex. 351 559, 564 Meyer, In re, 98 Fed. 976 121, 685, 688, 691, 692, 696, 702 Meyer v. Atkins, 29 La. Ann. 586 605 V. Hegler, 121 Cal. 682 430, 473 V. Krohn, 114 111. 574 149, 192, 596, 608, 926 V. Labau, 51 La. Ann. 1726 321 V. Lowell, 44 Mo. 328 809 V. Meyer, 116 La. 456 721 V. Meyer (Miss.), 64 So. 420 626 V. Michaels, 69 Nebr. 138 440 V. Parsons, 129 Cal. 653 564, 760 V. Reimers, 49 App. Div. (N. Y.) 638 721 V. Shamp, 26 Nebr. 729 564, 760 V. Sharpe, 5 Taunt. 74 275 v. Wilson, 166 Ind. 651 121, 826 Meyers, In re, 96 Fed. 408 700- Meyers, In re, 97 Fed. 757 706, 707 Meyers, In re, 105 Fed. 353 707 Meyers v. Boyd, 44 Mo. App. 378 882 V. Merillion, 118 Cal. 352 347, 381 Meylette v. Brennan, 20 Colo. 242 219 Meymot's Case, 1 Atk. 198 154 Meymott v. Meymott, 31 Beav. 445 362, 363 Meyran v. Abel, 189 Pa. St. 215 508, 605, 607 Meysenburg v. Littlefield, 135 Fed. 184 573, 597 Mexican Mill v. Yellow Jacket Silver Min. Co., 4 Nev. 40 796 Miami County Nat. Bank v. Barkalow, 53 Kans. 68 529 Michael v. Davidson, 3 Ga. App. 752 92 100 253 v. Kennedy, 166 Mo. App. 462' 847^ 861 v. Workman, 5 W. Va. 391 ■ 260, 895 Michalover v. Moses, 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 343 831 Michels Co. v. Young, 150 111. App. 442 158 Michener v. Fransham, 33 Mont. 108 81 Michigan Bank v. Eldred, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 544 429 Michigan' Trust Co. v. Chapin, 106 Mich. 384 625 Mick v. Howard, 1 Ind. 250 260 Mickle V. Peet, 43 Conn. 65 741, 774 Micklethwait v. Moore, 3 Meriv. 296 913 Middleton Sav. Bank v. Dubuque, 19 Iowa 467 469 Middletown Bank v. Magill, 5 Conn. 28 252 Midland National Bank v. Schoen, 123 Mo. 650 414, 435, 437 Midland R. Co. v. Taylor, 8 H. L. Cas. 751 398, 455 Mifflin V. Smith, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 165 144, 225, 260, 261, 421, 878 Migner v. Goulet, 31 Can. Sup. Ct. 26 675 Milam v. Hill, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 573 631 Milburn v. Codd. 7 B. & C. 419 743 Miles V. Miles (Iowa), 150 N. W. 21 217 V. Ogden, 54 Wis. 573 450 V. Pennock, 50 N. H. 564 820 _ V. Wann, 27 Minn. 56 214, 908 Millandon v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 8 La. 557 298 V. New Orleans &c. R. Co., 3 Rob. (La.) 488 291 V. Sylvestre, 8 La. 262 361 Millar v. Craig, 6 Beav. 433 727 Milleman v. Kavanaugh, 213 Pa. 240 657 Miller, In re, 104 Fed. 764 686 Miller, In re, 157 Pa. St. 224 631 Miller v. Andres, 13 Ga. 366 741, 743 V. Bailey, 19 Ore. 539 564 V. Baker, 161 Iowa 136 71, 876 V. Bartlett, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 137 75, 76, 881 V. Bay Circuit Judge, 41 Mich. 326 820 V. Berry, 19 S. Dak. 625 633 V. Brigham, 50 Cal. 615 576, 591, 715 V. Butterfield, 79 Cal. 62 98? V. Casey, 176 Mich. 221 281, 861, iOa XCVl TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Miller V. Chambers, 73 Iowa 23fi 341 V. Creditors, 37 La. Ann. 604 541 V. Davidson, 3 Gil. (111.) 518 655 V. Dow, 17 Vt. 235 455 V. Electrical Supply &c. Co., 46 Colo. 221 350 V. Estill, 5 Ohio St. 508 270, 526, 528 V. Ferguson, 107 Va. 249 218, 289, 628 V. Ferguson, 110 Va. 217 342, 390, 652 V. Florer, 15 Ohio St. 148 925 V. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654 743, 746, 753 V. Gunderson, 48 Nebr. 715 529 V. Hale, 96 Mo. App. 427 295, 356, 672, 674 V. Harris, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 101 718 V. Hines, 15 Ga. 197 852, 878 V. Hughes, 1 A. IC Marsh. (Ky.) 181 83, 210, 425 V. Jones, 39 111. 54 598, 616, 715 V. Jones, 32 Ky. L. 1078 469 V. Jones, 33 Ky. L. 848 469 V. Kern County, 137 Cal. 516 835 V. Kingsbury, 128 111. 45 620, 634 V. Knauff, 2 Clark (Pa.) 11 742 V. Laughlin (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 711 563, 901 V. Lord, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 11 361, 362, 363, 773 V. McCord (Tex. Civ. App.), 159 S. W. 159 417, 419, 424, 425 V. Mackay, 31 Beav. 77 351 V. Manice, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 114 464 V. Marx, 65 Tex. 131 69, 190 V. Miller, 80 N. J. Eq. 47 721 V. Mitcham, 21 Idaho 741 901 V. Mynn, 1 El. & El. 1075 820 V. Neimerick, 19 III. 172 467 V. Northern Bank, 34 Miss. 412 806 V. O'Boyle, 89 Fed. 140 344, 381, 390, 391, 652, 786, 878 V. Pepperling, 185 Mo. App. 222 217 V. Pfeiflfer, 168 Ind. 219 594, 596 V. Phenix Ins. Co., 109 111. App. 624 469 V. Pierson, 124 N. Y. 654 621 V. Price, 20 Wis. 117 371, 796 V. Proctor, 20 Ohio St. 442 281 y. Rapp, 135 Ind. 614 420, 856, 878, 884 V. Royal Flint Glass Works, 172 Pa. St. 70 425, 471, 473 V. Simpson, 107 Va. 476 56, 70, 72 V. Sims, 2 Hill. (S. Car.) 479 188 V. Stone, 69 Wis. 617 882 V. Tod, 95 Tex. 404 247 V. Waite, 59 Nebr. 319 297 Millerd v. Ramsdell (Mich.), Harr. 373 636, 641 V. Thorn, 56 N. Y. 402 558, 861 Miller Pure Rye Distilling Co., In re, 214 Fed. 189 966 Millett V. Holt, 60 Maine 169 125 Millhiser v. HoUeyman, 37 S. Car. 572 847 V. Pleasants, 118 N. Car. 237 304 V. McKinley, 98 Va. 207 526 Milligan v. Butcher, 23 Neb. 683 885 V. Mackinlay, 209 111. 358 291 V. Milledge, 3 Cranch (U. S.) 220 815 Milliken v. Brown, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 391 491 V. Loring, 37 Maine 408 601, 60S, 925 Milloy V. Hoyt, 123 111. App. 568 675 Mills V. Argall, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 577 621, 1025, 1033 V. Barber, 4 Day (Conn.) 428 444 V. Boyd, 6 Jur. 943 562 V. Dickson, 6 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 487 457 V. Carrier, 30 S. Car. 617 718, 856 V. Fellows, 30 La. Ann. 824 350 V. Fisher, 159 Fed. 897 121, 685, 687, 690, 702 v- Hyde, 19 Vt. 59 600 Mills V. Kerr, 7 Ont. App. 769 530 V. Miller, 109 Iowa 688 458 V. Pearson, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 16 291 V. Riggle, 83 Kans. 703 415, 433 Millwee v. Jay, 47 S. Car. 430 425, 436 Milmo Nat. Bank v. Bergstrom, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 151 594 Milne v. Bartlett, 8 L. J. Ch. 254 583 v. Douglass, 17 Fed. 482 834 Milner v. Cooper, 65 Iowa 190 620 Milton V. Mosher, 7 Met. (Mass.) 244 304 Milwaukee Land Co. v. Ruesink (Mont.), 148 Pac. 396 444 Milwaukee Harvester Co. v. Crabtree, _ 101 Iowa 526 425 V. Finnegan, 43 Minn. 183 466 v. Newell, 65 111. App. 612 603 Mims V. Brook, 3 Ga. App. 247 95, 596, 604 Miner v. Downer, 19 Vt. 14 486, 825 V. Downer, 20 Vt. 461 861 v. Lorman, 56 Mich. 212 741, 743 V. Pierce, 38 Vt. 610 820 Miners Co-op. Assn. v. The Monarch, 2 Alaska 383 (1905) 71 Mingus V. Bank of Ethel, 136 Mo. App. 407 (1909) 75 Minnesota (gaslight &c. Co. v. Dens- low, 46 Minn. 171 249 Minor v. Gaw, 11 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 322 371, 455 V. Mechanics' Bank, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 46 493 Minthorn- v. Haines, 169 Mich. 169 413 Mission Ridge Land Co. v. Nixon (Tenn. Ch. App.), 48 S. W. 405 995 Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Jarrell, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 425 220 Missouri Bottlers' Assn. v. Fenuerty, 81 Mo. App. 525 165 Missouri Lead &c. Co. v. Reinhard, 114 Mo. 218 249 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Creath, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. (Willson) 109 220 v. Smith, 84 Tex. 348 802 Missouri Sav. Assn. v. German-Amer- ican Ins. Co., 73 Mo. App. 158 299 Mitchel V. Rich, 1 Ala. 228 599 Mitchell V. Beatty, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 133 486 V. Belknap, 23 Maine 475 912, 917 V. Craig, 11 Ga. App. 79 , 92, 475 V. Dall, 2 Har. & G. (Md.) 159 796, 817 V. Dobson, 42 N. Car. 34 562 V. Fish, 97 Ark. 444 177 V. Gormley, 9 Ont. 139 743 V. Jensen, 29 Utah 346 238, S25 V. Lister, 21 Ont. 22 721 V. Lister, 21 Ont. 318 732 V. Mitchell, 92 Mich. 618 727, 729 V. Murphy, 131 La. 1040 574 V. O'Neal, 4 Nev. 504 142, 215, 861 V. Ostrom, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 520 604 V. Railton, 45 Mo. App. 273 265,-795, 796, 854 V. Read, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 310 389 V. Read, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 418 328 V. Read, 84 N. Y. 556 728 V. Reed, 61 N. Y. 123 342, 389, 394, 446 V. Schultz, 8 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 78 V P y g^j V. Sellman, 5 Md. 376 496, 764 V. Stewart, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 250 720 v. Tarbutt, 5 T. R. 649 506 v. Tonkin, 109 App. Div. (N. Y.) 165 70, 169, 743 r. Whaley, 29 Ky. L. 125 265, 455 Mitchell &c. Furniture Co. v. Runk, 7 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 491 677, 728 V. Sampson, 40 Fed. 805 817 TABLE OF CASES xcvu [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Mitchum v. Bank of Kentucky, 9 Dana (Ky.) 166 596 Mittleberger v. Meritt, 1 U. C. Q. B. 330 561 Mittnight v. Smith, 17 N. J. Eq. 259 829 Mixer v. Sibley, 53 111. 61 186 Moale V. HoUins, 11 Gill & J. (Md.) 11 923 Mobley v. Lonbat, 7 How. (Miss.) 318 820 Mock V. Stoddard, 177 Fed. 611 (1910) 93, 421 Moddewell v. Keever, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 63 201 Mode V. Penland, 93 N. Car. 292 506, 812 Modern Dairy &c. Co. v. Blanke &c. Supply Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 116 S. W. 153 954 Moderwell v. MuUison, 21 Pa. St. 257 290, 444, 625 Moffat V. McKissick, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 517 260, 261, 265, 421, 457 V. Moffat, 10 Bosw. (N. Y.) 468 657 V. Thomson, 5 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 155 371, 538, 669 Moffitt V. Roche, 92 Ind. 96 487, 852, 857 Mogelin v. Westhoff, 33 Tex. 788 556 Mogford V. Courtenay, 45 L. T. 303 317 Mognihan v. Drobaz, 124 Cal. 212 387 Mohawk Nat. Bank v. Van Slyck, 29 Hun (N. Y.) 188 437, 500 Mohr V. Minnesota Elev. Co., 40 Minn. 343 247 250 Moies V. O'Neill, 23 N. J. Eq. 207 588, 720, 721 Moist's Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 166 448 Mokelumne Hill &c. Min. Co. v. Wood- bury, 14 Cal. 424 231, 238 Molen V. Orr, 44 Ark. 486 796, 803, 834 Moley V. Brine, 120 Mass. 324 188, 275 Moline Wagon Co. v. Rummell, 2 Mc- Crary (U. S.) 307 304 Molineaux v. Raynolds, 54 N. J. Eq. 559 292, 601, 628, 672, 673, 757 Moller V. Lambert, 2 Campb. 548 796 Molloy V. Rourke, 83 Conn. 196 985 Mollwo V. Court of Wards, L. R. 4 P. C. 419 40, 46, 87, 103, 900 Mondamin Bank v. Burke, 165 Iowa 711 354, 929 Monmouth College v. Dockery, 241 Mo. 522 508, 924 Mopmouth Investm. Co. v. Means, 151 Fed. 159 962 Monongahela Valley Bank v. Weston, 159 N. Y. 201 596 Monroe v. Ezzell, 11 Ala. 603 798 V. Conner, 15 Maine 178 429, 445, 576, 582, 596 V. Greenhoe, 54 Mich. 9 306, 900, 941 V. Hamilton, 60 Ala. 226 304, 529, 576, 591, 716 Monson v. Ray, 123 Mo. App. 1 (1907) 89 Montague v. Hayes, 10 Gray (Mass.) 609 359, 360 V. Lobdell, 11 Cush. (Mass.) Ill 767 V. Reakert, 6 Bush (Ky.) 393 . 603 Montgomery v. Amsler, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 216 72 V. Boone, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 244 422 V. Forbes, 148 Mass. 249 240, 241, 250 V. Montgomery, Rich. Eq. Cas. (S, Car.) 64 718 V. Sprankle, 31 Ind. 113 191 Montgomery Web Co. v. Dienelt, 133 Pa. St. 585 968 Montioys v. Holden, Litt. Sel. Cas. (Ky.) 447 344, 758, 759 Montross v. Byrd. 6 La. Ann. 518 820 V. Mabie, 30 Fed. 234 728 Moody V. Alter, 12 Heisk. (TennO 142 866 V. Payne, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 548 784, 823, 829 V. Thomas, 1 Disney (Ohio) 294 316 Moon V. Story, 8 Dana (Ky.) 226 727 Mooney v. Ryerson, 8 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 435 866 Moor V. Boyd, 23 U. C. Q. B. 459 422 Moore, In re, 228 Pa. 530 660, 675 Moore v. Bare, 11 Iowa 198 295, 878 V. Bivins (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 881 675 V. Burns, 60 Ala. 269 265, 795, 817 v. Dickson, 121 Wis. 591 826 V. Duckett, 91 Ga. 752 596 v. Gano, 12 Ohio 300 745 V. Gatewood, 5 Ky. L. (abstract) 777 489 V. Gurney, 21 U. C. Q. B. 127 857 V. Harper, 42 W. Va. 39 907, 908 V. Hillsdale County Telephone Co., 171 Mich. 388 344 V. Huntington, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 417 664, 719 V. Huntington, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 425 979 V. Knight (1891), 1 Ch. 547 511 V. Knott, 14 Ore. 35 912, 917 V. Lackman, 52 Mo. 323 604 V. Leigh-Head (Okla.), 149 Pac. 1129 834 V. May, 117 Wis. 192 (1903), 147, 267, 825 V. Otis, 20 Mo. 153 819, 820 V. Palmer, 132 N. Car. 969 467 V. Pennell, 52 Maine 162 292, 830, 831 V. Price, 116 Ala. 247 586, 587 V. Rawson, 185 Mass. 264 554, 660, 729 V. Rawson, 199 Mass. 493 319, 659, 660, 674, 715, 728, 729 V. Riddell, 11 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 69 525 V. Sample, 3 Ala. 319 829, 830 V. Smith, 19 Ala. 774 75 V. Steele, 67 Tex. 435 537, 591 V. Stone, 50 Ga. 157 723 V. Terhune, 161 111. App. 155 835 V. Trieber, 31 Ark. 113 674, 914 V. Watts, 81 Ala. 261 796 V. Westbrook, 156 N. Car. 482 359, 360, 362 V. Williams, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 142 500, 825 V. Williams, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 287 861 V. Wheeler, 10 W. Va. 35 659, 729 V. Wood, 171 Pa. St. 365 290, 623, 626 Moore Furniture Co. v. Prussing, 71 111. App. 666 836 Moore Grocery Co. v. McCan (Tex. Civ. App.), 169 S. W. 191 536 Moorehead v. Gilmore, 77 Pa. St. 118 418, 430, 432 Moore's Appeal, 34 Pa. St. 411 630 Moorman v. Parkerson, 127 La. 835 320 Moran v. Bentley, 69 Conn. 392 850 V. Le Blanc, 6 La. Ann. 113 754 V. McDevitt (R. I.), 83 Atl. 1013 218 V. Mclnerney, 129 Cal. 29 582, 601, 628, 731 V. Palmer, 13 Mich. 367 475, 486, 623, 624 V. Prather, 23 Wall. 492 454 Moran Bros. v. Watson, 44 Wash. 392 425 Morback v. Young, 51 Ore. 128 (1908) 95 More V. Rand, 60 N. Y. 208 590 Moreau v. Edwards, 2 Tenn. Ch. 347 316, 320 V. Saffarans, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 595 265 Morehead v. Adams, 18 Nebr. 569 531 V. Wriston, 73 N. Car. 398 556, 558, 561, 809 Morehouse v. Newton, 3 DeG. & Sm. 307 727 V. Northrop, 33 Conn. 380 508 Moreton v. Harden, 4 B. & C. 223 506, 509 Morey v. Clopton. 103 Mo. App. 368 979 V. Grant, 48 Mich. 326 721 Morgan, Ex parte, 1 Mac. & G. 225 416 Morgan v. Brach, 104 Minn. 247 494 xcvin TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Morgan V. Farrel, 58 Conn. 413 25, 76, 85, 103, 104, 210, 901, 907 V. Morgan, 68 Ala. 80 631 V. Nunes, 54 Miss. 308 746 V. Olvey, 53 Ind. 6 281, 624 V. Pierce, 59 Miss. 210 445 V. Randolph, 73 Conn. 396 642, 954 V. Richardson, 16 Mo. 409 457, 599 V. Schuyler, 79 N. Y. 490 329, 331, 553 V. Scott, Minor (Ala.) 81 826 V. Skidmore, 3 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 92 836 V. Smith, 70 N. Y. 537 491 V. Stearns, 41 Vt. 398 75, 900 V. Tarbell, 28 Vt. 498 562 V. Watmough, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 125 291, 820 Morgans v. Adel, 76 Cal. xix 727 Morgart v. Smouse, 103 Md. 463 169, 218, 743 V. Smouse, 112 Md. 615 75, 115, 729 Morgridge v. Stoefer, 14 N. Dak. 430 796 Moriarty v. Bailey, 46 Conn. 592 371 Morin v. Martin, 25 Mo. 360 651, 741 V. Pilon, 158 Wis. 411 994 Morison V. Moat, 9 Hare 241 330, 779, 787 V. Moat, 16 Jr. 321 720 Moritz V. Lavelle, 77 Cal. ,10 219 V. Peebles, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 135 396, 654 Morley, Ex parte, L. R. 8 Ch. 1026 635, 642 Morley, Ex parte, 43 L. J. Bankr. 28 531 Morley v. Bird, 3 Ves. Jr. 628 623 V. Boothby, 10 Moore 395 459 Morlitzer v. Bernard, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 361 419 Morrill v. Bissell, 99 Mich. 409 608 V. Colehour, 82 III. 618 - 218, 290, 624 V. Spurr, 143 Mass. 257 221, 882 V. Weeks, 70 N. H. 178 224, 572, 659, 715, 729 Morris, In re, L. R. 10 Ch. App. Cas. 68 631, 633 Morris v. Allen, 14 N. J. Eq. 44 358, 359, 361, 383, 668 V. Barrett, 3 Y. & J. 384 276 V. Brown, 177 Ala. 389 91, 276, 471, 472, 475 V. First Nat. Bank, 162 Ala. 301 486 V. Griffin, 83 Iowa 327 354, 356 V. Hillery, 7 How. (Migs.) 61 742 V. Hubbard, 14 S. Dak. 525 440 V. Imperial Cap Co., 135 Mich. 476 1059 V. Jones, 4 Harr. (Del.) 428 436 V. Kearsley, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 139 779 V. Litchfield, 14 111. App. 83 156 V. Marqueze, 74 Ga. 86 559, 561, 809, 825, 834 V. Metalline Land Co. of Lake Su- perior, 166 Pa. St. 351 1055, 1056 V. Moon (Tex. Civ. App.), 120 S. W. 1063 95 V. Morris, 4 Grat. (Va.) 293 367, 538 V. Neel, 78 Ga. 797 364, 666 V. Nunn, 79 Tex. 125 675, 716, 718 V. Owen (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 227 119, 397, 579, 659,-675 V. Peckham, 51 Conn. 128 214, 778 V. Wood (Tenn.), 35 S. W. 1013 381, 382, 387, 675, 756, 861, 897, 978, 987 Morrison, In re, 127 Fed. 186 706 Morrison v. Austin State Bank, 213 111. 472 201, 291 V. Bennett, 20 Mont. 560 83, 172, 175, 177, 655, 656 V. Blodgett, 8 N. H. 238 292, 581, 820, 830, 831 V. Curry, 43 Pa. Super. Ct. 648 424 V. Dickey, 122 Ga. 353 149 V. Kendall, 6 Ind. App. 212 556, 557, 562 Morrison V. Kramer, 58 Ind. 38 401 v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232 443 V. Perry, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 33 558, 559 V. Smith, 81 111. 221 364, 383 V. Stockwell, 9 Dana (Ky.) 172 399, 741 V. Tate, 1 Met. (Ky.) 569 796 Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co., 68 Pa. 173 170, 172, 193, 655 Mornssey v. Schindler, 18 Nebr. 672 847 Morrow v. Fossick, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 129 820 V. Morrow, 2 Tenn. Ch. 549 579 V. Murphy, 120 Mich. 204 75 Morse, In re. Fed. Cas. No. 9854 608 Morse v. Bellows, 7 N. H. 549 444, 451, 601, 824 V. Carpenter, 19 Vt. 613 269 V. Hagenah, 68 Wis. 603 424, 486 V. Hall, 109 Mass. 409 262, 632 V. Pacific R. Co., 191 111. 356 25 V. Richmond, 97 111. 303 898, 919 V. Richmond, 6 111. App. 166 169, 260, 486 Morss V. Gleason, 2 Hun (N. Y.) 31 556 V. Gleason, 64 N. Y. 204 531, 558, 559 Mortimer v. Marder, 93 Cal. 172 885 Mortimore v. Atkins, 98 Ark. 183 451 Mortland v. Himes, 8 Pa. St. 265 491 Mortley v. Flanagan, 38 Ohio 401 531, 693 Morton v. Higgins, 7 N. J. L. 343 529 V. Nelson, 145 111. 586 169, 219 v. Ostrom, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 256 276 Mosapp V. Stevens, 158 App. Div.- (N. Y.) 874 360, 668 Mosby V. United States, 194 Fed. 346 450 Moscowitz V. Sassulsky, 141 App. Div. (N. Y.) 763 214 Moses V. Bagley, 55 Ga. 283 618 V. Dulles, 8 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 14 826 V. Powers, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 393 554 Moses P. Johnson Machinery Co. v. Watson, 57 Mo. App. 629 796, 817 Mosgrove V. Golden, 101 Pa. St. 605 803 Moshier v. Kitchell, 87 111. 18 555 Mosier, In re, 112 Fed. 138 694, 704 Mosier, In re, 7 Am. Bkr. R. 268 697 Mosier v. Parry, 60 Ohio St. 388 100, 221 Moss V. Averell, 10 N. Y. 449 251 v. Elphick [1910], 1 K. B. 846 576 V. Jerome, 10 Bosw. (N. Y.) 220 494 V. McCall, 75 III. 190 359, 362 V. Oakley, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 265 251 Mosteller v. Bost, 42 N. Car. 39 399 Motion, In re, L. R. 9 Ch. 192 538 Motley V. WickofF, 113 Mich. 231 557, 562 Moubray v. Moubray, 157 N. Y. 712 294 Mt. Carmel Tel. Co. v. Mt. Carmel &c. Tel. Co., 119 Ky. 461 100 Mt. Pleasant Branch of State Bank v. McLeran, 26 Iowa 306 439 Mourain v. Delamarre, 2 La. Ann. 142 665 Mousseau v. Thebens, 19 La. Ann. 516 486, 559 Mowatt V. Rowland, 3 Day (Conn.) 353 596 Mowbray v. Lawrence, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 107 784, 823, 829, 830 Mowry V. Bradley, 11 R. I. 370 296 Moyer v. Drummond, 32 S. Car. 165 296, 297 Moyers v. Cummings, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 269 638, 836 Moyn v. Rose, 245 Pa. 601 721 Moynahan v. Prentiss, 10 Colo. App. 295 444 Mozingo V. Ross, 150 Ind. 588, 691 888 Mozley v. Alston, 1 Phil. Ch. 790 773 Mudd V. Bast, 34 Mo. 465 550, 579, 591 V. Bates, 73 III. App. 576 898 Mueller v. Smith, 173 III. App. 45 977 V. Sutter, 96 Iowa 80 555 Mueller Lumber Co. v. McCaffrey, 141 Iowa 730 834 TABLE OF CASES XCIX [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Muhlhiem v. Foster, 41 111. App. 458 675 Muir V. Samuels, 110 Ky. 605 400 Muldon V. Whitlock, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 290 499 Mulford V. Doremus, 60 N. J. Eq. 80 967 Mulhall V. Cheatham, 1 Mo. App. 476 103 V. Gillespie, 89 111. 346 854 Mulherin v. Rice, 106 Ga. 810 579, 615, 631 Mullatiey v. Duffy, 145 111. 559 348 Mullany v. Keenan, 10 Iowa 224 743, 744, 745 Mullendore v. Scott, 45 Ind. 113 564, 763, 764 Matter of Muller, 96 App. Div. 619 730 Mulligan v. Kraus, 88 Misc. (N. Y.) 538 746 MuUins V. Gilligan, 12 Colo. App. 13 891, 903 V. Miller, 1 Lower Can. J. 121 194 V. Simpkinson, 10 Ky. L. (abstract) 280 604 Mulvey v. Anderson, 187 Mo. App. 430 573 Mumford v. McKay, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 442 550, 591 V. Mumford, 1 Gall. (U. S.V366 186 V. Murray, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 1 350 V. NicoU, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 611 103, 144, 349 Munday Trading Co. v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 178 S. W. 49 413, 919 Municipal Paving Co. v. Herring (Okla.), 150 Pac. 1067 75, 89, 111, 113, 114, 115, 401, 411 Munn, Ex parte, 3 Biss. (U. S.) 442 923 Munn, In re, 3 Biss. (U. S.) 442 '464, 486 Munroe v. Frosh, 2 La. Ann. 962, 963 820 V. Judson, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 215 449 V. Williams, 35 S. Car. 572 486, 847 Munson v. Wickwire, 21 Conn. 513 466, 467, 888 Munster v. Cox, 10 App. Cas. 680 806, 818 V. Railton, 11 6. B. D. 435 826 Munton v. Rutherford, 121 Mich. 418 475, 878 Munzinger v. Courier Co., 82 Hun (N. Y.) 575 817 Murdock v. Martin, 12 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 660 767 Murley v. Ennis, 2 Colo. 300 219 Murphy v. Abrams, 50 Ala. 293 276, 624, 626 v. Bush, 122 Ga. 715 729 V. Cochran, 146 Iowa 443 616, 835 V. Coppieters, 136 Cal. 317 812 V. Crafts, 13 La. Ann. 519 366, 385, 747 V. Craig, 76 Mich. 155 104 V. Du Berg, 11 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 112 728 V. Fairweather, 72 W. Va. 14 75, 848 V. Kirby, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207 675 V. Marvel, 49 Pa. Super. 576 667 V. Murphy, 45 La. Ann. 433 675 V. Murphy, 217 Mass. 233 635, 638 V. Patterson, 24 Mont. 591 . 674, 728 V. Warren, 55 Nebr. 215 275, 276, 277, 358, 371 V. Whitlow, 1 Ariz. 340 425, 473 V. Yeomans, 29 U. C. C. P. 421 188, 601 Murray, In re, 96 Fed. 600 691 Murray v. Ay,er, 16 R. L 665 471, 474, 60S V. Blackledge, 71 N. Car. 492 269 V. Bogert, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 318 150, 552, 743 V. Coster, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 576 718 V. Elston, 24 N. J. Eq. 310 675 V. Flavell, 25 Ch. D. 89 779 V. Gerety, 11 N. Y. S. 205 530 V. Governeur, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 438 499 V. Herrick, 171 Pa. 21 364, 651, 741 V. Johnson, 1 Head (Tenn.) 353 351 Murray V. Mumford, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 441 598, 616, 92S V. Walter, Cr. & Ph. 114 913 Murray Ginning System Co. v. Ex- change Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 508 79; 476 Murrays v. Murray, 13 Fac. Dec. 441 623 Murreil v. Mandelbaum, 85 Tex. 32 276, 289, 626 V. Murreil, 33 La. Ann. 1233 142, 348, 385, 397, 450, 654, 747, 914, 915 Murrill v. Neil, 8 How. (U. S.) 414 698 Murtagh v. Costello, L. R. 7 Ir. 428 289 627 Music Hall Block, In re, 8 Ont. 225 296, 623, 627 Musier v. Trumphour, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 274 81, 103, 748 Musselman's Appeal, In re, 62 Pa. St. 81 • 660 Mus'ser v. Brink, 68 Mo. 242 72, 126, 900 Mussetter v. Timmerman, 11 Colo. 201 364, 666 Musson V. May, 3 Ves. & B. 194 564 Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Hillyard, 37 N. J. L. 444 186 Mutual Bldg. &c. Assn. v. Fidelity &c. Co. of Maryland, 50 La. Ann. 291 599 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Sturges, 33 N. J. Eq. 328 644 Mutual Nat. Bank v. Richardson, 33 La. Ann. 1312 43S M. W. Powell Co. V. Finn, 198 111. 567 825 Myatt v. Ponca City Imp. Co., 14 Okla. 189 249 Myatts V. Bell, 41 Ala. 222 605, 607 Mycock V. Beatson, 13 Ch. D. 384 589, 669 Myers V.' Bennett, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 184 727 V. Edge, 7 T. R. 250 599 V. Edison General Electric Co., 59 N. J. L. 153 146, 1011 V. Gilbert, 18 Ala. 467 509, 511 V. Huggins, 1 Strob. (S. Car.) 473 604, 60S V. Kalamazoo Buggy Co., 54 Mich. 215 318 V. Kirby, 9 Ohio Dec. 297 350, 351 V. Moulton, 71 Cal. 498 444 V. Myers, 15 App. Div. (N. Y.) 448 722 •V. Myers, 60 L. J. Ch. 311 638 V. Myers, 61 L. T. (N. S.) 757 601 V. Smith, 15 Iowa 181 364 V. Smith, 29 Ohio St. 120 820 V. Standart, 11 Ohio St. 29 927 V. Sturgis, 197 N. Y. 526 230 V. Tyson, 2 Kans. App. 464 307, 529 V. Winn, 16 111. 135 748 Mygatt V. McClure, 3 Head (Tenn.) 495 601 Mynderse v. Snook, 1 Lans. (N. Y,) 488 496 Myrick v. Dame, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 248 451, 741, 743, 824 N Naboes v. Camp, 14 Ala. 460 491 Naftzker v. Lantz, 137 Mich. 441 861 Nagle V. Ball, 71 Miss. 330 630 Naglee v. Minturn, 8 Cal. 540 722 Nail v. Adams, 7 Ala. 475 819 V. Mclntyre, 31 Ala. 532 371, 455 Nalle V. Gates, 20 Tex. 315 888 Namee v. Huffman, 3 Har. (Del.) 425 796 Napier v. Catron, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 534 301, 440 V. McLeod, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 120 602, 607 V. Spielmann, 127 App. Div. (N. Y.) 567 121 Napoleon v. State, 3 Tex. App. 522 405 Nash V. Brophy, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 476 820 V. Mitchell, 71 N. Y. 199 190 TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, S§ 615-1195.] Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 65 Hun (N. Y.) 491 455 Nathan v. Bacon, 75 N. J. Eq. 401 587, 592, 721 V. Thomas, 63 Fla. 240 817, 834 Nathanson v. Spitz, 19 R. I. 70 457, 496, 502, 806 National &c. Bank v. White, 30 Fed. 412 919 National &c. Co. v. Townsend &c. Co., 176 111. 156 900 National Bank v. Bigler, 83 N. Y. 51 606, 638 V. Cringan, 91 Va. 347 419, 486, 498 V. Gushing, 53 Vt. 321 367 V. Dickinson, 107 Ala. 265 486 V. HoUingsworth, 135 N. Car. 556 594, 632. 954, 955, 958 V. Ingraham, 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 290 221, 260, 486, 923 V. Jennings Trust Co., 44 111. App. 285 223 V. Header, 40 Minn. 325 420, 466, 600, 888 V. Norton, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 572 563, 596, 604, 605 V. Scriven, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 375 421, 453 V. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13 304, 527, 528, 529 V. Texas Investment Co., 74 Tex. 421 953 V. Thomas, 47 N. Y. 15 419, 433, 486, 922 V. Van Derwerker, 74 N. Y. 234 1058 National Broadway Bank v. Yuengling, 58 Hun (N. Y.) 474 967 National Bldg. &c. Co. v. Gosnell, 116 Md. 640 854 National Cash Register Co. v. Brown, 1? Mont. 200 556 National Citizens' Bank o£ Mankato v. McKinley, 129 Minn. 481 440, 471 National Exch. Bank v. White, 30 Fed. 412 486 V. Wileus, 95 Ky. 309 433, 437 National Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 60 Mo. 252 847 National Lumber &c. Co. v. Grays Har- bor Commercial Co., 71 Wash. 31 95 National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 250 111. 584 616 National Shoe &c. Co. v. Herz, 89 N. Y. 629 926 V. Herz, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 260 596 National State Capital Bank v. Noyes, 62 N. H. 35 424, 426, 486 National Surety Co. v. T. B. Town- send Brick &c. Co., 74 111. App. 312 900 V. T. B. Townsend Brick &c. Co., 176 111. 156 103 National Tube-Works v. Gilflllan, 124 N. Y. 302 232 National Union Bank v. Landon, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 189 85, 230, 239, 240, 241, 245, 429 V. National Mechanics' Bank, SO Md. 371 219, 282 Natusch V. Irving, 2 Coop. C. C. 358 415, 416, 783 Navarro v. Lamana (Tex. Civ. App.), 179 S. W. 922 724, 732 Nave v. Sturges, 5 Mo. App. 557 639, S84 Neaderthal, In re, 225 Fed. 38 696 Neal V. Abel, 103 App. Div. (N. Y.) 414 729 V. Adkins (Tex. Civ. App.), 145 S. W. 264 854, 861 V. Berry, 86 Maine 193 188, 364 V. Clark, 95 U. S. 704 707 V. Conwell, 115 Ga. 471 675 V. Kayser, 12 Ariz. 118 276 V. Keel, 4 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 162 716, 774 Neal V. Smith, 116 Fed. 20 563, 596 Neale v. Turton, 4 Bing. 149 426, 746 Nealis v. Lissner, 52 Hun (N. Y.) 503 722 Near v. Donnelly, 80 Mich. 130 1055 v. Lowe, 49 Mich. 482 657 Neasmith, In re, 147 Fed. 160 83, 104, 216 Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Ferguson, 49 Nebr. 109 238 Nebraska R. Co. v. Lett, 8 Nebr. 251 497 Needham v. Bythewood (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 426 677 v. Wright, 140 Ind. 190 291, 592, 598, 628, 849, 925 Neel v. Morris, 73 Ga. 406 773 Neely v. Morris, 2 Head (Tenn.) 595 847 Neer v. Oakley, 18 N. Y. St. 374 301, 304, 440 Negaunee First Nat. Bank v. Freeman, 47 Mich. 408 430, 825 Nehrboss v. Bliss, 88 N. Y. 600 808 Neil V. Greenleaf, 26 Ohio St. 567 743, 754, 850 Neill V. Shamburg, 158 Pa. St. 263 878 Neilson v. Mossend Iron Co., 11 App. Cas. 298 225 Neiswanger v. Ord, 81 Kans. 63 817, 796 Neligh V. Bradford, 1 Nebr. 451 491 Nelms V. McGraw, 93 Ala. 245 79, 81, 103 Nelson v. Bealby, 30 Beav. 472 672 V. Drake, 14 Hun (N. Y.j 465 1001 V. Hatch, 70 App. Div. (N. Y.) 206 770 V. Hayner, 66 111. 487 525, 579, 633 V. Hill, 5 How. (U. S.) 127 496, 630, 836 V. Lloyd, 9 Watts (Pa.) 22 826 V. Luling, 62 N. Y. 645 238 V. Matsch, 38 Utah 122 400 V. Ravens, 3 111. App. 565 771 V. Wheelock, 46 111. 25 304 Nemeth v. Tracy, 159 App. Div. (N. Y.) 497 426, 508 Nephler v. Woodward, 200 Mo. 179 854 Nerac, In re, 35 Cal. 392 187 Nerot V. Burnand, 4 Russ. 247 371, 578 Nester v. Baraga, 133 Mich. 640 941 V. Sullivan, 147 Mich. 493 218, 219 Neudecker v. Kohlberg, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 407 357, 671, 726 Neuman v. Gates, 165 Ind. 171 496 Nevens v. Bulger, 93 Maine 502 594, 596, 834 Nevills v. Moqre Min. Co., 135 Cal. 561 350, 767 New V. Wright, 44 Miss. 202 781,' 786 Newark Coal Co. v. Spangler, 54 N. J. Eq. 354 318 Newberger v. Friede, 23 Mo. App. 631 72 Newberry v. Rhinehart, 159 Ky. 513 733 Newbigging v. Adam, 34 Ch. Div. 582 589, 590 Newly V. Harrell, 99 N. Car. 149 366, 368, 741, 756, 758 New Carlisle Bank v. Brown, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. 77 847 Newcomb-Endicott Co. v. Fee, 167 Mich. 574 237, 238 Newcomet v. Brotzman, 69 Pa. St. 185 596 Newell V. Cochran, 41 Minn. 374 169, 218, 393 V. Humphrey, 37 Vt. 265 276, 353, 637, 716 V. Martin, 81 Iowa 238 371 New England &c. Bank v. Newport Steam Factory, 6 R. I. 154 252 Newhall v. Buckingham, 14 III. 405 458, 820, 829, 830, 831 V. Wyatt, 139 N. Y. 452 559 New Hampshire Land Co. v. Tilton, 19 Fed. 73 249 New Haven &c. Co. v. Goodwin, 42 Conn. 230 912, 918 V. Hayden, 119 Mass. 361 492' TABLE OF CASES CI [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] New Haven County Bank v. Mitchell, 15 Conn. 206 604, 605 Newhouse v. Heilbrun, 74 Kans. 282 835 Newlon v. Heaton, 42 Iowa 593 121 Newman v. Bagley, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 570 532 533 V. Bean, 21 N. H. 93 291, 805! 820 V. Eldridge, 107 La. 315 119 V. Gates, 165 Ind. 171 496, 630, 836 V. Graham, 3 Munf. (Va.) 187 493 V. McComas, 43 Md. 70 468 V. Morris, 52 Miss. 402 190 V. Richardson, 9 Fed. 865 430 V. Ruby, 54 W. Va. 381 364 V. Schminke, 50 La. Ann. 516 721 V. Tichenor, 88 111. App. 1 715, 743 New Orleans v. Gauthreaux, 32 La. Ann. 1126 83, 719, 820, 901 New Orleans Ins. Assn. v. Holberg, 64 Miss. 51 299 Newsane v. Brazell, 118 Ga. 547 419 NeWsonn v. Ritman, 98 Ala. 526 761 News-Register Co. v. Rockingham Pub. Co. (Va.), 86 S. E. 874 715 Newton v. Doran, 1 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 590 587, 715 V. Doran, 3 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 353 719 V. McKay, 29 Mich. 1 269 V. Taylor, L. R. 19 Eq. 14 732 New Vienna Bank v. Johnson, 47 Ohio St. 306 265 New York &c. Bank v. Crowell, 177 Pa. St. 313 239 New York &c. Canal Co. v. Fulton Bank, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 412 193, 195, 196 New York &o. Contracting Co. v. Mey- er, 51 Ala. 325 854, 857 ■ New York &c. Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 5 Conn. 574 878 New York Bank-Note Co. v. Hamilton Bank-Note Engraving &c. Co., 56 App. Div. (N. Y.) 488 726 New York Commercial Co. v. Francis, 96 Fed. 266 536 V. Francis, 101 Fed. 16 276, 536, 555 New York Eighth Nat. Bank v. Fitch, 49 N. Y. 539 830 New York Fastener Co. v. Wilatus, 65 App. Div. (N. Y.) 467 826 New York Firemen Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 5 Conn. 574 432, 454, 487 New York Fourth Nat. Bank v. Carroll- ton R. Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 624 552 New York Iron Mine v. First Nat. Bank, 39 Mich. 644 155, 237 New York Life Ins. Co. v. Clopton, 7 Bush (Ky.) 179 577 V. Statham, 93 U. S. 24 186 New York Mut. F. Ins. Co. V. Ham- mond, 106 Ky. 386 802 New York Nat. Exch. Bank v. Crowell, 177 Pa. St. 313 233 Niagara County v. People, 7 Hill. (N. 7.) 504 25. 1046 Nichol V. Stewart, 36 Ark. 612 121, 275, 292, 304, 358, 371, 537, 669 Nicholas v. Hadlock (Mo. App.), 180 S. W. 31 850 Nicholaus V. Thielges, 50 Wis. 491 881 Nicholls V. Dowding, 1 Stark. 65 888 Nichols V. Buell, 157 Mich. 609 1010, 1051, 1055 V. Burcham, 177 Mich. 601 413, 901 V. Burton, 5 Bush (Ky.) 320 811 V. Cheairs, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 229 418, 434, 486, 810 V. English, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 260 419, 496 V. James, 130 Mass. 589 920 V. Murphy, 136 111. 380 728 V. Prince, 8 Allen (Mass.) 404 564, 559, 760 V. Sober, 38 Mich. 678 , 431 V. White, 41 Hun (N. Y.) 152 261 Nichols _ V. White, 85 N. Y. 531 888 Nicholson v. Janeway, 16 N. J. Eq. 285 381, 675 V. Kilbury, 83 Wash. 196 213, 902 V. Kinsey (Tenn.), 38 S. W. 1033 659, 661 V. Moog, 65 Ala. 471 475, 901, 926 V. Patton, 2 Cranch C. C. 164 433, 861 V. Revill, 4 Ad. & El. 675 491 Nickels v. Mooring, 16 Fla. 76 602 Nickerson v. Russell, 172 Mass. 584 599 v. Spindell, 164 Mass. 25 741, 743 Nicklase v. Griffith, 59 Ark. 641 451 Nicklaus v. Dahn, 63 Ind. 87 804, 835 V. Roach, 3 Ind. 78 499 Nicoll V. Huntington, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 166 350 V. Mumford, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 522 201, 291 V. Ogden, 29 111. 323 289, 290, 623, 672 Niehoff V. Dudley, 40 111. 406 83, 103, 899 Nielson v. Gross, 17 Cal. App. 74 153 Niemann v. Niemann, 43 Ch. Div. 198 487, 602 Nightingale v. Chafee, 11 R. I. 609 262, 499, 557, 606 V. Milwaukee Furniture Co., 71 Fed. 234 476 Niles V. Lee (S. Dak.), 140 N. W. 259 978 V. Williams, 24 Conn. 279 716, 773 Nill V. Chidester, 52 Hun (N. Y.) 612 529 Nilsson V. McDole, 73 Wash. 312 889, 891 Nims, In re, 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) 439 121 Nims V. Bigelow, 44 N. H. 376 751 V. Mt. Hermon Boys' School, 160 Mass. 177 195 Vr Nims, 20 Fla. 204 723, 730, 731 V. Nims, 23 Fla. 69 661, 665, 666, 850 Nirdlinger v. Bernheimer, 133 N. Y. 45 149, 192 Nisbet V. Nash, 52 Cal. 540 152, 723 V. Patton, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 120 469, 506, 511 Nix V. First Nat. Bank, 23 Colo. 511 561 V. Menderson, 8 Ky. L. (abstract) 873 371 Nixdorfl v. Smith, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 132 531 Nixon V. Champion, 4 Leg. Gaz. (Pa.) 73 601 V. Downey, 42 Iowa 78 817, 862 V. Jenkins, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 318 446 V. Nash, 12 Ohio St. 647 291, 292, 657, 829, 830, 831, 832 V. Woodward, 6 Ala. App. 151 851 Noble V. FauU, 26 Colo. 467 675, 731 V. Hudson, 20 Wyo. 227 796, 924 V. McClintock, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 152 (1841) 528 V. Martin, 7 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 282 855 V. Miley, 20 Mo. App. 360 371, 528 Noel V. Bowman, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 46 364 V. Kinney, 106 N. Y. 74 190 Nofsinger v. Goldman, 122 Cal. 609 79, 475, 476 Nolan V. Lovelock, 1 Mont. 224 152, 416 V. Nolan, 8 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 291 721 Nolan Bros. Shoe Co. v. Nolan, 131 Cal. 171 266 Nolan County v. Simpson, 74 Tex. 218 825 Noonan, In re, 3 Biss. (U. S.) 491 706 Noonan v. McNab, 30 Wis. 277 601 V. Nunan, 76 Cal. 44 201, 292, 552 V. Orton, 31 Wis. 265 796, 819 Nordlinger v. Anderson, 123 N. Y. 544 270, 526, 528 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Shippers' Com- press Co., 83 Va. 272 826 Norman v. Conn, 20 Kans. 159 674 cu TABLE OF GASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Norman V. Jackson Fertilizer Co., 79 Miss. 747 556, 557 Norment v. Johnston, 32 N. Car. 89 371 Wittmann, 157 App. Div. Y.) 708 (N. 70, 836 Norquist v. Dalton, 11 N. Y. S. 351 608 Norris, In re, 190 Fed. 101 217 Norris, In re, 2 Hask. (U. S.) 19 425, 471 Norris v. Johnson, 34 Md. 485 232, 236 V. Ogden, 11 Mart. (La.) (0. S.) 455 804, 835 V. Rogers, 107 111. 148 673 V, Rumsey, 54 Mo. App. 143 531 V. Vernon, 8 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 13 291 V. Wrenschall, 34 Md. 492 232 North V. Bloss, 30 N. Y. 374 139, 810, 903, 922 V. Moore, 135 Cal. 621 262, 263, 264 V. Mudge, 13 Iowa 496 457, 499, 826 North & South Rolling-Stock Co. v. People, 147 111. 234 249 Northcutt V. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 259 405 Northen v. Tatum, 164 Ala. 368 364, 383, 582, 661, 716, 731 Northern Bank v. Keizer, 2,Duv. (Ky.) 169 535 Northern Ins. Co. v. Potter, 63 Cal. 157 489, 491, 496, 499 Northern R. Co. v. Patton, 15 U. C. C. P. 332 103 North Pacific Lumber Co. y. Spore, 44 Ore. 462 466, 496 North Pennsylvania Coal Co.'s Appeal, In re, 45 Pa. St. 181 419 Northrup v. Colter, 150 Mo. App. 639 983 V. Phillips, 99 111. 449 176, 396, 655 North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Stebbins, Wis. 474 826 820 2 S. Dak. 74 V. Stebbins, 3 S. Dak. 540 Northwest Bank v. Taylor, 16 609 Norton v. Brink, 75 Nebr. 566 215, 217, 218, 219 V. Cooper, 3 Smale. & G. 375 508 V. Hayden, 129 Mich. 374 677 V. Paragon Oil Can Co., 98 Ga. 468 499, 606 V. Russell, L. R. 19 Eq. 343 732 V. Seymour, 3 C. B. 792 260, 421 V. Sperry, 113 Minn. 447 721, 722 V. Thatcher, 8 Nebr. 186 445, 461, 846, 852 V. Wiswal!, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 618 126 Norwalk v. Ireland, 68 Conn. 1 . 83 Norwalk Nat. Bank v. Sawyer, 38 Ohio St. 339 276, 424, 486, 529 Norwich Yarn Co., In re, 22 Beav. 143 668 Norwood V. Francis, 25 App. Cas. (D. C.) 463 191, 1053 Notrebe v. McKinney, 6 Rob. (La.) 13 617, 634, 804, 835 Nott V. Douming, 6 La. 684 604 Nottidge V. Prichard, 8 Bligh 493 450 Novak, In re, 150 Fed. 602 704 Nowell V. Nowell, L. R. 7 Eq. S38 357, 670 Noyes v. Barnard, 63 Fed. 782 990 V. Crawley, 10 Ch. D. 31 718 V. New Haven &c. R. Co., 30 Conn. 1 450 V. Sawyer, 3 Vt. 160 815 Nugent V. Allen, 95 Tenn. 97 455, 475 V. Armour Packing Co., 203 Mo. 480 Null V. Parsons, 145 III. App. 436 290, 291, 573, V. Lackey, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), § 1331 425, 486 Nussbaum v. Connor, 94 Ga. 530 Nussbaumer v. Becker, 87 111. 281 89 587 831 94 Nutt V. Hunt, 4 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 702 848 Nutting v. Ashcroft, 101 Mass. 300 275, 1036, 1055 V. Colt, 7 N. J. Eq. 539 75 Nye v. Rutherford, 8 Ohio Dec. (Re- print) 224 817 Nystuen v. Hanson (Iowa), 91 N. W. 1071 675 Oakdale Mfg. Co. v. Garst, 18 R. I. 484 249 Oakeley v. Pasheller, 4 Clark & F. 207 558 Oakes, Ex parte, 5 Jur. 757 562 Oakford v. European &c. Steam Ship- ping Co., 1 Hem. & M. 182 563 Oakley v. Aspinwall, 2 Sandf. 7 52 V. Aspinwall, 4 N. Y. 513 494, 817 Oak Ridge Coal Co. v. Rogers, 108 Pa. St. 147 1046, 1047 Oatis V. Brown. 59 Ga. 711 818 O'Bannon v. Miller, 4 Bush (Ky.) 25 371 O'Brien v. Bound, 2 Speer (S. Car.) 495 490 V. Christie, 30 Nova Scotia 145 722 V. Cooke, Ire. R. 5 Eq. 51 787 V. Drexilius, 7 Ky. L. 527 741 Foglesong, 3 Wyo. 57 121, 796 V. Hanley, 86 111. 278 350, 727 V. Levin, 11 Pa. Dist. 729 854 V. O'Brien, 16 Cal. App. 193 835, 849 v. Pentz, 48 Md. 562 369 v. Smith, 42 Kans. 49 741, 743 O'Brien Mercantile Co. v. McKinley, 114 Minn. 521 25, 80 O'Bryan v. Brumback, 11 Ky. L. 405 360 V. Gibbons, 2 Md. Ch. 9 789 V. Neil, 84 Ga. 134 367 O'Connell v. Schwanabeck, 76 Mich. 517 617, 808, 835 O'Comner v. Stark, 2 Cal. 153 673 O'Connor v. Naughton, 13 Grant Ch. 428 381 V. Sherley, 107 Ky. 70 471, 472 Odiorne v. Maxcy, 15 Mass. 39 417, 888 Odom V. Clark, 146 N. Car. 544 304 O'Donohue v. Bruce, 92 Fed. 858 889 Oechs V. Cook, 3 Duer (N. Y.) 161 848 Ogden V. Arnot, 29 Hun (N. Y.) 146 580, 591 V. Astor, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 311 616, 635, 641, 658, 675 Ogle V. Miller, 128 Iowa 474 826 Oglesby v. Thompson, 59 Ohio St. 60 731, 741, 743, 876 O'Gorman v. Fink, 57 Wis. 649 297 O'Hara v. Harman, 14 App. Div. (N. Y.) 167 975 O. H. Broun, Jr., Timber Co. v. Cole- man (Ala.), 67 So. 243 854 Ohnsorg v. Turner, 33 Mo. App. 486 493 Oil Well Supply Co. v. Metcalf, 174 Mo. App. 555 91, 222, 861, 889 O'Keefe v. Curran, 17 Can. Sup. Ct. 596 660 O'Kell V. Chama Valley Lands &c. Co., 181 Mo. App. 466 237 Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Wagester, 38 Okla. 291 263 Olcott V. Wing, 4 McLean (U. S.) 15 728 Old Corner Book Store v. Upham, 194 Mass. 101 316 Oldham v. Anchor Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 90 Iowa 225 299 Olery v. Brown, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 92 1058 Oliphant v. Markham, 79 Tex. 543 487 V. Mathews, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 608 261, 433, 923 TABLE OF CASES cm [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Olive V. Morgan, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 654 454 Oliver v. Forrester, 96 111. 315 579, 618, 631, 636, 639 V. Gray, 4 Ark. 425 103, 214 V. Hamilton, 2 Anstr. 453 721 V. House, 125 Ga. 637 715, 850 V. Hutto, 5 Ala. 211 826 V. Liverpool &c. Co., 100 Mass. 531 943, 1045, 1046 V. Lynn, 130 Mass. 143 306, 937, 942 V. Moore (Tex.), 43 S. W. 812 561 V. Olmstead, 112 Mich. 483 592, 627 V. Piatt, 3 How. (U. S.) 333 444, 535, 6Zl V. Victor, 74 Ga. 543 721 Oliver Co. v. Louisville Realty Co., 156 Ky. 628 264 Olleman v. Reagan, 28 Ind. 109 364, 631 Olmstead v. Hill, 2 Ark. 346 75, 901 O'Lone v. O'Lone, 2 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 125 661, 718, 732 Olson V. Michener, 158 Iowa 338 902 V. Morrison, 29 Mich. 395 554 V. Veazie, 9 Wash. 481 265, 795, 826 Omaha &c. Smelting & Ref. Co. v. Rucker, 6 Colo. App. 334 25, 76, 86, 104 O'Meara v. Ouellet, 28 Quebec Super. Ct. 418 658 O'Marrow v. State (Tex, Cr. App.), 147 S. W. 252 75, 221, 405 Onderdonk v. Hutchinson, 6 N. J. Eq. 632 349 O'Neal V. Hines, 145 Ind. 32 320 v. Judsonia State Bank, 111 Ark. 589 440 O'Neil V. Salmon, 25 How. Pr. (N. Y ) 246 528 O'Neill V. Duff, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 244 353, 63S Onondaga County Bank v. De Puy, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 47 486 Onstott V. Ogle, 234 III. 454 650 ■ Ontario Bank v. Hennessey, 48 N. Y. 545 260, 433 V. O'Reilly, 12 Ont. L. 420 499 Opdyke v. Marble, 18 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 266 1046 Opelika v. Daniel, 59 Ala. 211 121, 796, 826 Oplinger v. Oplinger, 9 North. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 316 853 Oppe V. Webensdorfer, 43 Hun (N. Y.) 640 360, 673 Oppenheimer v. Clemmons, 18 Fed. 886 70, 83, 261, 486, 594 Orange Bank v. Brown, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 158 812 Ord V. Portal, 3 Campb. 240 847 Ordiorne v. Woodman, 39 N. H. 541 764 Oriental Realty Co. v. Taylor, 69 Wash. 115 216 Orlando First Nat. Bank v. Greig, 43 Fla. 412 817, 820 Orleans Bank v. Whittemore, 15 La. 276 862 Orman v. Potter, 46 Colo. 54 465, 496 Ormsbee v. Davis, 5 R. I. 442 458 Orr v. Cooledge. 117 Ga. 195 715 V. How, 55 Mo. 328 269 Orvis V. Curtiss, 157 N. Y. 657 103 Osborn v. Evans, 91 Iowa 13 834 V. Gheen, 5 Mackey (D. C.) 189 359, 360. 361 V. McBride, 3 Sawy. 590 689 ■V. Osborn, 36 Mich. 48 270, 450, S64, 760, 809 V. Schenck, 83 N. Y. 201 759 V. Wood, 125 Mo. App. 250 596, 604 Osborne v. Barge, 29 Fed. 725 440, 444 V. Calvert, 83 N. Car. 365 677 V. Fitzgerald, 26 Nebr. 514 902 V. Harper, 5 East 225 65.1 V. Henderson, 18 Can. Sup. Ct. 698 562 O^orne V. Holland, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas, § 1087 848 V. Jullion (Eng.), 3 Drew. 596 221 V. Thompson, 35 Minn. 229 454 Osbrey v. Reimer, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 265 900 Osburn V. Farr, 42 Mich. 134 188 Oscillating Carousal Co. v. McCool (N. J. Eq.), 35 Atl. 585 193 Osgood V. Glover, 7 Daly (N. Y.) 367 486 O. S. Kelly Co. v. Zarecor (Tenn. Ch. App.), 62 S. W. 189 825 Osment v. McElrath, 68 Cal. 466 350, 352, 353, 637, 673 Osterhout v. Jones, 54 Mich. 228 306, 941 Ostrander v. Snyder, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 378 218 Ostrom V. Greene, 161 N. Y. 353 156 v. Jacobs, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 454 265, 466, 888 Oswego Second Nat. Bank v. Burt, 93 N. Y. 233 539 Oteri v." Oteri, 37 La. Ann. 74 673 V. Oteri, 38 La. Ann. 403 978 V. Soalzo, 145 U. S. 578 589, 590, 715, 716, 850 Otis V. Sill, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 102 389 O'Toole V. Garvin, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 92 262, 264 Otteridge v. Thompson, 2 Cranch (U. S.) 108 186 Oustad v. Hahn, 27 N. Dak. 334 664, 727, 731 Outcalt V. Burnet, 1 Handy (Ohio) 404 1013, 1020, 1035 Over V. Hetherington, 66 Ind. 365 369, 555 Overall v. Taylor, 99 Ala. 12 469 Overholt's Appeal, 12 Pa. St. 222 832 Overlock v. Hazzard, 12 Ariz. 142 962 Overton v. Tozer, 7 Watts (Pa.) 331 457 Owen, Ex parte, 4 DeG. & Sm. 351 276, 532 Owen, Ex parte, L. R. 13 Q. B. Div. 113 598 Owen v. Kuhn (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 432 826 V. Meroney, 136 N. Car. 475 747, 768, 774 V. Oviatt, 4 Utah 95 83, 850 V. Shepard, 59 Fed. 746 240, 254 Owens V. Davis, 15 La. Ann. 22 275 V. Mackall, 33 Md. 382 639 Owensboro Wagon Co. v. Bliss, 132 Ala. 253 238, 889, 901, 910 Owings V. Low, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 134 888 Ozborn v. Woolworth, 106 Ga. 459 513 Ozeas V. Johnson, 4 Dall. (Pa.) 434 741, 743 Pabalan v. Velez, 22 Philippine 29 349 Pacific Drug Co. v. Hamilton, 71 Wash. 469 500 Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 109 Cal. 566 471, 803 Padden v. Clark, 124 Iowa 94 861 Pagan v. Sparks, 2 Wash. C. C. 325 804, 835 Page V. Brant, 18 111. 37 - 265, 496, 596, 795, 811 V. Citizens' Banking Co., Ill Ga. 73 512 V. Cox, 10 Hare 163 779 V. Morse. 128 Mass. ^^ 188 V. Ratliffe, 76 L. T.< (N. S.) 63 276, 579, 632, 635 V. Slade, S4 L. J. Ch. 1131 728 V. Thomas, 43 Ohio St. 38 276, 281, 302, 441, 624, 826 V. Thompson, 33 Ind. 137 665, 742, 743 V. Vankirk, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 282 370, 583, 587, 677 CIV TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, |§ 615-1195.] Page V. Wolcott, IS Gray (Mass.) 536 603, 796, 834 Pahlman v. Taylor, 75 111. 629 437 Paige V. Paige, 71 Iowa 318 276, 281, 290, 296, 535, 624, 625 Pain V. Sample, 158 Pa. St. 428 166 Paine v. Dwmel, 53 Maine 52 434, 499 V. Moore, 6 Ala. 129 399 V. Paine, 15 Gray (Mass.) 299 677 V. Thacher, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 450 350, 750 Painter v. Hines, 86 Kans. 832 985, 994 V. Painter, 68 Gal. 395 555, 631 V. Painter (Cal.), 36 Pac. 865 631, 637, 721 V. Painter, 133 Cal. xix 615, 631, 636 V. Wilcox, 52 Colo. 639 555, 652, 729' Palicio V. Eigne, 15 Ore. 142 633 Palin V. Small, 63 N. Car. 484 861 Palliser v. Erhardt, 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 222 80, 169, 449, 487 Palmer v. Bagg, 56 N. Y. 523 118 V. Dodge, 4 Ohio St. 21 603, 605, 607, 926 V. Elliott, 1 Cliff. 63 464, 500 V. Graham, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) ' 476 316 V. Green, 6 Conn. 14 764 V. Myers, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 509 458 V. Pinkham, 37 Me. 252 907 V. Purdy, 83 N. Y. 144 558 V. Sawyer, 114 Mass. 1 599 V. Scott, 68 Ala. 380 516, 517 V. Stephens, 1 Denio (N. Y;) 471 261, 265, 421, 911 V. Stevens, 100 Mass. 461 815 V. Tyler, 15 Minn. 106 717, 719 Palmo V. Slayden, 100 Tex. 13 854 Panama &c. Tel. Co. v. India Rubber &c. Co., L. R. 10. Ch. App. 515 775 Pape V. Capitol Bank, 20 Kans. 440 155, 245 Parchen v. Anderson, 5 Mont. 438 85, 104, 476 V. Peck, 2 Mont. 567 796, 808 Pardee v. Haynes, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 630 826 Pardue v. McCoUum, 116 Mo. App. 603 729 Paret v. Bryson, 2 West. Jur. 351 499 Parham Sewing Mach. Co. v. Brock, 113 Mass. 194 118, 606, 837 Paris Mercantile Co. v. Hunter, 74 Ark. 615 / . 194 Parish v. Lewis, Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 299 371, 814, 836 V. Phillips, 1 Mart. (O. S.) (La.) 96 529 Park V. Funderburk, 87 S. Car. 76 430 Park V. Kelley Axe Mfg. Co., 49 Fed. 618 1057 V. MoGowen, 64 Vt. 173 , 716, 850 V. Wooten, 35 Ala. 242 594 V. Zwart, 92 Iowa 37 238 Parker, In re, 11 Fed. 397 499 Parker v. Bowles, 57 N. H. 491 624 V. Broadbent, 134 Pa. St. 322 659, 719 V. Brown, 85 Fed. 595 458 V. Canfield, 37 Conn. 250 54, 76, 83, 103, 434, 499, 606, 878, 897, 901 V. Cousins, 2 Grat. (Va.) 372 605, 606, 607 V. Danforth, 16 Mass. 299 817, 820 V. Day, 155 N. Y. 383 350 V. Day, 12 Misc. (N. Y.) 510 350 V. Dorsey, 68 N. H. 181 677 V. Jackson, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 33 836 V. Jonte, 15 La. Ann. 290 727 V. Macomber, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 505 604, 60S, 607, 741 V. Merril, 6 Greenl. (Maine) 41 600, 888 V. Merritt, 105 III. 293 371, 554, 823 V. Morrell, 2 C. & K. 599 467 V. Oakley (Tenn.), 57 S. W. 426 895 V. Parker, 25 Ky. L. 2193 119, 424 V. Parker, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 205 661 V. Ramsbottom, 5 D. & R. 138 729 V, Southern Ruralist Co., 15 Ga. App. 334 6D4 Parkhurst v. Kinsman, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 488 104 V. Muir, 7 N. J. Eq. 307 344, 721 V. Muir, 7 N. J. Eq. 555 726, 729 Parker's Succession, 17 La. Ann. 23 718, 766 Parkin v. Carruthers, 3 Esp. 248 563 Parkinson v. Wentworth, 11 Mass. 26 186 Parkisonv. Thompson, 164 Ind. 609 306 Parks V. Comstock, 59 Barb. (N. Y.) 16 672 V. Gates, 54 App. Div. (N. Y.) 512 990 Parks V. Mfosher, 71 Maine 304 893 Parler v. Johnson, 81 Ga. 254 832 Parlin, Orendorff Co. v. Glover, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 112 469 Parmalee v. Wiggenhorn, 6 Nebr. 322 558, 559, 561 Parmelee v. Lawrence, 44 111. 405 499 Parnell v. Robinson, 58 Ga. 26 341, 396, 654, 674 V. Thompson, 81 Kans. 119 381, 638 Parrish v. Adwell (Tex. Civ. App.), 124 S. W. 441 469 V. Parrish, 88 Va. 529 290, 296 Parry v. Parry, 155 N. Y. S. 1072 719 Parshall V. Fisher, 43 Mich. 529 910 Parsons v. Crosby, 5 Esp. 199 138, 797 V. Hayward, 4 DeG., F. & J. 474 225, 657 V. Howard, 2 Woods (U. S.) 1 719, 815 v. Jennings, 71 Conn. 494 349, 717 V. Phelan, 134 Mass. 109 219 v. Pouting, 46 III. App. 101 473 Partin v. Luterloh, 59 N. Car. 341 425 Partridge v. Stocker, 36 Vt. 108 190 V. Wells, 30 N. J. Eq. 176 276, 389, 625 Patch V. Wheatland, 8 Allen (Mass.) 102 260, 265, 304, 440 Pate V. Bacon, 6 Munf. (Va.) 219 265, 795, 796 Paterson v. Arnold, 45 Pa. St. 410 . 965 V. Burton, 3 N. J. L. 717 383 V. Maughan, 39 U. C. Q. B. 371 304, 424, 444 Pateshall v. Apthorp, Quincy (Mass.) 179 499 Patey v. Patey, 5 L. J. Ch. 198 583 Paton V. Baker, 62 Iowa 704 290, 444, 448 V. Wright, 15 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 481 574, 601 Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U. S. 411 342, 347, 400 V. Patrick, 71 N. J. Eq. 347 285, 623, 627, 628, 672, 732 V. Weston, 22 Colo. 45 152, 1048 Patriotic Bank v. Coote, 3 Cranch (U. S.) 169 433, 486 Patten v. Cunningham, 63 Tex. 666 817 V. Gurney, 17 Mass. 182 506, 812, 848 V. Kavanaeh, 11 Daly (N. Y.) 348 422 Patterson v. Atkinson, 20 R. I. 102 443, 529 v. Blake, 12 Ind. 436 627, 757 v. Brown, 22 Ky. (6 T. B. Mon.) 10 766 V. Byers, 17 Okla. 633 263 V. Chalmers, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 595 849 V. Franklin, 176 Pa. St. 612 238 V. Hare, 4 App. Div. (N. Y.) 319 381, 384 V. Holland, 7 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 1 1002, 1007,' 1008, 1015, 1020, 1036 V. Kellogg, 53 Conn. 38 661, 673, 730 V. Lilly, 90 N. Car. 82 342 V. Martin, 28 N. Car. lU 675 TABLE OF CASES CV [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Patterson V. Patterson, 182 Fed. 952 722 V. Sadler (N. J. Ch.), 63 Atl. 1115 850 V. Seaton, 70 Iowa 689 4^9 V. Silliman, 28 Pa. St. 304 575 V. Swickard, 19 Ky. L. 661 486 V. Ware, 10 Ala. 444 276, 651 V. Youngs, 129 N. Y. S. 673 146, 1015, 1026 V. Youngs, 139 N. Y. S. 670 1026, 1030, 1055 Pattison v. Blanchard, S N. Y. 186 81, 900 V. Norris, 29 Ind. 165 849 Patton V. Ash, 7 Serg. & E. (Pa.) 116 741 V. Barnett, 12 Wash. 576 475 V. Calhoun, 4 Grat. (Va.) 138 637 V. Leftwich, 86 Va.'421 621 V. McDonald, 204 Pa. 517 965 V. Patton, 60 N. Car. 572 290, 296, 624, 627 Patty- Joiner Co. v. City Bank, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 475 _ 532 Paul V, Commercial Bank of Ocala, 66 Fla. 83 826 V. Cullum, 132 U. S. 539 458 V. Edwards, 1 Mo. 30 a 675 V. Ellison, 1 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 67 562 V. Stevens, 57 Hun (N. Y.) 171 486 Paulk V. Creech, 8 Ga. App. 738 743, 744 Pawsey v. Armstrong 18 Ch. Div. 698 728 Paxsou V. Brown, 61 Fed. 874 475 Paxtou V. Bacon Mill & Min. Co., 2 Nev. 257 953, 960 Payn v. Ronan, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 637 421 Payne v. Dexter, 211 Mass. 1 92 v. Felton, 4 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 175 732 v. Freer, 91 N. Y. 43 359, 742 v. Hornby, 25 Beav. 280 371, 669 v. Jelleff, 67 Wis. 246 489 V. McNamara, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 62 732 v. Martin, 39 Colo. 265 281, 729 V. Matthews, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 19 538 V. Slate, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 634 604 V. Smith, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 104 603 V. Thompson, 44 Ohio St. 192 191, 578 Peabody v. Essex, 10 Gray (Mass.) 97 306, 940 V. Oleson, 15 Colo. App. 346 1003, 1021 Peacey v. Peacey, 27 Ala. 683 564 Peacock v. Cummings, 46 Pa. St. 434 416 V. Peacock, 16 Ves. Jr. 49 275, 344, 573, 592, 789 Peake, Ex parte, 1 Madd. 346 550, 555 Peaks V. Graves, 25 Nebr. 235 805 Pearce v. Bruce, 38 Ga. 444 815 V. Chamberlain, 2 Ves. Sr. 33 158, 201 v. Cooke, 13 R. I. 184 496, 535, 836 V. Foster, 55 L. J. Q. B. 306 58S v. Ham, 113 U. S. 585 224, 295, 381, 389, 576, 674, 769 V. Madison &c. E. Co., 21 How. (U. S.) 441 193 V. Pearce, 77 III. 284 276 V. Piper, 17 Ves. 1 167 V. Roberts, 57 Conn. 31 888 V. Shorter, 50 Ala. 318 820 V. Sutherland, 3 Alaska 303 953 V. Sutherland, 164 Fed. 609 391, 591, 715, 719, 962 V. Yost, 1 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Phila.) 472 367 Pearl v. Harris, 121 Mass. 390 677 Pearpoint v. Graham, 4 Wash. C. C. (U. S.) 232 458, 576 Pearson v. Keedy, 6 B. Mon. (Ey.) 128 371, 525, 630, 633, 814, 836 v. Parker, 3 N. H. 366 796 v. .Pearson, L. R. 27 Ch. Div. 145 319 V. Skelton, 1 M. & W. 504 364 Pease, In re, 13 N. B. E. 168 689, 697 Pease v. Cole, S3 Conn. 53 151, 412, 424, 425, 426, 501 V. Hewitt, 31 Beav. 22 587, 659 V. Hirst, 10 B. & C. 122 118 V. Morgan, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 468 861 V. Rush, 2 Minn. 107 534, 552, 555, 665 Peaslee v. Sanborn, 68 N. H. 262 297 Peck, In re, 206 N. Y. 55 118, 506, 535, 697 Peck V. Alexander, 40 Colo. 392 351 V. Barnum, 24 Vt. 75 820 V. Cavagna, 7 Ohio Super. Ct. Com. PI. 142 731 V. Fisher, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 386 291, 820, 830, 832 V. Knapp, 137 N. Y. S. 70 616, 637, 657, 664, 667 V. Schultze, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 28 291 823 V. Tingley, 53 Nebr. 171 ' 437 Pecker v. Hall, 14 Allen (Mass.) 532 604 Peckham Iron Co. v. Harper, 41 Ohio St. 100 508, 512, 812 Pecot V. Armelin, 21 La. Ann. 667 218 Peden v. Mail, 118 Ind. 560 727, 912 Pederson v. Parke, 68 Wash. 482 733 Peel V. Giesen, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 334 718 Peele, Ex parte, 6 Ves. Jr. 602 270, 528 Pegg v. Bidleman, 5 Mich. 26 847, 848 V. Plank, 3 U. C. C. P. 396 861 Peine v. Weber, 47 111. 41 422 Pell V. Baur, 41 N. Y. St. 99 103 Pelletier v. Couture, 148 Mass. 269 188 Peltier v. Sewall, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 386 160, 990 Pemberton v. McAdoo, 149 App. Div. (N. Y.) 20 675 V. Oakes, 4 Rust. 154 300, 599, 638 Pendleton v. Asbury, 104 Mo. App. 723 173 V. Cline, 85 Cal. 142 263 v. Phelps, 4 Day 476 630 V. Wambersie, 4 Cranch. (U. S.) 73 169, 657 Penfield v. Mason, 17 Ohio C. Ct. 165 427, 475, 486 Peninsular Sav. Bank v. Currie, 123 Mich. 666 475, 887 Penn. v. Fogler, 182 111. 76 517, 559, 561 v. Kearny, 21 La. Ann. 21 446 v. Megibben, 53 Fed. 86 626 V. Stone, 10 Ala. 209 767 v. Whitehead, 17 Grat. (Va.) 503 188, 190 Penniman v. Jones, 58 N. H. 447 719 V. Munsou, 26 Vt. 164 389 Pennington v. Todd, 47 N. J. Eq. 569 175, 656, 674 Penn. Nat. Bank v. Furness, 114 U. S. 376 563 Pennock v. Swayne, 6 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 239 742 Pennoyer v. David, 8 Mich. 407 467, 600, 888 Pennsylvania Co. v. Sloan, 1 111. App. 364 249 Pennsylvania Ins. Co. T. Murphy, 5 Minn. 56 1045 Pennsylvania Tack Works, v. Sowers, 2 Walker (Pa.) 416 , 963 Penny v. Black, 22 N. Y. Super. Ct. 310 277 V. Martin, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 566 814, 826 Pennybacker v. Leary, 65 Iowa 220 218, 292, 601, 672, 757 Penoyer v. Watson, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 100 599 People V. Assessors of Watertown, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 616 1046 V. Backus, 117 N. Y. 196 599 V. Betts, 26 Colo. 521 517 V. Butler, 74 Mich. 643 . 493 CVl TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] People V. Coleman, 44 Hun (N. Y.) 20 306, 937 V. Coleman, 133 N. Y. 279 147, 193, 1001, 1046, 1050, 1051 V. Commissioners, 175 N. Y. 516 238 V. Croton Aqueduct Board, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 316 265 V. Devlin, 63 Misc. (N. Y.) 363 450, 451, 486, 593 V. Empire Insurance Co., 88 111. 309 1051 V. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 153 IIU 25 249 V. Gunn, 96 N. Y. 317 247 V. Harrison, 82 111. 84 493 V. Hill, 16 Cal. 113 598 V. Knapp, 206 N. Y. 373 496, 497 V. Koenig, 133 App. Div. (N. Y.) 756 1054 V. Nelson, 46 N. Y. 477 247 V. North River Sugar Refining Co., 121 N. Y. 582 193 V. Roberts, 159 N. Y. 70 315, 553 V. Rose, 188 111. 268 247 V. Rose, 219 III. 46 253, 1046 V. Rothstein, 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 123 405 V. Snyder, 110 App. Div. (N. Y.) 699 405 V. Wells, 177 N. Y. 586 306 V. Wells, 85 App. Div. (N. Y.) 440 306, 937, 939 V. Wemple, 117 N. Y. 136 943, 1046, 1050, 1058 V. White, 11 111. 341 640 People's Bank v. Shryock, 48 Md. 427 820 People's Brewing Co. of Trenton v. Levin, 78 N. J. Eq. 583 834 People's Nat. Bank v. .Hall, 76 Vt. 28.0 496, 806, 813, 817 v. Harper, 114 Ga. 603 888 V. Hodgin, 129 N. Car. 247 721 V. Wilcox, 136 Mich. 567 620 People's Saving Bank. v. Smith, 114 Ga. 185 414 Pepper v. Peck, 17 R. I. 55 270, 415, 455, 527, 528 V. Pepper, 24 111. App. 316 276, 281, 290, 627 V. Thomas, 85 Ky. 539 281, 290 PercifuU v. Piatt, 36 Ark. 456 290, 624, 625, 626 Percival v. Fuller, 5 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 273 818 v. Groff, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 233 795, 848 Perin v. Megibben, 53 Fed. 86 296, 620, 626, 627, 638 Perkins, In re, 166 Mo. App. 170 496 Perkins, v. Hoyt, 35 Mich. 506 462 V. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124 186 V. Rouss, 78 Miss. 343 253, 965 V. Sanders, 56 Miss. 733 251 V. Stern, 152 Mass. 518 661 Perkins County v. Miller, 55 Nebr. 141 490 Parley, In re, 138 Fed. 927 121, 685, 686 Perlhifter, In re, 177 Fed. 299 296, 686 Perman v. Tunno, Riley Eq. (S. Car.) 181 496 Perrens v. Johnson, 3 Jur. (N. S.) 975 772, 832 Perrin v. Keene, 19 Maine 355 592, 603, 604, 605, 606 V. Lepper, 72 Mich. 454 636, 716 Perrine v. Hankinson, 11 N. J. L. 181 79, 126 Perry v. Butt, 14 Ga. 699 275, 371, 912, 916 v. Cobb, 88 Maine 435 743 v. Hale, 143 Mass. 540 590 v. Randolph, 6 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 335 889 v. Spencer, 23 Mich. 89 564 Perry-Rice Grocery Co. T. W. E. Crad- dock Grocery Co., 34 Tex. Civ. App, 442 796, 817 Person v. Carter, 7 N. Car. 321 422, 472 V. Wilson, 25 Minn. 189, 276, 277, 292 Personette v. Pryme, 34 N. J. Eq. 26 218 Persons v. Frost, 25 Tex. Suppl. 129 857 V. Oldfield, 101 Miss. 110 411, 428, 454, 826 Perth Amboy Mfg. Co. v. Condit, 21 N. J. L. 659 1020, 1027, 1030 Peters v. Campbell, 2 Ohio. Dec. (Re- print) 526 579, 639 V. Davis, 7 Mass, 257 617, 804, 808, 834, 835 V. Gardere, 8 La. 565 593 V. Horbach, 4 Pa. St. 134 341 V. McLaren, 218 Fed. 410 532 V. McWilliams, 78 Va. 567 383, 550, 561, 591 Peterson v. Armstrong 24 Utah 96 414, 470, 473 V. Humphrey, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 394 329 v. Poignard, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 570 658 v. Roach, 32 Ohio St. 374 419 V. Schmidt, 13 Ohio C. C. 205 321 Petit V. Chevelier, 13 N. J. Eq. 181 720, 786 Peyser v. Myers, 135 N. Y. 599 540, 559 V. Meyers, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 634 572 Peyton v. Lewis, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 356 559 Petrakiou v. Arbelly, 23 Civ. Proc. R. 183 223, 856 Petrie v. Lament, C. & M. 93 503 V. Newell, 13 111. 647 848 V. Steedly, 94 Ga. 196 659 V. Torrent, 100 Mich. 117 892, 986 Petrikin v. Collier, 1 Pa. St. 247 572, 605 Pettee v. Appleton, 114 Mass. 114 897 Pettigrew Machine Co. v. Harmon, 45 Ark. 290 489, 499 Pettingill v. Jones, 28 Kans. 749 716, 748, 754 Pettis T. Atkins, 60 111. 454 240, 243, 245, 806, 965 Pettit V. Baird, 30 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 208 719 Pettus V. Atkins, 60 111. 454 1045 Petty V. Anderson, 2 Car. & P. 38 190 V. Haas, 122 Iowa 257 718, 727 V. Styward, 1 Rep. Cas. in Ch. 57 623 Pettyjohn v. Woodroof, 86 Va. 478 535 Petze, In re, 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 72 529 Pfeffer v. Steiner, 27 Mich. 537 598, 617, 835 PfeifFer v. Bauer, 122 111. App. 625 716 v. Hunt, 75 Ga. 513 809 V. Maltby, 38 Tex. 523 674 Pfeuffer v. Maltby, 54 Tex. 454 364, 389, 655, 763 Pfirmann v. Henkel, 1 111. App. 145 1008, 1010, 1019, 1055 Pfister V. Graton &c. Mfg. Co., 97 Wis. 208 826 V. Wade, 69 Cal. 133 ■ 847 Phaup V. Stratton, 9 Grat. (Va.) 615 854 Phelan v. Hutchison, 62 N. Car. 116 602, 729 Phelps V. Brewer, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 390 456, 817, 818 V. McNeely, 66 Mo. 554 302, 441, 528, 531, 534, 559 V. State, 109 Ga. 115 405, 574, 591 Phelijs Mfg. Co. V. Enz, 19 Conn. 58 121 Phenix Ins. Co. v. Holcombe, 57 Nebr. 622 299 Phifer v. Carolina C. R. Co., 89 N. Car. 311 220 Philadelphia & R. Coal &c. Co. v. But- ler, 181 Mass. 468 492 Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. Laning (Tex. Civ. App.), 31 S. W. 681 835 TABLE OF CASES cvu [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Philipp V. Von Kaven, 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 552 587, 720 Philippi V. Philippi, 61 Ala. 41 718 Philips V. Atkinson, 2 Bro. C. C. 272 721 V. Crammond, 2 Wash. (U. S.) 441 389 V. Lockhart, 1 Ala. 521 741, 743 V. Samuel, 76 Mo. 657 104, 899 V. Turner, 22 N. Car. 123 350, 352, 355 Phillips, In re, 209 Fed. 400 693 Phillips V. Alhambra Palace Co., L. R. (1900) 1 Q. B. 59 615, 630 V. Alhambra Palace Co. (1901), 1 K. B. 59 618 V. Blatchford, 137 Mass. 510 364, 639,-651, 1047, 1049 V. Bridge, 11 Mass. 242 820 V. Crownfield, 124 Md. 443 400, 664. 715, 765, 929 V. Cook, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 389 292, 829, 830, 831, 832 V. Goldtree, 74 Cal. 151 264, 847 V. Hatch, 1 Dill. (U. S.) 571 186 V. Holmes, 165 Ala. 250 118, 265, 795 V. Mendelsohn, 67 Misc. (N. Y.) 142 558 V. Mires, 2 Cal. App. 274 75 V. Nash, 47 Ga. 218 139, 223, 922, p23 V. Pennywit, 1 Ark. 59 796, 797 V. Phillips, 49 111. 437 210, 213, 214, 242, 882, 905 V. Phillips, 1 Myl. & K. 649 , 289, 623, 626 V. Purington, 15 Maine 425 276 V. Reeder, 18 N. J. Eq. 95 N 385, 394, 446, 572, 601, 664, 673, 747 V. Reynolds, 236 111. 119 342, 668, 727 V. Stanzell (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 900 424, 501 V. State, 95 Ga. 478 518 V. Thorp, 12 Okla. 617 444 V. Trezevant, 67 N. Car. 370 721 V. Trowbridge Furniture Co., 86 Ga. 699 440 V. Trowbridge Furniture Co., 92 Ga. 596 825 V. Turner, 22 N. Car. 123 914 V. Wheeler, 2 Hun (N. Y.) 603 826 Philpott V. Bechtel, 104 Mich. 79 861 V. Patterson, 5 Mart. N. S. (La.) 273 732 Philson V. Bampfield, 1 Brev. (S. Car.) 202 , 836 Phipps V. Little, 213 Mass. 414 75, 265, 424, 425, 426, 435, 825, 889, 896, 901, 924 Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carnahan, 63 Ohio 258 835, 847 V. Fleenor, 104 Ark. 119 413, 444 V. Hamilton, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 504 298, 797 V. Miller, 13 Ky. L. (abst.) 464^^^ ^^^ Phoenix Land Co. v. Exall (Tex. Civ! App.), 159 S. W. 474 , , „ , „„ 667 Piatt V. Oliver, 3 McLean (U. S.) 27 ^ 303, 575 Pickels V. McPherson, 59 Miss. 216 517 Pickens' Estate, 14 W. N. C. 407 353, 637 Pickerel! v. Fisk, 11 La. Ann. 277 • 160, 882, 975 Pickering v. Bishop of Ely, 2 Y. & Coll. C. C. 249 778 V. Rigby, 18 Ves. 484 913 Pickersgill V. Lahens, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 140 492 Pickett V. Wren (Mo. App.), 174 S. W 156 222 Pico 'v. Cuyas, 47 Cal. 180 741, 763 Pierce v. Alspaugh, 83 N. Car. 258 ; 419, 559 Pierce V. Bryant, 5 Allen (Mass.) 91 146, 1003, 1008, 1012, 1015. 1016, 1020, 1027, 1031 V. Covert, 39 Wis. 252 728 V. Cubberly, 19 Ind. 157 667 V. Daniels, 25 Vt. 624 381, 382, 396^ - V. Hickenburg, 2 Port. (Ala.) 196 371' V. Jackson, 21 Cal. 636 341 V. Jackson, 6 Mass. 242 820, 830' V. Jarnagin, 57 Miss. 107 444 V. McClellan, 93 111. 245 341 342 381 V. McDonald, 153 N. Y. S. 8io ' 977, 991 V. Pass, 1 Port. (Ala.) 232 371, 455, 527, 528 V. Pierce, 89 Mich. 233 350, 351, 389, 729 V. Roberts, 57 Conn. 31 888 V. Scott, 37 Ark. 308 350, 351, 369, 727 V. Shippee, 90 111. 371 898 V. Ten Eyck, 9 Mont. 349 275, 369 V. Tiernan, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 253 371, 531, 537 V. Trigg, 10 Leigh (Va.) 406 289, 290, 296, 626, 627, 628, 728 Pierce v. Varn, 76 S. Car. 359 817, 826 V. Wilson, 2 Iowa 20 371, 669 V. Wood, 23 N. H. 519 514, 888 Piercy v. Fynney, L. R. 12 Eq. 69 398, 455 V. Young, 14 Ch. D. 200 677 Pierpont v. Lanphere, 104 111. App. 232 79 Pierson, In re, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 107 76, 103 Pierson v. Fuhrmann, 1 Colo, App. 187 846, 848 v. Garrison, 83 N. J. Eq. 334 731 V. Hooker, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 68 451 V. Robinson, 3 Swanst. 139n 806 v. Steinmyer (S. Car.) 4 Rich. L. 309 54, 124, 168 Pigott V. Bagley, M'Clel. & Y. 569 579, 633 Pike V. Hart, 30 La. Ann. 868 398 Pilcher's Succession, 39 La. Ann. 362 119, 291, 630 Fillans v. Harkness, Colics 442 589, 590, 775 Pilling V. Pilling, 3 DeG. J. & S. 162 307 Pillsbury v. Pillsbury, 20 N. H. 90 984, 990 V. Pillsbury - Washburn Flour-Mills Co., 64 Fed. 841 266 Pim v. Harris, Ir. R. 10 Eq. 442 668 Pinckney v. Keyler, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 469 454 Pincus, In re, 147 Fed. 621 685, 706 Pine v. Ormsbee, 2 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 375 573, 661, 723 Pineiro v. Gurney, 60 Hun (N. Y.) 584 562, 596 Pini V. Roncoroni [1892], 1 Ch. 633 721 Pinkett v. Wright, 2 Hare 120 538 Pinschower v. Hanks, 18 Nev. 99 810, 826 Pinson, In re, 180 Fed. 787 686, 700 Piper v. Smith, 1 Head (Tenn.) 93 290, 350, 351, 352, 359, 360, 370, 624, 626, 627, 637 Pirie V. Gillitt, 2 N. Dak. 255 825, 883 Pirtle V. Penn, 3 Dana (Ky.) 247 344, 781, 786 Pitcher v. Barrows, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 361 398, 596, 604 Pitfield V. Oakes, 25 Nova Scotia 116 457 v. Trotter, 32 Nova Scotia 125 435, 357 Pitkin v. Benfer, 50 Kans. 108 486, 594 v. Pitkin, 7 Conn. 307 83, 579, 615, 638, 639, 901 Pitman v. Planters' Bank, 1 How. (Miss.) 527 817 CVIU TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Pitt V. Moore, 99 N. Car. 85 657, 672, 673, 719 V. Page, 1 Bro. P. C. 1 732 Pittman v. Robicheau, 14 La. Ann. 108 292, 831 Pitts V. Spotts, 86 Va. 71 290, 826 V. Waugh, 4 Mass. 424 276, 922 Pittsburg Melting Co. v. Reese, 118 Pa. St. 355 1057 Place V. Bleyl, 45 App. Div. (N. Y.) 17 . 83S V. Sweetzer, 16 Ohio 142 291, 823, 829, 830 Piano Mfg. &c. Co. v. Frawley, 68 V/is. 577 886 Planters' &c. Bank v. Padgett, 69 Ga. 159 237, 238, 241, 243 Planters' Bank v. Bivingsville Cotton Mfg. Co., 10 Rich. (S. Car.) 95 230 V. St. John, 1 Woods (U. S.) 585 594 V. Union Bank, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 483 655 Planters' Trading Co. v. Moore, 7 Ala. App. 393 444, 552, 825 Plass V. Housman, 49 Hun (N. Y.) 610 236 Platner v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. Ch, (N, Y.) 118 187 Piatt V. Colvin, 50 Ohio St. 703 801, 846, 1046, 10S8 V. Koehler, 91 Iowa 592 428 V. Piatt, 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 25-39 381 V. Piatt, 2 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 25 381 Pleasants v. Meng, 1 Dall. (Pa.) 380 458 Plimpton V. Taylor, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 260 470 Plisson V. Skinner, 5 Terr. L. R. 391 200 Plotke, In re, 104 Fed. 964 703 Plowden, Ex parte, 2 Deac. 456 666 Plowman v. Riddle, 7 Ala. 775 862 Plumer v. Lord, 5 Allen (Mass.) 460 190 Plumly V. Plumly, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 72 659 Plumly's Appeal, 1 Monag. (Pa.) 177 401, 673, 729 Plunkett V. Dillon, 4 Houst. (Del.) 338 80, 83, 103, 168, 213, 295, 674 Pocheln v. Kemper, 14 La. Ann. 308 155 Podrasnik v. Martin Co., 25 111. App. 300 922 Pogson V. Owen, 3 Desaus. (S. Car.) 31 796 Pohlman v. Dawson, 63 Kans. 471 321 Poignand v. Livermore, 5 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 324 604 Poillon V. Secor, 61 N. Y. 456 138, 486, 907, 920 Poindexter v. Waddy, 6 Munf. (Va.) 418 435, 559, 561 Pointon V. Pointon, L. E. 12 Eq. 547 719 Polk V. Buchanan, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 721 75, 88, 103, 104 V. Oliver, 56 Miss. 366 596, 926 Pollexfen v. Sibson, 16 Q. B. D. 792 817 Pollock V. Dunning, 54 Ind. 115 265, 795, 796 V. Glazier, 20 Ind. 262 848 V. Williams, 42 Miss. 88 449 Polykranas v. Krausz, 73 App. Div. (N. Y.) 583 503 Pomeroy v. Benton, 57 Mo. 531 276, 342, 381, 392, 400, 652 V. Benton, 77 Mo. 64 369 V. Coons, 20 Mo. 598 563 Pond V. Clark, 24 Conn. 370 295, 349, 359, 674, 730, 773, 878 V. Kimball, 101 Mass. 105 297 Pontius V. Walls, 197 Pa. St. 223 536 Pool V. Delaney, 11 Mo. 570 764 Poole V. Fisher, 62 111. 181 138, 907 V. Hintrager, 60 Iowa 180 558, 559, 809, 834 V. Koons, 252 111. 49 383 V. Lewis, 75 N. Car. 417 486, 500 Poole V. Seney, 66 Iowa 502 528, 531 Pooley V. Driver, L. R. 5 Ch. Div. 458 25, 85, 87, 104, 121 v. Whitmore, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 629 424, 426, 454, 486, 487, 919 Pope V. Cole, 55 N. Y. 124 492, 496, 630, 836 V. Hays, 19 Tex. 375 564 V. Risley, 23 Mo. 185 596, 600 V. Salsman, 35 Mo. 362 850 Pope Mfg. Co. V. Charleston Cycle Co., 55 S. Car. 528 496, 826, 857, 1036 Popper V. Scheider, 7 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 56 720 Poppleton V. Jones, 42 Ore. 24 808, 835 Porch V. Arkansas Milling Co., 65 Ark. 40 297 Port Arthur Rice Milling Co. v. Beau- mont Rice Mills (Tex.), 152 S. W. 629 826 Port Darlington Harbour Co. v. Squair, 18 U. C. Q. B. 533 434, 499 Porter v. Baxter, 71 Minn. 195 558, 563 V. Bichard, 1 Ariz. 87 716 V. Cresson, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 257 265, 795, 796 V. Curaings, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 172 861 V. Curry, 50 III. 319 471, 472 . V. Curtis, 96 Iowa 539 75 V, (jorman, 65 Ga. 11 316 V. Graves, 104 U. S. 171 854 V. Long, 124 Mich. 584 637 V. Long, 136 Mich. 150 636, 729 V. McClure, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 187 125, 156 V. Miller, 32 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 283 371 V. Vance, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 629 517 V. White, 39 Md. 613 486 V. Wilson, 113 Ind. 350 472, 486 Portland Bank v. Hyde, 11 Maine 196 742 Portland &c. Tpk. Co. v. Bobb, 88 Ky. 226 238 Post V. Kimberly, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 470 25, 124 V. New York, 148 N. Y. S. 568 217 V. Shafer, 63 Mich. 85 493 Postlewait v. Howes, 3 Iowa 365 815. 835, 836 Postman v. Rowan, 65 Misc. (N. Y.) 50 458 Poswa V. Jones, 21 Cal. App. 664 826, 830, 832 Pott V. Eyton, 3 C. B. 32 76 V. Schmucker, 84 Md. 535 537 Potter V. Dillon, 7 Mo. 228 424 V. Inland Revenue, 10 Exch. 147 324 V. Jackson, 13 Ch. D. 845 • 732 V. Morris &c. Dredging Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 422 172, 217 V. Moses, 1 R. I. 430 75, 224, 579, 586, 591 V. Price, 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 136 857 V. Stransky, 48 Wis. 235 617 V. Tolbert, 113 Mich. 486 572, 574, 604, 605 Potts V. Baldwin, 173 N. Y. 335 492 V. Blackwell, 57 N. Car. 58 529 V. Dounce, 173 N. Y. 335 492 V. Taylor, 140 Pa. St. 601 432, 486 Pouder v. Tate, 76 Ind. 1 675 Poullain V. Brown, 80 Ga. 27 . 493 Poulson V. De Navarro, 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 623 995 Pounds V. Egbert, 117 App. Div. (N. Y.) 756 218 Poundstone v. Hamburger, 139 Pa. St. 319 80, 103 Powell V. Bennett, 4 Ind. App. 112 743, 746 V. Bennett, 131 Ind. 465 665 V. Blow, 34 Mo. 485 262, 606 V. Cash, 54 N. J. Eq. 218 222 V. Dewey, 123 N. Car. 103 2:^8 TABLE OF CASES CIX [References are to sections— Vol. 1, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Powell V. Flowers, 151 N. Car. 140 486, 487 V. Ford, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 278 730 V. Graves, 9 La. Ann. 435 763 V. Hopson, 13 La. Ann. 626 615, 835 V. Horrell, 92 Mo. App. 406 668 V. Layton, 2 Bos. & Pul. 365 506 V. Maguire, 43 Cal. 11 170 V. Messer's Admr., 18 Tex. 401 371, 425 V. North, 3 Ind. 392 615, 638 V. Roberts, 116 Mo. App. 629 599 Powell Co. V. Finn, 198 III. 567 861 Powell Hardware Co. v. Mayer, 110 Mo. App. 14 418, 424 Power V. Kirk, 1 Pittsb. (Pa.) 510 591 V. Rees, 189 Pa. St. 496 651, 765 Powers V. Davenport, 101 N. Car. 286 762 V. Dickie, 49 Ala. 81 727, 733, 914 V. Guardian Fire & Life Ins. Co., 136 Mass. 108 299 V. Large, 69 Wis. 621 291, 820 V. Robinson, 90 Ala. 225 624, 625, 628 Frame v. Ferrell, 166 Fed. 702 320 Pratt V. Brewster, 52 Conn. 65 812 V. Frazer, 95 Ark. 405 652 V. Langdon, 91 Mass. 97 83, 476 V. Langdon, 12 Allen (Mass.) 544 69 I V. McGuinness, 173 Mass. 170 292 V. McHatton, 11 La. Ann. 260 ■ 359, 360, 364, 667, 721, 728, 732, 912 V. Oshkosh Match Co., 89 Wis. 406 958, 959 V. Page, 32 Vt. 13 603 V. Underwood, 4 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 167 721 Pray v. Mitchell, 60 Maine 430 716 Prentice v. Elliott, 72 Ga. 154 359, 361, 668, 718 Prentiss v. Brennan, 1 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 371 721 V, Brennan, 1 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 484 623, 722 V. Brennan, 2 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 274 722 V. Brennan, 2 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 322 721 V. Kelley, 41 Maine 436 893 V. Sinclair,. 5 Vt. 149 596, 926 Presbrey v. Thomas, 1 App. D. C. 171 454 Presbury v. Hull, 34 Mo. 29 187 Presley v. Anderson, 42 Miss. 274 826 Pressley v. Lamb, 105 Ind. 171 721 Preston v. Hull, 23 Grat. (Va.) 600 422 V. Fitch, 137 N. Y. 41 291, 364, 628, 635 V. Garrard, 120 Ga. 689 558 Prestons V. McCall, 7 Grat. (Va.) 121 126 Prewett v. Buckingham, 28 Miss. 92 718 Price V. Alexander, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 427 75, 83, 422, 881, 901 V. Bell, 88 Ga. 740 861 V. Gavins, 50 Ind. 122 364 V. Drew, 18 Fla. 670 741, 743, 748 V. Eccles, IZ N. Car. 162 726 V. Hicks, 14 Fla. 565 276, 290, 598, 617, 624, 626, 631, 659 V. Hunt, 59 'Mo. 258 371 V. Hunt, 33 N. Car. 42 832 v. Mathews, 14 La. Ann. 11 579, 594, 632 V. Middleton, 75 S. Car. 105 103, 104 V. Mulford, 36 Hun (N. Y.) 247 517 V. Spencer, 7 Phila (Pa.) 179 742 V. Towsey, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 423 467, 594 Priest V. Chouteau, 85 Mo. 398 290, 296, 371, 617, 626, 627 V. Chouteau, 12 Mo. App.,252 276, 620 Priestly v. Bisland, 9 Rob. (La.) 425 772 Primm v. White, 162 Mo. App. 594 ,,_ 166, 167 Prince, In re, 131 Fed. 546 704 Prince v. Crawford, 50 Miss. 344 424, 426, 486 V. Lamb, 128 Cal. 120 1031 Princeton &c. Co. v. Gulick, 16 N. J. L. 161 145, 887 Pringle v. Leverich, 48 N. Y. Super 90 , 908 V. Leverick, 97 N. Y. 181 467, 563, 600 Printup V. Fort, 40 Ga. 276 716 v. Turner, 65 Ga. 71 269, 301, 817 Pritchard v. Draper, 1 Russ. & M. 191 467, 602, 888 V. Ford, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 543 754 Pritchett v. Kennedy, 140 Ga. 248 720, 850, 851 V. Pollock, 82 Ala. 169 419 Pritt V. Clay, 6 Beav. 503 733 Prize Cases, The, 2 Black. (U. S.) 635 1, 186 Procter v. Procter, 1 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 651 275, 639 Progressive Lumber Co. v. Rogers (Tex. Civ. App), 120 S. W. 260 424, 486 Proper v. Lambert (Iowa), 95 N. W. 251 (1903) 672 Prosser v. Hartley, 35 Minn. 340 297 V. Manley, 122 Minn. 448 981 Providence v. Bullock, 14 R. I. 353 624 Providence Mach. Co. v. Browning, 68 S. Car. 1 825 V. Browning, 70 S. Car. 148 889 V. Browning, 72 S. Car. 424 175, 199, 213 Providence Sav. Bank v. Vadnais, 25 R. L 295 496 Provident Bank &c. Co. v. Saxon, 116 La. 408 239 Prudhomme v. Henry, 5 La. Ann. 700 603 Pruyn v. Black, 21 N. Y. 300 826 Psinakas v. Magas, 161 Mo. App. 19 851 Puckett V. Stokes, 2 Baxt. (Tenn.) 442 260 Pugh V. Currie, 5 Ala. 446 290, 296, 624, 625, 626 V. Holliday, 3 Ohio St. 284 803 Pullen V. Whitfield, 55 Ga. 174 496 Pundmann v, Schoeneich, 144 Mo. 149 503, 511 Punnet, Ex parte, L. R. 16 Ch. Div. 226 328 Purdom v. Boyd, 82 Tex. 130 190 Purdy V. Hood, 5 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 626 291, 537, 820 V. Lacock, 6 Pa. St. 490 1007, 1024 V. Powers, 6 Pa. St. 492 371, 455, 528 Puritan Trust Co. v. Coffey, 180 Mass. 510 594 Purple V. Farrington, 119 Ind. 164 270, 304, 307, 525, 527, 528, 529, 531 Pursley v. Ramsey, 31' Ga. 403 103, 260, 261, 414, 596 Purviance v. Edwards, 17 Fla. 140 828 V. McClintee, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 259 76 V. Sutherland, 2 Ohio St. 478 304, 422, 436 Purvines v. Champion, 67 111. 459 751, 754 Purvis V. Butler, 87 Mich. 248 80, 811 Pusey v. Dusenbury, 75 Pa. St. 437 1037 Putman v. Fife Lake, 45 Mich. 125 941 V. Wheeler, 65 Tex. 522 796, 817, 847 Putnam v. Loeb, 2 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 110 820 V. Ross, 55 Mo. 116 496, 806 V. Wise, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 234 104, 125, 126 Pyke V. Searcy, 4 Port. (Ala.) 52 639 Pyron v. Ruohs, 120 Ga. 1060 594, 816 ex TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Q euackenbush v. Sawyer, 54 Cal. 439 125 uanah A. & P. R. Co. v. Chumbley (Tex. Civ. App.), 169 S. W. 1107 826 Quee Drug Co. v. Plaut, 55 App. Div. (N. Y.) 87 967 Queen City Furniture &c. Co. v. Craw- ford, 127 Mo. 356 240 Queen, The, v. Waite, 2 Cox C. C. 245 405 euincey v. Young, 5 Daly (N. Y.) 327 889 uiner v. Harblehead Social Ins. Co., 10 Mass. 476 444 Quinlivan v. English, 44 Mo. 46 664, 720 Quinn v. Hayden, 219 Mass. 343 976, 994 V. McMahan, 40 111. App. 593 716, 858 V. Quinn, 8 Del. Co. (Pa.) 257 717 V. Quinn, 81 Cal. 14 .152, 276 V. Quinn, 22 Mont. 403 276, 281, 283, 624 V. Reed, 85 Misc. (N. Y.) 510 730 V. Reed, 148 N. Y. S. 801 277, 723 Raborg v. Columbia Bank, 1 Harr. & G. (Md.) 231 849 Rackstraw v. Imber, Holt N. P. 368 716 Radcliffe v. Rushworth, 33 Beav. 484 902 V. Varner, 55 Ga. 427 418 Radford Grocery Co, v. Owens (Tex. Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 911 831 Radt V. Rosenfeld, 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 312 444 Rahders v. People's Bank, 113 Minn. 496 298 Raiguel's Appeal, In re, 80 Pa. St. 234 389, 559 Rainey v. Nance, 54 111. 29 303, 371, 441, 443, 537, 832 V. Sriiizer, 28 Mo. 310 493 Rains v. Bolin, 6 Ind. App. 181 848 Rainsford v. Massengale, 5 Wyo. 1 860 Raisbeck v. Oesterricher, 4 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 444 238 Raisch v. Warren, 18 Cal. App. 655 616, 836 Raison v. Williams, 19 Ky. L. 1142 633, 658 Raley v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 54 820 Ralph v. Eldridge, 137 N. Y. 525 675 Ralston v. Moore, 105 Ind. 243 836 Ralya Market Co. v. Armour, 102 Fed. 530 817 Rambo v. Patterson, 133 Mich. 655 222 775 Ramey v. McBride, 4 Strob. (S. Car.) 12 455 Rammelsberg v. Mitchell, 29 Ohio St. 22 289, 326, 623, 624, 626, 632, 635, 660, 804 Ramsay v. Meade, 37 Colo. 465 358, 769 Ramsbottom v. Bailey, 124 Cal. 259 620, 826 Ramsdell v. Millerd, Harr. (Mich.) 373 636 Ramsey v. Bird (Tex.), 147 S. W. 671 765, 788 V. Carr, 168 111. App. 379 901 Ramskill v. Edwards, 31 Ch. Div. 100 364 Rand v. Wright, 141 Ind. 226 540, 555, 579, 615, 638, 639 Randall v. Ditch, 123 Iowa 582 79 V. Hunter, 76 Cal. 255 435 V. Johnson, 13 R. I. 338 820, 831 V. Knevals, 27 App. Div. (N. Y.) ■ 146 503 V. Lee, 68 Mo. App. 561 426 v. Meredith, 76 Tex. 669 152, 424, 486 V. Morrell, 17 N. J. Eq. 343 720, 721 V. Randall, 7 Sim. 271 289, 623 Randle v. Barnard, 81 Fed. 682 79 V. Richardson, 53 Miss. 176 295, 350, 664, 674, 729 V. State, 49 Ala. 14 103 Randolph, In re, 1 Ont. App. 315 40 Randolph v. Daly, 16 N. J. Eq. 313 497, 812, 833 v. Inman, 71 111. App. 176 668, 729 V. Inman, 172 111. 575 601, 607, 726, 729 V. Nichol (Ark.), 84 S. W. 1037 1059 V. Peck, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 138 605 Randolph Bank v. Armstrong, 11 Iowa 515 444, 450 Raney v. McRae, 14 Ga. 589 826 Ranft V. Reimers, 200 111. 386 316, 318 Rank v. Grote, 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 275 290, 625 Rankin v. Black, 1 Head (Tenn.) 650 982, 983 V. Fairley, 29 Mo. App. 587 72, 748 v. Jones, 55 N. Car. 169 531, 559 V. Kelly, 163 Ky. 463 400 V. Newman, 114 Cal. 635 329, 632, 635 Ransom, In re, 17 Fed. 331 290 Ransom v. Pomeroy, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 383 836 V. Vandeventer, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 307 528, 529, 531 Rapid, The, In re, 8 Cranch (U. S.) 155 186 Rapier v. Gulf City Paper Co., 64 Ala. 330 275 Rassaert v. Mensch, 17 Cal. App. 637 601, 650, 723, 728, 731, 850 Ratchford v. Covington County Stock Co., 172 Ala. 461 496, 499, 551, 817, 826 Ratcliffe v. Mason, 92 Ky. 190 290, 627 Rathbone v. Drakeford, 6 Bing. 375 ' 437 Rathbun v. McConnell, 27 Nebr. 239 386 Rathwell v. Rathwell, 26 U. C. Q. B. 179 758 Ratliff V. Baltzer, 13 Idaho 152 189 Ratke v. Rinker, 117 Md. 289 901 .Ratzer v. Ratzer, 28 N. J. Eq. 136 295, 672, 674 Rau V. Boyle, 5 Bush (Ky.) 253 670, 983 V. Union Paper Mill Co., 95 Ga. 208 957, 965 Raub V. Smith, 61 Mich. 543 218 Ranch v. Donovan, 126 App. Div. (N. Y.) 52 218 Rawitzer v. Wyatt, 42 Fed. 287 1031 Rawlings v. Fish, 151 Ky. 764 731, 733 Rawlins v. Wickham, 3 DeG. & J. 304 589, 590, 659, 718, 775 v. Wickham, 1 Giftard 355 222 Rawson V. Taylor, 30 Ohio St. 389 . ' 556, 557, 558 Ray V. Bogart, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 432 718 V. Pollock, 56 Fla. 530 847 V. Powers, 134 Mass. 22 157 V. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 122 405 Rayburn v. , Day, 27 111. 46 499, 606 Raymond v. Came, 45 N. H. 201 731 V. Colton, 104 Fed. 219 1001 V. Palmer, 41 La. Ann. 425 764 V. Putnam, 44 N. H. 160 191, 194, 275, 358, 670 V. Spring Grove &c. R. Co., 10 Ohio Dec. 416 250 V. Vaughan, 128 HI. 256 189, 342, 389, 486, 583, 717 Rayne v. Terrell, 33 La. Ann. 812 1010, 1020, 1024 Raywinkle v. Southern Coal Co. (Ark.), 174 S. W. 524 563 Reab v. Pool, 30 S. Car. 140 889, 922 Read v. Bailey, 3 App. Cas. 94 538 v. Bowers, 4 Brown Ch. 441 787 V. Mackay, 47 Misc. (N. Y.) 435 553, 660 TABLE OF CASES CXI [References are to sections — Vol. I, §§ l-608>VoI. II, §§ 615-119S.] Read V. McLanahan, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 275 829, 831 V. Nevitt, 41 Wis. 348 394 V. Smith, 60 Tex. 379 655 Reading Braid Co. v. Stewart, 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 86 596 Real Estate Investment Co. v. Smith, 162 Pa. St. 441 424, 486 Reber v. Columbus &c. Mfg. Co., 12 Ohio St. 175 907,, 908 V. Pearson, 155 Mich. 593 316, 396 Reboul V. Chalker, 27 Conn. 114 221 Records v. McKim, 115 Md. 299 535 Rector v. Duntley Mfg. Co., 189 III. App. 562 834 V. Robins, 74 Ark. 437 76, 104, 563, 825, 889 Reddick v. White, 46 La. Ann. 1198 741, 743, 757 Redding v. Anderson, 37 Wash. 209 721 Reddington v. Franey, 124 Wis. 590 526, 554, 559, 561 V. Franey, 131 Wis. 518 760 Redenbaugh v. Kelton, 130 Mo. 558 419, 486 Redfield v. Gleason, 61 Vt. 220 350 V. Middleton, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) (N. S.) 15 850 Redgrave v. Hurd, 20 Ch. Div. 1 590 Redheffer v. Leathe, 15 Mo. App. 12 619 Redick v. Skelton, 18 Ont. 100 677 Redington v. Farrar, 5 Maine 379 848 Redlon v. Churchill 73 Maine 146 431 Redmond, In re. Fed. Cas. No. 11632 702 Redmond v. Stansbury, 24 Mich. 445 847 Red River Valley Cotton Co. v. J. W. Stalcup Mercantile Co., 41 Okla. 34 121 Reece v. Hoyt, 4 Ind. 169 291, 591, 601 Reed v. Allerton, 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 551 532 v. Ashe, 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 501 558 v. Bacon, 175 Mass. 407 424, 433, 454 V. Carlson, 89 Minn. 417 453 V. Engel, 237 111. 628 89 V. First Nat. Bank, 46 Nebr. 168 953, 954, 960 V. Frazer, 37 Minn. 473 608 V. Hanover Branch R. Co., 105 Mass. 303 796 V. Johnson, 24 Maine 322 773, 816, 829 V. Kennedy, 2 Strob. (S. Car.) 67 290, 627 V. Kremer, 111 Pa. St. 482 886, 888 V. McConnell, 133 N. Y. 425 861 V. Murphy, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 574 79 V. Reed, 6 Ky. L. 521 895 V. Shepardson,- 2 Vt. 120 820 V. Snell, 36 Nebr. 815 715 V. Vidal, 5 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 289 778, 785 V. White, 5 Esp. 122 499 V. Whitney, 7 Gray (Mass.) 533 ,764 Reeder v. Say re, 70 1^. Y. 180 804 "'' Kans. 282 854 400 849 291 715, 850 638 Reemsnyder v. Reemsnyder, 75' Kans. 565 Rees v. Simons, 10 Ind. 82 Reese v. Bradford, 13 Ala. 837 v. Kinkead, 17 Nev. 447 V. Kinkead, 18 Nev. 126 v. McCurdy, 121 Ala. 425 Reeve v. Lisle [1902], A. C. 461 Reeves v. Ayers, 38 111. 418 301, 371, 529, 535 V. Bushby, 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 226 850, 855, 858 V. Denicke, 12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 92 329 V. Goff, 3 N. J. L. 194 749 V. Goff, 3 N. J. L. 609 745 V. McCracken, 73 N. J. 729 706 Reeves V. Mercer, 155 111. App. 57 826 V. White (Tex. Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 43 743 Reevs v. Hardy, 7 Mo. 348 260 Regenstein v. Pearlstein, 32 S. Car. T, '^^^ X. 296 Regester v. Dodge, 6 Fed. 6 „ . ,„ 556, 562, 834 Regina v. Bennett, 27 Ont. 314 294 v. Holbrook, 3 Q. B. D. 60 513 V. Holbrook, 4 Q. B. D. 42 513 V. Mallinson, 16 Q. B. 367 758 V. Mason, 26 Ont. 495 294 V. Robson, 16 Q. B. D. 137 405 V. Taffs, 4 Cox C. C. 169 405 Rehfuss V. Moore, 26 Wkly. No. Cas. (Pa.) 105 1016 V. Moore, 134 Pa. St. 462 1008, 1055 Rehm v. Halverson, 94 111. App. 627 826 Reid v. Coleman, 19 Ont. 93 563 V. Coleman, 2 Cromp. & M. 456 913 v. Freed, 100 Miss. 48 715, 721, 726 V. Hollinshead, 4 B. & C. 867 275, 443, 486 V. House, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 576 826 V. Kreling, 125 Cal. 117 253, 908, 965 V. Langlois, 1 Mac. N. & G. 627 913 V. Lyttle, 150 Ky. 304 848 V. McLeod, 20 Ala. 576 265, 795, 820 V. McQuesten, 61 N. H. 421 661, 745 V. Rensselaer Glass Factory, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 399 668 Reilly V. Freeman, 1 App. Div. (N. Y.) 560 987, 990, 994 V. Freeman, 109 App. Div. (N. Y.) „ 4 731 V. Hatheway, 125 Pac. 417 264, 847 V. Smith, 16 La. Ann. 31 596 Reily v. Creditors, 45 La. Ann. 470 536 V. Russell, 34 Mo. 524 351, 677 Reim v. Bissinger, 75 N. J. L. 289 764 Reimsdyke v. Kane, 1 Gall. (U. S.) 371 630 Reinhard v. Virginia &c. Min. Co., 107 Mo. 616 238 Reinhardt v. Reinhardt, 134 App. Div. (N. Y.) 440 389, 616, 617, 789 Remhart Grocery Co. v. Benid Mer- cantile Co., 176 111. App. 507 563 Remheimer v. Hemingway, 35 Pa. St. 432 552 Reirden v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 430 .... 413, 416, 449 Reis V. Hellman, 25 Ohio St. 180 389, 397 V. Reis, 99 Minn. 446 650, 651, 717 Reiter v. Fruh, 150 Pa. St. 623 854 v. Morton, 96 Pa. St. 229 587, 768, 769, 855 Reitzel v. Haines, 3 Pa. Dist. 523 1026 V. Haines, 170 Pa. St. 306 1005, 1008, 1011, 1055 V. Whitaker, 170 Pa. St. 306 1026 Remick v. Emig, 42 III. 342 579, 638 Remington v. Allen, 109 Mass. 47 741 V. (Dummings, 5 Wis. 138 457 V. Howard Express Co., 8 R. I. 406 820 Rencher v. Anderson, 95 N. Car. 208 718 Renfro v. Adams, 62 Ala. 302 469 Renfrow v. Pearce, 68 111. 125 371, 381, 517, 601, 728 Rennie v. Clarke, 5 Exch. 292 244 V. Crombie, 12 N. J. Eq. 457 723 V. Quebec Bank, 3 Ont. L. Rep. 541 830 Reno V. Crane, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 217 727, 912 Rensselaer Glass Factory v. Reid, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 587 361, 668 Renton v. Chaplain, 9 N. J. Eq. 62 381, 508,' 581, 591 Rentz V. Granger, 64 Fla. 445 675 cxn TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, S§ 615-119S.] Reppert v. Colvin, 48 Pa. St. 248 468, 600, 927 Reubin v. Cohen, 48 Cal. 545 425, 473 Eeuttell V. Greenwich Ins. Co., 16 N. Dak. 546 962 Rever v. Blaisdell (Colo. App.), 143 Pac. 385 982, 991 Revis V. Lamme, 2 Mo. 207 265, 795, 796 Rex V. Bren, Leigh & C. 97 405 V. Hardwick, 11 East 578 888 V. Holden [1912], 1 K. B. 483 405 V. Leech, 3 Stark. 70 448 . V. Murphy, 4 Cox C. C. 101 405 V. Proud, L. & C. ^1 405 V. Waller, 3 Esp. 21 518 V. Woolley, 4 Cox C. C. 255 405 Reybold v. Dodd, 1 Harr. 401 (Del.) 673, 723, 878 V. Jefferson, 1 Har. (Del.) 401 350 Reyburn v. Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365 270, 434, 499, 525, 527, 528 Reynaud. v. Peytavin, 13 La. 121 349, 381, 641 Reynolds v. Austin, 4 Del. Ch. 24 583, 721 V. Bowley, L. R. 2 Q. B. 474 594 V. Cleveland, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 282 500 V. Crevehng, 4 Pa. Dist. 419 1016 V. Hicks, 19 Ind. 113 80, 149 V. Jackson, 25 Cal. 490 733, 902 V. Johnson, 54 Ark. 449 270, 307, 527, 528, 529 V. Lawton, 62 Hun (N. Y.) 596 558, 559, 809, 834 •V. Locke, 218 Fed. 442 661, 733 V. Mardis, 17 Ala. 32 360, 361 V. New York Trust Co., 188 Fed. 611 697 V. Pool, 84 N. Car. 37 126 V. Radke, 112 111. App. 575 104. 718, 820 V. Swain, 13 La. 193 446 V. Toppan, 15 Mass. 370 79 V. Waller, 1 Wash. (Va.) 164 508 R. F. Scott Grocer Co. v. Carter (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 375 554 Rhea v. Eawlings, 3 Cranch C. C. 256 795 Ehett V. Poe, 2 How. (U. S.) 457 469 Rhiner v. Sweet. 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 386 731 Rhodes v. Baird, 16 Ohio St. 573 769 V. Hinds, 79 App. Div. (N. Y.) 379 238 V. Moules (1895), 1 Ch. 236 503, 511 V. Rhodes, 1 Johns. Ch. 653 362 V. Williams, 37 Md. 345 496 V. Williams, 12 Nev. 20 728, 807 V. Wilson (N. J.), 19 Atl. 732 _ 721 Rhodius V. Storey, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 336 44S Rhoton's Succession, 34 La. Ann. 893 659 Rianhard v. Hovey, 13 Ohio 300 1055 Riarl v. Wilhelm, 3 Gill (Md.) 356 743, 767 Rice, In re, 164 Fed. 509 291 Rice, In re. Fed. Cas. 11750 689, 695 Rice V. Angell, 73 Tex. 350 326, 331, 573, 660, 743 ▼. Austin, 17 Mass. 197 75 T. Baggot, 54 Hun (N. Y.) 637 660, 721 T. Barnard, 20 Vt. 479 276, 290, 535, 623, 627 T. Barrett, 116 Mass. 312 104, 905, 908, 920 V. Culver, 32 N. J. Eq. 601 222, 775 v. Doane, 164 Mass. 136 433 v. Doniphan, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 123 817 V. Goodenow, Tapp (Ohio) 94 604 V. Jackson, 171 Pa. St. 89 449, 486, 919 V. McMartin, 39 Conn. 573 291, 496, 499 V. Maddox, 9 N. Y. S. 524 591 Rice ' V. Merchants' & Planters' Nat. Bank, 100 Ala. 617 617 V. Parrott, 76 Nebr. 501 218, 219 V. Patterson, 92 Miss. 666 253, 854 V. Richards, 45 N. Car. 277 617 V. Rockefeller, 134 N. Y. 174 1055 V. Shute, 5 Burr 2611 811 V. Summers, 2 Pa. Dist. Rep. 31 121, 796, 826 V. Van Why, 49 Colo. 7 506 V. Webster, 18 111. 331 499 V. Wolff, 65 Wis. 1 270, S59 Rich V. Flanders, 39 N. H. 304 467, 888 V. Solari, 6 Mackey (17 D. C.) 371 820 V. Teasley, 194 Fed. 534 978 Richard v. Mouton, 106 La. 435 733, 850 V. Mouton, 109 La. 465 603, 729, 732 Richards, In re, 206 Fed. 932 264, 266 Richards v. Baurman, 65 N. Car. 162 224, 582, 721, 789 V. Butler, 65 Ga. 593 596 V. Davies, 2 R. & M. 347 (1831) 651 V. Fisher, 2 Allen (Mass.) 527 556 V. Eraser, 122 Cal. 456 715, 861 V. Fraser, 136 Cal. 460 283, 729 V. Grinnell, 63 Iowa 44 169, 218, 881 V. Haines, 30 Iowa 574 831 V. Heather, 1 B. & Aid. 29 808, 835 V. Hellen, 153 Iowa 66 92, 188, 854, 861, 876 V. Hunt, 65 Ga. 342 608, 926 V. Jefferson, 20 Wash. 166 471 V. Leveille, 44 Nebr. 38 119, 291, 526, 530, 830 V. McNemee, 87 Mo. App. 396 854 V. Manson, 101 Mass. 482 307, 624 V. Maynard, 61 111. App. 336 276, 278 V. Miller, 153 N. Y. S. 388 851 V. Minnesota Sav. Bank, 75 Minn. 196 237, 238 V. Todd, 127 Mass. 167 356, 589, 590, 677, 773, 775 Richard's Estate, In re, 1 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 362 295 Richardson v. Adler, 46 Ark. 43 297 V. Ames, 79 Wis. 237 472 V. Bank of England, 4 Mylne & C. 165 118, 715, 741 V. Carlton, 109 Iowa 515 1000, 1020, 1036 V. Cato, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 138 486 V. Davis, 70 Miss. 219 291, 551 V. Dickinson, 26 N. H. 217 982 V. Erckens, 53 App. Div. (N. Y.) 127 265 V. Farmer, 36 Mo. 35 434, 486, 922 V. French, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 577 425, 517 V. Fuller, 2 Ore. 179 457 V. Gooding, 2 Vern. 293 829 V. Gregory, 126 111. 166 574, 718 V. Hatch (N. J.), 55 Atl. 1115 728 V. Hogg, 38 Pa. St. 153 1008, 1016 V. Huggins, 23 N. H. 106 . 260, 677, 717 V. Hughitt, 76 N. Y. 55 80, 126, 881 V. Jones, 58 Ind. 240 494 V. Keely, 58 Colo. 47 71, 216, 240, 887, 889, 897, 904 V. Moies, 31 Mo. 430 605 V. Pitts, 71 Mo. 128 230, 242, 244, 245, 965 V. Redd, 118 N. Car. 677 297 V. Smith, 21 Fla. 336 265, 795 V. Snider, 72 Ind. 425 926 V. Thacher (TexJ, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App., § 138 445 V. Walton, 49 Fed. 888 675 V. Welch, 47 Mich. 309 177 V. Wilson (Tex. Civ. App.), 178 S. W. 566 902 TABLE OF CASES cxm [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Richardson V. Wyatt, 2 Desaus. (S. Car.) 471 290, 623, 624, 727 Richardson Fueling Co. v. Seymour, 235 111. 319 246 Richey v. Branson, 33 Mo. App. 418 493 Richie v. Levy, 69 Tex. 133 486 Richmond v. Boyd, 130 Tenn. 187 854 V. Judy, 6 Mo. App. 465 111, 157 V. Marston, 15 Ind. 134 367 V. Voorhees, 10 Wash. -316 275, 276, 282, 301, 529 Richmond Cedar Works v. Pinnix, 208 Fed. 785 1056 Richter v. Poppenhusen, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 309 158 V. Poppenhausen, 42 N. Y. 373 492, 630, 835, 836, 1022, 1030, 1037 Richtman v. Watson, 150 Wis. 385 276, 281, 282, 301 Rick V. Neitzy, 1 Mackey (D. C.) 21 876 Ricker v. Adams, 59 Vt. 154 434, 499 V. American Loan & Trust Co., 140 Mass. 346 306, 940, 943, 1051 Ricketts v. Bennett, 4 C. B. 686 424 V. Croom, 102 Ala. 332 529 Rickey v. Bowne, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 131 716 Rickman v. Rickman, 180 Mich. 224 722 817 Riddel v. Smith, 10 L. T. Rep. 561 ' 222 Riddle v. Canby, 2 Ohio Dec. 586 469 V. Etting, 32 Pa. St. 412 925 V. McBeth, 4 West. L. M. (Ohio) 153 439 742 V. Whitehill, 135 U. S. 621 118, 289, 580, 624, 718, 743 Ridenour v. Mayo, 40 Ohio St. 9 ' 239 250 Rider r. Hammell, 63 Kans. 733 79, 104, 475 Rider Life Raft Co. v. Roach, 97 N. Y. 378 195 Ridgely v. Carey, 4 Harr. & McH. (Md.) 167 536 V. Dobson, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 118 111 V. Robertson, 67 Mo. App. 45 556, 557, 558 Ridgway v. Grant, 17 111. 117 855, 863 V. Clare, 19 Beav. Ill 630, 631, 659 V. Kleinert, 15 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 117 749 Ridley v. Taylor, 13 East 175 431 Riedeburg v. Schmitt, 71 Wis. 644 149, 276, 301, 624 Rielle v. Reid, 28 Ont. 497 967 Rieser, In re, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 202 537 Riffel V. Ozark Land &c. Co., 81 Mo. .App. 177 269 Rigden v. Vallier, 2 Ves. Sen. 252 623 Rigdon V. Conley, 141 III. 565 913 Riggen v. Investment Co., 31 Ore. 35 551 Riggs.v. Stewart, 2 Cranch C. C. 171 651 Righter v. Farrell, 134 Pa. 482 103 Riley v. Carter, 76 Md. 581 189, 530, 621, 626 Rimel v. Hayes, 83 Mo. 200 888, 906, 920 Ringo V. Wing, 49 Ark. 457 291, 498, 558,. 559, 561, 809, 834 Ripley v. Colby, 23 N. H. 438 168 V. Crocker, 47 Maine 370 489, 490 V. People's Sav. Bank, 13 IlL App. 430 820 r. Waterworth, 7 Ves. 425 289, 626 Rippey v. Evans, 22 Mo. 157 861 Rische v. Rische, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 23 721, 789 Rishton v^ Grissell, L. R. 5 Eq. 326 360 Ritson, In re (1899), 1 Ch. 128 552 Rittenhouse v. Leigh, 57 Miss. 697 475 Ritter v. Ritter, 100 Wis. 468 732 Rivarde v. Rousseau, 7 La. Ann. 3 444 Rivers v. New Orleans, 42 La. Ann. 1196 306, 942 Riverside Lumber Co. v. Lee, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 522 445 Rix V. Elliot, 1 N. H. 184 820 Rizer v. James, 26 Kans. 221 910 Roach V. Brannon, 57 Miss. 490 820, 835 V. Caraffa, 85 Cal. 436 718 V. Ivey, 7 S. Car. 434 675 V. Perry, 16 111. 37 295, 351, 354, 674 V. Rector, 93 Ark. 521 89, 115 V. ,Roach (Ga.), 85 S. E. 703 283 Roache v. Pendergast, 3 Harr. & J. (Md.) 33 723, 746, 767 Robards v. Waterman, 96 Mich. 233 440 Robb V. Mudge, 14 Gray (Mass.) 534 558, 559 V. Stevens, 1 Clarke Ch. (N. Y.) 191 371, 531, 554, 559, 814 Robbins v. Butler, 24 III. 387 555, 1045 v. Crandall, 70 III. 300 420 V. Deverill, 20 Wis. 142 802 v. Fuller, 24 N. Y. 570 601, 602, 925 V. Laswell, 58 111. 203 668 V. Lincoln, 12 Wis. 1 562 V. McKnight, 5 N. J. Eq. 642 79, 83 v. Reed, 174 Ind. 291 721 V. Vandermeiden, 182 Mich. 674 264 V. Willard, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 464 467 Robbins Electric Co. v. Weber, 172 Pa. St. 635 146 Roberts, In re, 214 N. Y. 369 535, 630 Roberts v. Abbott, 127 Ind. 83 475 V. Adams, 8 Port. (Ala.) 297 599 v. Barrow, 53 Ga. 314 474, 605 V. Dtinham, 1 C. PI. 136 850 V. Eberhardt, 1 Kay 148 344, 486, 587, 788, 789 V. Eldred, 73 Cal. 394 276, 661, 727 V. Fitler, 13 Pa. S*-.. 265 764 V. Hendrickson, 75 Mo. App. 484 631, 637, 638 V. Herryford, 54 Mo. App. 365 349 V. Johnson, 58 N. Y. 613 506, 812 V. Kelsey, 38 Mich. 602 579, 599, 778 V. McCarty, 9 Ind. 16 371, 624, 669 V. McKee, 29 Ga. 161 787 V. Nunn (Tex. Civ. App.), 169 S. W. 1086 224, 616, 718, 899 V. Oldham, 63 N. Car. 297 534 V. Pepple, 55 Mich. 367 371, 435 V. Rowan, 2 Harr. (Del.) 314 265, 795 V. Spencer, 123 Mass. 397 596 V. Strang, 38 Ala. 566 602 V. Totten, 13 Ark. 609 486, 504, 652 Robertshaw v. Hanway, 52 Miss. 713 296, 579, 598, 617, 808< 815, 835 Robertson v. Baker, 11 Fla. 192 276, 281, 371, 624, 625, 669 V. BurreH, 110 Cal'. 568 657, 718 V. Corsett, 3,9 Mich. 777 119, 121 V. DeLizardi, 4 Rob. (La.) 300 83, 260, 275 V. Gibb, 38 Mich. 165 733 V. Jones, 20 N. Brunsw. 267 424 V. Junkin, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 192 635 V. Miller, 1 Brock. (UT S.) 466 225 290 635 V. Read, 17 Grat. (Va.) 544 ' 6651 729 V. Schwenk, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 577 637 V. Smith, 18 Johns.' (N. Y.) 459 493, 499, 806, 811, 826 V. Willhoite, 157 Ky. 58 825 V. Wood, 10 Kulp (Pa.) 76 599 Robertson Lumber Co. v. Anderson, 96 Minn. 527 596 Robinovitz v. Hamill, 44 Okla. 437 263 Robins v. Warde, 111 Mass. 244 912, 918 Robins Electric (;o. v. Weber, 172 Pa. St. 635 1051 Robinson v. Aldridge, 34 Miss. 352 435 v. Allen, 85 Va. 721 85, 86, 104, 371 V. Anderson, 20 Beav. 98 27S, 350, 674 CXIV TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Robinson V. Bullock, 58 Ala. 618 745, 747, 767 V. Compher, 13 Colo. App. 343 168 898 V. Crowder, 1 Bailey (S. Car.) 185* 820 V. Crowder, 4 McCord (S. Car.) 519 ' 444, 4S8 V. First Nat. Bank, 98 Tex. 184 965 V. Floyd, 159 Pa. St. 165 594, 596 V. GilfiUan, 15 Hun (N. Y.) 267 276 294 V. Goings, 63 Miss. 500 510, 51l! 512 V. Green, 5 Har. (Del.) 115 103, 743, 767, 877, 880 V. Hintrager, 36 Fed. 752 835 V. Hodgkins, 168 Mass. 465 722 V. Horner, 176 Ind. 226 218 V. Hurlburt, 34 Va. 115 434, 499 V. McGinty, 84 App. Div. (N. Y.) 639 ' 715 V. Mdlntosh, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 221 1015, 1025, 1033 V. Magarity, 28 111. 423 265, 854, 878 V. Mansfield, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 139 805 V. Parker, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 132 ' 825 V. Roberts, 31 Conn. 145 '626 V. Roos, 138 111. 550 559, 564 V. Security Co., 87 Conn. 268 534, 535 V. Simmons, 146 Mass. 167 352, 353, 635, 637, 639, 731 V. Simmons, 156 Mass. 123 359, 675 V. State, 38 Ark. 641 518 V. Storm, 103 Tenn. 40 266 V. Swift, 3 Vt. 377 719 V. Taylor, 4 Pa. St. 242 604, 605, 607 V. Tevis, 38 Cal. 611 830 V. Thompson, Sm. & M. Ch. (Miss.) 454 815, 835 V. Ward, 13 Ohio St. 293 121, 306, 942 V. Wilkinson, 3 Price 538 499, 500, 922 V. Williams, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 454 765 V. Winn, 4 Ky. L. (abstract) 54 291, 294 Robinson Bank v. Miller, 153 111. 244 276, 282, 283, 289, 290, 301, 444, 529 Robinson's Exrs. Case, 2 DeG., M. & G. 517 878 Rebley v. Brooke, 7 Bligh (N. S.) 90 674 Robson, In re, 218 Fed. 452 433 Robson V. Curtis, 1 Stark. 78 748, 754, 755 V. Drummond, 2 Barn. & Ad. 303 597 Roby V. American Cent. Ins. Co., 120 N. Y. 510 299 V. Colehour, 135 111. 300 347, 381, 390 Rochat V. Gee, 137 Cal. 497 722 Rochester v. Trotter, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 54 486 V. Trotters, 4 Bibb. (Ky.) 444 857 Rochester Bank v. Monteath, 1 Den, (N. Y.) 402 261 Rock V. Collins, 99 Wis. 630 440, 471, 800 Rockafellow v. Miller, 107 N. Y. 307 149, 192 Rockefellar v. Dellinger, 22 Mont. 418 276, 283, 302, 441, 536 Rockefeller v. Morehouse, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 247 364, 667 Rock Island Implement ' Co. v. Sloan, 83 Mo. App. 438 371, 526 Rockwell V. Wilder, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 556 746 Rockwell Stock &c. Co. v. Castroni, 6 Colo. App. 521 768, 770 Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank v. Mc- Caskill, 16 Colo. 408 418, 486, 926 Rocky Mount Mills v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 119 N. Car. 693 220 Roddin, In re, .6 Biss. (U. S.)' 377 419 ~ Div. (N. Rodgers v. Clement, 15 App, Y.) 561 360, 665 Rodgers V. Clement, 162 N. Y. 422 360, 361, 665, 668, 730, 856 V. Meranda, 7 (Jhio St. 179 535, 536, 696 Rodgers-Wade Furniture Co. v. Wynn (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 340 557, 561, 563, 834, 861 Roehl V. Porteous, 51 La. Ann. 1746 983 Roehn v. Horst, 91 Fed. 345 599 Roelofs V. Wever, 119 Mich. 334 725 Roessler's Estate, In re, 5 Pa. Dist. 776 579, 638 Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Pet (U. S.) 221 303, 307, 371, 415, 429 V. Bemus, 69 Pa. St. 432 770 V. Betterton, 93 Tenn. 630 415, 450 V. Bradford, 56 Tex. 630 827 V. Brightman, 10 Wis. S5_ 486 V. Flournoy, 21 Tex. (I)iv» App. 556 622 V. Gage, 59 Mo. App. 107 304 V. Gross, 67 Minn. 244 \236 V. Hemsted, Kirby (Conn.) 44 489 V. Hosack, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 319 491 V. Ingersoll, 103 App. Div. (N. Y.) 490 826 V. Kichline, 36 Pa. St. 293 798 V. Murray, 110 N. Y. 658 887 V. Nichols, 20 Tex. 719 276, 371, 550, S91, 829 V. Nuckolls, 2 Colo. 281 854 V. Ponet, 21 Cal. App. 577 504, 506 V. Raynor, 102 Mich. 473 805 V. Riessner, 30 Fed. 525 389, 559, 561 V. Rogers, 53 Conn. 121 261, 266 V. Rogers, 1 Hall (N. Y.) 434 763 V. Rogers, 5 Ired. Eq. (N. Car.) 31 742 V. Taintor, 97 Mass. 291 262, 329 V. Ullman, 27 Grant Ch. 137 381 V. Verlander, 30 W. Va. 619 796, 848 Roggenkamp v. Hargreaves, 39 Nebr. 540 826 Rohlfing v. Carper, 53 Kans. 251 561 Rohr V. Pearson, 16 Ore. 325 350 Rolfe V. Burnham, 110 Mich. 660 789 V. Dudley, 58 Mich. 208 486, 511, 514 V. Flower, L. R. 1 P. C. 27 535, 562 Roller V. McKinney, 159 N. Car. 319 797 Rollins V. Stevens, 31 Maine 454. 427, 454, 487 Rolston V. Click, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 526 486 Roly V. Colehour, 135 111. 300 765 Romer v. Jaecksch, 39 Md. 585 888, 912, 917 Rommerdahl v. Jackson, 102 Wis. 444 291, 536, 715 Romona Oolititf Stone Co. v. Bolger, 179 Fed. 979 817, 1053 Roney v. Buckland, 4 Nev. 45 411, 486 Roof v. Morrisson, 37 111. App. 37 596 Roop V. Herron, 15 Nebr. 73 121, 270, 526, 537 V. Rodgers, 5 Watts (Pa.) 193 291 v. Roop, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 364 767 Roosvelt V. McDowell, 1 Ga. 489 835 Root V. Herman, 2 City Ct. R. (N. Y.) 409 819 Rootes V. Wellford, 4 Munf. (Va.) 215 592, 602 Rooth V. Quin, 7 Price 193 418 Roots V. Kilbreth, 10 Ohio Dec. 20 603 V. Mason City Salt & Mining Co., . 27 W. Va. 483 350, 592, 604 Roper V. Schaefer, 35 Mo. App. 30 72, 104, 899 Ropes V. Upton, 125 Mass. 258 320 Rordasnz v. Leach, 1 Stark. 446 861 Rose V. Buscher, 80 Md. 225 103 V. Coffield, 53 Md. 18 563, 596, 926 V. Constock, 17 Ind. 1 826 V. Gunn, 79 Ala. 411 531 TABLE OF CASES cxv [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1193.] Rose V. Izard, 7 S. Car. 442 529 V. Moate (Ga.), 87 S. E. 20 850, 851, 863 V. Murchie, 2 Call (Va.) 409 445 V. Williams, 5 Kans. 483 494 Rosenbaum v. Hayden, 22 Nebr. 744 121 V. Howard, 69 Minn. 41 886, 905, 912, 918 V. New York, 59 Misc. (N. Y.) 30 290 Rosenberg v. Block, 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 357 796, 1014 V. Boehm, 25 N. Y. S. 936 457 V. Schraer, 200 Mass. 218 535 Rosenblatt v. Weinman, 225 Pa. 200 (1909) 72 Rosepfield v. Haight, 53 Wis. 260 103, 897 Rosenheim v. Rosenfield, 59 Hun (N. Y.) 625 262, 553 Rosenkrans v. Barker, US 111. 331 512, 514 Rosenstein v. Burns, 41 Fed. 841 586, 587, 588, 589 Rosenstiel v. Gray, 112 111. 282 201, 531, 552, 555, 658, 719, 729, 884 Rosenthal v. Hasberg, 84 N. Y. S. 290 616, 635 Rosenzweig v. Thompson, 66 Md. 593 657 Rosher v. Crannis, 63 L. T. (N. S.) 272 732 Ross V. Carson, 32 Mo. App. 148 537 743 V. Cornell, 45 Cal. 133 59l| 743 V. Cornell, 97 Ga. 340 576 V. Everett, 12 Ga. 30 630, 835, 836 V. Henderson, 77 N. Car. 170 281, 371, 535 V. Howell, 84 Pa. St. 129 827 V. Jones, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 576 186 V. Parkyns, L. R. 20 Eq. 331 104 V. Titsworth, 37 N. J. Eq. 333 722 V. West, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 360 751 V. White [1894], 3 Ch. 326 672, 732 V. Whitefield, 56 N. Y. 640 419 V. Whitefield, 31 N. Y. Super. Ct. 318 455, 469 V. Willett, 76 Hun (N. Y.) 211 160, 975, 979, 990 Rosseau v. Cull, 14 Vt. 83 499, 606 Rossinn v. Sinker (Ind.), 12 Cent. L. J. 202 626 Roth V. Colvin, 32 Vt. 125 431, 432 V. Moore, 19 La. Ann. 86 419 Rothchild v. Hoge, 43 Fed. 97 1019, 1020, 1025, 1032, 1033 Rothell V. Grimes, 22 Nebr. 526 529 Roth Tool Co. V. Champ Spring Co., 93 Mo. App. 530 960 Rothwell V. Dewees, 2 Black (U. S.) 613 814, 815 V. Humphreys, 1 Esp.- 406 423, 424 Rotramel v. Ford, 169 111. App. 7 716 Roulston V. Washington, 79 Ala. 529 626 Rouquette v. Ryan, 10 Ky. L. 503 392 Rouse V. Bradford Banking Co. [1894], A. C. 586 558 V. Bradford Banking Co. [1894], 2 Ch. 32 558, 562 V. Hughes, 1 Ky. L. (abstract) 320 424, 486 Souse &c. Co. V. Detroit Cycle Co., Ill Mich. 251 148 Rouss V. Wallace, 10 Colo. App. 93 529 832 Routen v. Bostwick, 59 Ala. 360 727| 914 Rovelsky v. Brown, 92 Ala. 522 276, 290, /444, 623 Rowand v. Fraser, 1 Rich. Law (S. C.) 325 602 Rowe V. Cotton, 17 U. C. Q. B. 533 718 V. -Rand, 111 Ind. 206 597 V. Simmons, 113 Cal. 688 591 V. Wood, 2 Jac. & W. 559 369, 789 Rowell V. Adams, 83 S. Car. 124 616, 617 Rowell V. Rowell, 122 Wis. 1 326, 553, 632, 633, 636, 637, 728 Rowland, In re, L. R. 1 Ch. 421 541 Rowland v. Auto Car Co., 133 Fed. 835 721 V. Boozer, 10 Ala. 690 218 V. Estes, 190 Pa. St. Ill 594, 882 V. Evans, 30 Beav. 302 550, 583, 728 V. Meader Fur. Co., 38 Ohio St. 269 155 V. Miller, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 362 357, 671 V. Shephard, 27 Nebr. 494 817 Rowlands v. Evans, 14 Wkly. Rep. 882 732 Rowlandson, Ex parte, 2 Ves. & B. 172 39, 76 Rowlett V. Grieve, 8 Mart. (O. S.) (La.) 483 367, 537, 539 Rowley v. Stoddard, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 207 489, 491 Rowsey v. Lynch, 61 Mo. 560 564 Royal Canadian Bank v. Wilson, 24 U. C. C, P. 362 265 Royal Ins. Co. v. Martin, 192 U. S. 149 299 Royster v. Johnson, 73 N. Car. 474 352, 353, 637, 661 Royston v. John Spry Lumber Co., 85 111. App. 223 371, 526 V. Wies, 112 Fed. 962 700 Rozar v. Rosenheim Shoe Co., 14 Ga. App. 13 232, 238 R. S. Oglesby Co. v. Lindsey, 112 Va. 767 1007, 1008, 1010, 1011, 1019, 1021, 1030, 1055 Ruby, In re, 24 Ont. App. 509 537, 631 Ruckman v. Decker, 23 N. J. Eq. 283 275, 658 Rudy V. Austin, 56 Ark. 73 555 V. Harding, 6 Rob. (La.) 70 604, 605 V. Katz, 23 Ky. L. 1697 888 Ruettell V. Greenwich Ins. Co., 16 N. Dak. 546 591, 957 Ruffin, Ex parte, 6 Ves. 119 307, 371, 525, 526, 531, 559, 572, 574, 579, 580 Ruffner v. Hewitt, 7 W. Va. 585 598 V. McConnell, 17 111. 212 444 V. Montgomery, 61 W. Va. 62 854, 862 Ruggles V. Buckley, 158 Fed. 950 103, 212, 216, 359, 360 V. Buckley, 175 Fed. 57 118, 350, 353, 579 V. Buckley, 192 Fed. , 907 733 Ruhl V. Phillips, 2 Daly 45 529, 531 Rule V. McGregor, 117 Iowa 419 769 Rumery v. McCuUoch, 54 Wis. 565 458 Rumsey v. Briggs, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 11 446, 466 V. Briggs, 139 N. Y. 323 212, 425, 426, 433, 471, 473, 486 Rumsey-Sikemeier Co. v. Bank of Au- rora, 139 Mo. App. 306 371 Rundall v. Stedge, 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 608 832 Runkle v. Burrage, 202 Mass. '89 978, 983 Runyon v. Rutherford, 55 W. Va. 436 461 Rupp V. Over, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 133 316 Ruppell V. Roberts, 4 N. & M. 31 889 Rush V. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 319 168, 173, 210, 214, 386, 535, 723, 733 V. Hawkins, 135 Ga. 128 298 V. Thompson, 112 Ind. 158 466 Rush Centre Creamery Co. v. Hillis, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 527 364 Rushing v. Peoples, 42 Ark. 390 659 Rusk V. Gray, 83 Ind. 589 557, 562 Rusling V. Brodhead, 55 N. J. Eq. 200 808, 815, 835 Russ V. Fay, 29 Vt. 381 830 Russel V. Skipwith, 6 Bin. (Pa.) 241 186 Russell, In re, 97 Fed. 32 706 Russell V. Annable, 109 Mass. 72 421, 422, 454 CXVl TABLE OF CASES IReferencea are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Russell V. Austwick, 1 Sim. 52 652, 982 > V. Cole, 167 Mass. 6 291 V. Ford, 2 Cal. 86 741 V. Gray, 4 Ky. L. 619 79 V. Green, 10 Conn. 269 659 T. Grimes, 46 Mo. 410 751, 756, 760 V. Leland, 12 Allen (Mass.) 349 591 V. Lennon, 39 Wis. 570 297 V. McCall, 141 N. Y. 437 616, 617, 928 V. Minnesota Outfit, 1 Minn. 162 278, 743 V. Nail, 79 Tex. 664 673, 723 V. Russell, 49 L. J. Ch. 268 575 V. Smith, 87 Ind. 457 677 V. Smith, 14 Kans. 366 820 V. Swan, 16 Mass. 314 398, 815 V. White, 63 Mich. 409 591 Russia Cement Co. -v. La Page, 147 Mass. 206 261 Rust V. Chisolm, 57 Md. 376 603, 616 Rust-Owen Lumber Co. v. Wellman, 10 S. Dak. 122 253 Ruth V. Flynn, 26 Colo. App. 171 224, 661 V. Lowry, 10 Nebr. 260 826 Rutherford v. Davis, 95 Ind. 245 831 V. HilL 22 Ore. 218 -237, 241, 245 V. McDonnell, 66 Ark. 448 444 V. Rutherford, 55 W. Va. 56 491 V. Schattman, 117 N. Y. 658 562 Ruthven v. Beckwith, 84 Iowa 715 121 Rutkowsky v. Bozza, 77 N. J. L. 724 264 Rutland Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall (U. S.) 339 344, 785, 786 Ryan, In re, 70 Hun (N. Y.) 164 559 Ryan v. Franklin, 199 N. Y. 347 660, 1037 V. Morrill, 83 Ky. 352 511 Ryan's Estate, In re, 157 Wis. 576 364 Ryckman v. Manerud, 68 Ore. 350 496, 536 Ryder v. Carpenter, 8 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 25 .- = 29J V. Gilbert, 16 Hun (N. Y.) 163 276, 295, 832 V. Jacobs, 182 Pa. St. 624 75 V. Jacobs, 196 Pa. St. 386 902 V. Wilcox, 103 Mass. 24 103, 216, 741, 746, 749, 750, 753, 878 Ryerson v. Hendrie, 22 Iowa 480 806 Ryland v. Hollinger, 117 Fed. 216 230, 241 Ryman v. Machell, 8 Kulp (Pa.) 316 675 V. Ryman, 100 Va. 20 717 Ryon V. Wynhoop, 148 Pa. St. 188 761 Sabel V. Savannah Rail. &c. Co., 135 Ala. 380 221 Sabin v. Michell, 27 Ore. 66 861 Sabine Tram Co. v. Bancroft, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 170 193, 196 Sadler v. Hinxman, 5 B. & Ad. 936 651 V. Lee, 6 Beav. 324 189, 469, 583 V. Nixon, 5 B. & Ad. 936 741 Safady, Matter of, 36 Am. Bkr. R. 6 704 Safe-Deposit &c. Co. v. Cahn, 102 Md. 530 1003, 1004, 1020, 1030, 1055 V. Turner, 98 Md. 22 295, 673, 914, 915 Sagal V. Fylar (Conn.), 93 Atl. 1027 264 Sage V. Burlingame, 74 Mich. 120 935 V. Chollar, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 596 531 v. Ensign, 2 Allen (Mass.) 245 468 V. Sherman, 2 N. Y. 417 169, 260, 290, 444, 624, 625, 627 V. Woodin, 66 N. Y. 578 579, 675 Sager v. Tupper, 38 Mich. 258 83, 897, 910 Sailors v. Nixon- Jones Printing- Co., 20 111. App. 509 103, 214 Sain v. Rooney, 125 Mo. App. 176 72, 77 St. John v. Coates, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 460 847, 878 V. Hendrickson, 81 Ind. 350 222, 589, 590, 775 V. Holmes, 20 Wend. 609 457 St. John V. Mobile, 21 Ala. 224 306, 938 St. Louis &c. Co. V. McPeters, 124 Ala. 451 _ 877 St. Louis &c. R. Co. V. Swearingen, 31 Okla. 785 264 St. Louis Bank v. Altheimer, 91 Mo. 190 878 St. Louis Brewing Assn. v. Elmer, 189 Mo. App. 197 418 St. Louis Type^ Foundry v. Interna- tional Live-Stock Journal Print. &c. Co., 74 Tex. 651 297 V. Wisdom, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 695 562 St. Martin v. Thrasher, 40 Vt. 460 459, 461 St. Mary's Bank v. St. John, 25 Ala. 566 798 St. Nicholas Bank v. De Rivera, 3 N. ■Y. S. 666 555 St. Paul Trust Co. v. Finch, 52 Minn. 342 359, 360, 668 St. Victor V. Daubert, 9 La. 314 75 Sale V. Dishman, 3 Leigh (Va.) 548 630, 836 Salhinger v. Salhinger, 56 Wash. 134 342 381 Salinas v. Bennett, 33 S. Car. 285 188, 471, 475 Salinas City Bank v. De Witt, 97 Cal. 78 475 Salisbury v. Brisbane, 61 N. Y. 617 ' 597 Salmon v. Davis, 4 Binn. (Pa.) 375 450, 451, 824 V. Salmon, 178 Ala. 672 786 Salomon v. Hopkins, 61 Conn. 47 826 V. Shinner, 5 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 491 350 Saloy V. Albrecht, 17 La. Ann. 75 531, 580 Salsbury v. Ellison, 7 Colo. 167 621 Salter v. Edward Himes Lumber Co., 77 111. App. 97 558, 559, 561 V. Ham, 31 N. Y. 321 103, 850, 861 Salt Lake &c. Bank v. Hendrickson, 40 N. J. L. 52 860 Salt Lake Brewing Co. v. Hawke, 24 Utah 199 260, 265, 417, 421, 433, 800 Sample v. Farson, 174 111. App. 334 89 v. Pickard, 74 Mich. 416 563 Sampson v. Shaw, 101 Mass. 145 170, 492^ 496; 655, 836 Samuel &c. Wooden-Ware Co. v. Illi- nois &c. Mfg. Co., 51 La. Ann. 64 965 Samuels, In re, 215 Fed. 845 686, 687 Sanborn v. Cunningham, 99 Cal. xix 486 v. Royce, 132 Mass. 594 292, 831 V. Sanborn, 11 Grant's Ch. (Can.) 359 289, 623, 626 V. Stark, 31 Fed. 18 474, 605 Sanchez v. Goldfrank (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 204 531, 591 Sandberg v. Scougale, 75 Wash. 313 350, 591, 599, 667, 729, 929 Sander v. Sander, 2 Coll. Ch. Cas. 276 583 Sanderlin, In re, 100 Fed. 857 685 Sanders v. Bush (Tex.), 39 S. W. 203 371, 556 v. Clifford, 72 Mo. App. 548 834 v. Herndon, 33 Ky. L. 669 358, 371, 671 V. Keber, 28 Ohio St. 630 796 v. Pepoon, 4 Fla. 465 453 V. Scott, 68 Ind. 130 668 V. Young, 31 Miss. Ill 292, 829, 581 Sanderson v. Morgan, 39 N. Y. 231 186 V. Sanderson, 17 Fla. 820 389, 396 V. Sanderson, 20 Fla. 292 668, 674 V. Stockdale, 11 Md. 563 371, 528, 823 Sandford v. Barney, 50 Hun 108 668 V. Halsey, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 235 1055 V. Supervisors of N. Y., IS How. - Pr. (N. Y.) 172 1051 Sandham, Ex parte, 4 Deac. & C. 812 270 Sandias v. Mustacchi, 153 App. Div. (N. Y.) 810 666, 670, 769 TABLE OF CASES CXVU [References are to sections— Vol. I, §| 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Sandilands v. Marsh, 2 B. & Aid. 673 429 888 Sands v. Durham, 98 Va. 392 ' 367 V. Durham, 99 Va. 263 367 V. Kimbark, 27 N. Y. 147 535 V. Miner, 160 N. Y. 693 635 Sandusky, In re, 17 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 452 533, 832 Sandusky v. Sidwell, 173 111. 493 496, 806, 811 Sandwich Mfg. Co. v. Herriott, 37 Minn. 214 811 Sandy v. Randall, 20 W. Va. 244 718 Sanfley v. Howard, 7 Dana (Ky.) 367 418 Sanford v.. Barney, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 108 359, 360 V. Embry, 151 Fed. "^Il 675 V. Gregg, 58 Fed. 620 943 V. Mickles, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 224 604 V. Spencer, 62 Wis. 230 306, 939 San Francisco &c. R. Co. v. Bee, 48 Cal. 398 967 Sanger v. Corsicana Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. Apt).), 87 S. W. 737 861 v. French, 157 N. Y. 213 212, 224, 651, 719, 743, V. Overmier, 64 Tex. 57 817, 818 Sangston v. Hack, 52 Md. 173 75, 225, 353, 637, 912 Sanguinett v. Webster, 153 Mo. 343 985, 987 San Luis Obispo First Nat. Bank v. Simmons, 98 Cal. 287 561 Santa Fe Electric Co. v. Hitchcock, 9 N. Mex. 156 i 328 Santhoff, In re, 8 Biss. (U. S.) 35 526 Santiago v. Morgan, HoiJEm. Ops. 447 103 Santleben v. Firoboese, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 626 715 Sarasohn v. Kamaiky, 110 App. Div. (N. Y.) 713 . 721 Sargent v. Blake, 160 Fed. 57 307, 693 V. Collins, 3 Nev. 260 104, 213, 882, 887, 902 V. Henderson, 79 Ga. 268 445, 461, 471, 473, 486 Sarmiento v. The Catharine C, 110 Mich. 120 146, 1020, 1026, 1030 Sartori v. Pozzi, 20 Cal. App. 252 901 Satterthwait v. Marshall, 4 Del. Ch. 337 . 78S Sattler v. Sauer, 28 Pitts. Leg. J. (N. S.) 143 358 "Sauer v. McClintic Marshall Const, Co., ■ 179 Mich. 618 263 Saufley v. Howard, 7 Dana (Ky.) 367 ■ 471, 897 Saul V. Kruger, 9 How. Prac. (N. Y. S.) 569 805 Saunders v. Bartlett, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 316 820 V. Bentley, 8 Iowa 516 411 V. Duval, 19 Tex. 467 369, 727, 878, 912 V. Irwin, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 342 829 V. McDonough (Ala.), 67 So. 591 168, 975, 976, 977, 978. 981, 982, 983, 984, 990, 993 V. Reilly, 105 N. Y. 12 270, 528, 530, 827, 830, 832 V. Stallings, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 65 83S V. Wilder, 2 Head (Tenn.) 577 496, 630, 836 V. Wood, 15 Ark. 24 858 Sauntry v. Dunlap, 12 Wis. 364 152, 371 Savage v. Carney (Tenn. Ch.), 47 S. W. 571 1020, 1034 V. Carter, 9 Dana (Ky.) 408 364, 733 V. Johnson, 125 Ala. 673 536 V. Putnam, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 420 291 V. Putnam, 32 N. Y. 501 1055 V. Williams, 15 La. Ann. 250, 253 633, 719 Savannah Rail &c. Co. v. Sabel, 145 Ala. 681 213, 214 Savery v. Thurston, 4 111. App. 55 364, 383, 387 Savings &c. Soc. v. Gibb, 21 Cal. 595 836 Sawyer v. Armstrong, 23 Colo. 287 83j2 V. Burris, 141 Mo. App. 108 70, 89 v. New York State Clothing Co., 58 Vt. 5,88 817 V. Proctor, 2 Vt. 580 754 V. Worthington, 28 Vt. 733 802 Sax V. Doughty, 76 N. J. L. 225 (1908) 93 Saxton V. Dodge, 46 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 467 ' 491, 499 Sayer v. Bennett, 1 Cox 107 583 Sayler v. Simpson, 45 Ohio St. 141 967 Sayles v. Brown, 40 Fed. 8 232, 234, 235 Saylor v. Merchants' Exch. Bank, 1 Walk. (Pa.) 328 437 v. Mockbie, 9 Iowa 209 721, 722, 789 Sayre Commission Co. v. Keen, 25 Okla. 794 , 817 Scalfi v. State, 96 Tex. 559 819 Scarfe v. Jardine, 7 App. Cas. 345 49, 496, 563 •/ Schachter, In re, 170 Fed. 683 707 Schade v. Muller (Ore.), 146 Pac. 144 919 Schaeffer v. Fithian, 17 Ind. 463 (1861) 528 V. Fowler, 111 Pa. St. 451 159, 426 Schalck Fenske v. Harmon, 6 Minn. 265 291 Scharff v. Noble, 67 Miss. 143 496 Scharringhausen v. Luebsen, 52 Mo. 337 579, 635 Schatzill V. Bolton, 2 McCord (S. Car.) 478 82 Q Schautz V. Oakman, 163 N. Y. 148 990 Schee v. Hendrickson,» 162 Iowa 219 924 Scheiffelin v. Stevens, 60 N. Car. 106 596 Scheie v. Wagner, 163 Ind. 20 265, 485 Schellenbeck v. Studebaker, 13 Ind. App. 437 426 Schemerhorn v. Loines, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 311 434 Schenck v. Ingraham, 5 Hun (N. Y.) 397 ° ' 535 V. Fetzer, 54 Pa. Super. Ct. 573 919 Schenkl v. Dana, 118 Mass. 236 352, 353, 637 Schermerhorn v. Brewer, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 626 733 Scheuer v. Cochem, 126 Wis. 209 218 V. Berringer, 102 Ala. 216 360, 675 Schick V. Corbett, 52 La. Ann. 180 816 Schiele v. Dillard, 94 Ark. 277 817 Schiffer v. Anderson, 146 Fed. 457 861 Schilling V. Black, 49 Kans. 552 489 Schindler v. Euell, 45 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 33 559 Schlapback v. Long, 90 Ala. 525 191, 297 Schlater v. Winpenny, 75 Pa. St. 321 572 Schlau V. Enzenbacher, 265 111. 626 593 597 Schleicher v. Walker, 28 Fla. 680 ' ' 531, 550, 591 Schleissner v. Goldsticker, 135 App. Div. (N. Y.) 435 283, 2?9 Schley v. Hale, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.) 930 291 Schlicher v. Vogel, 61 N. J. Eq. 158 559, 591, 719 V. Whyte, 65 N. J. Eq. 404 555 V. Whyte, 74 N. J. Eq. 839 276, 486 Schlichter Jute Cordage Co. v. Mul- queen, 142 Fed. 583 289, 625, 626 Schloss V. Schloss, 14 App. Div. (N. Y.) 333 722 Schmertz v. Shreeve, 62 Pa. St. 457 422 Sch'midlapp v. Currie, 55 Miss. 597 270, 486, 526, 527, 528, 529 Schmidt v. Archer, 113 Ind. 365 579, 638 v. Balling, 91 111. App. 388 103, 825 V. Foucher, 38 La. Ann. 93 450 CXVUl TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608 j. Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Schmidt V. Ittman, 46 La. Ann. 888 486, 500, 882 V. Mertes, 145 Wis. 468 716, 721, 744 V. Lebby, 11 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 329 675, 727 V. Schmaelter, 45 Mo. 502 861 Schmitt V. Dooling, 145 Ky. 240 174 V. Greenberg, 58 Misc. (N. Y.) 570 558 Schmolcer v. Miller, 89 Kans. 594 -987, 994 Schnader v. Schnader, 26 Pa. St. 384 802 Schnaier v. Navarre Hotel &c. Co., 182 N. Y. 83 200 V. Schmidt, 59 Hun (N. Y.) 625 742 Schnebly v. Culter, 22 111. App. 87 420, 472, 742 Schneider v. De Smith, 2 Posey Unrep. Gas. (Tex.) 317 591 V. Sansom, 62 Tex. 201 444 V. Schmidt, 82 N. J. Eq. 81 422, 444, 450 V. Sellers (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 126 957 V. Sellers, 98 Tex. 380 118 Schnell v. Schnell, 39 Ind. App. 556 733 Scholefield v. Eichelberger, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 586 186, 579, 615 V. Heafield, 5 L. J. Ch. 218 719 Schollenberger v. Seldonridge, 49 Pa. St. 83 499 Scholtz V. Freud, 128 Mich. 72 891, 897 School Dist V. Bowman, 178 Mo. 654 306, 938 V. Kittridge, 27 Vt. 650 306, 939 Schoneman v. Feeley, 7 Pa. St. 433 600 Schoonover v. Osborne, 108 Iowa 453 562 Schoregge v. Gordon, 29 Minn. 367 268 Schreiber v. Sharpless, 6 Fed. 175 515 Schreiner v. United States, 6 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 359 119 Schriber v. Rapp, 5 Watts (Pa.) 351 142 Schroeder v. Turner, 68 Md. 506 861 Schroth v. Gedney, 30 Misc. (N, Y.) 808 895 Schuchardt, In re, 15 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 161 508 Schufeldt V. Smith, 139 Mo. 367 953, 955, 958, 959 V. Smith, 131 Mo. 280 961 Schulsinger v. Blau, 84 App. Div. (N. Y.) 390 715, 850 Schulte v. Anderson, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 489 729 Schulten v. Lord, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 206 1025, 1030, 1033 Schultz, In re, 109 Fed. 264 707 Schultze v. Steele, 69 Mo. App. 614 895 Schumacher v. Sumner Telephone Co., 161 Iowa 326 231, 426 Schumpert v. Dillard, Pinson & Co., 55 Miss. 348 265 Schurtz V. Romer, 82 Cal. 474 291, 552, 591 Schuster v. Rader, 13 Colo. 329 823 V. Farmers' &c. Nat. Bank, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 206 537 V. Frendenthal, 74 Tex. 53 591 Schuyler v. CuUen, 120 App. Div. (N. Y.) 637 550, 554 Schwabacker v. Riddle, 84 111. 517 508 Schwab Clothing Co. v. Claunch (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 922 301, 440 Schwartz, In re, 30 Am. Bkr. R. 344 703 Schwartz v. Soutter, 103 N. Y. 683 1023 Schweppe v. Wellauer, 76 Wis. 19 121, 796 Schwier v. Hurlburt (Mich.), 151 N. W. 603 92 Scots Charitable Society v. Shaw, 8 Mass. 532 957 Scott V. Atlanta Wood & Iron Novelty Works 12 Ga. App. 216 593, 602 V. Bandy, 2 Head (Tenn.) 197 425, 487 v. Beale, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 559 561 V. Blood, 16 Maine 192 910 V. Bogart, 14 La, Ann. 261 817, 826 Scott V. Boyd, 101 Va. 28 350 V. Bryan, 96 N. Car. 289 365, 666, 767 V. Buffum, 52 N. H. 345 715 V. Campbell, 30 Ala. 728 747, 752 V. Caruth, 50 Mo. 120 650, 751 V. Clark, 1 Ohio St. 382 981, 982 V. Colmesnil, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 416 434, 496, 500, 594, 897, 922 V. Conway, 58 N. Y. 619 578 V. Dansby, 12 Ala. 714 421, 861, 888 V. Dixie, 70 W. Va. 533 276, 281, 298, 299 V. Dunlop, 2 Munf. (Va.) 349 265, 826 V. Hallock, 16 Wash. 439 557 V. Kenan, 94 N. Car. 296 371 V. Kent, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 257 562 V. Lalor, 18 N. J. Eq. 301 856 V. Llano County Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 301 847 V. M'Intosh, 2 Campb. 238 774 V. McKinney, 98 Mass. 344 276 V. Pinkerton, 3 Edw. (N. Y.) 70 850, 855, 858, 731 V. Rayment, L. R. 7 Eq. 112 778, 785 V. Scott, 33 Ga. 102 836 V. Searles, 5 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 25 774 V. Tupper, 8 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 280 620 V. Trent, 1 Wash. (Va.) 77 450 Scott City Bank v. Sandusky, 51 Mo. App. 398 834 Scott's Appeal, In re, 88 Pa. St. 173 367, 538 Scovill V. Kinsley, 13 Gray (Mass.) 5 564, 760 Scripps V. Crawford, 123 Mich. 173 967 Scroggs V. Cunningham, 81 111. 110 661 Scruggs V. Blair, 44 Miss. 406 290, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 820 V. Russell, McCahon (Kans.), 39 341, 486 Scrugham v. Carter, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 131 830, 831 Scudder v. Ames, 89 Mo. 496 350, 354, 365, 637 V. Ames, 142 Mo. 187 326, 632, 666 V. Andrus, 124 Mich. 252 675 V. Budd, 52 N. J. Eq. 320 664, 979, 985, 990 Scull's Appeal, In re, 115 Pa. St. 141 475, 541, 888 Scutt V. Robertson (III.), 17 N. E. 14 276 V. Robertson, 127 111. 135 279, 357, 671 Seabolt, In re, 113 Fed. 766 297 Seabury V. Bolles, 51 N. J. L. 103 103, 104, 138, 475, 825 V. Bolles, 52 N. J. L. 413 475, 476 Seacord v. Pendleton, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 579 238 241 Seal v. Holcomb, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 330* 400 V. Seal, 1 Houst. (Del.) 516 457 Seaman v. Ascherman, 57 Wis. 547 446, 486 V. Huffaker, 21 Kans. 254 302, 441 V. Slater, 18 Fed. 485 492 V. Waddington, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 510 577 Searight v. Payne, 2 Tenn. Ch. 175 250 Searington v. Ellison, 1 Ohio Dec. (re- print) 74 562 Sears, In re, 112 Fed. 58 703 Sears, In re, 117 Fed. 294 692 Sears v. Gearn, 7 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 383 820 V. Mack, 2 Bradf. Sur. (N. Y.) 394 627 V. Munson, 23 Iowa 380 159 V. Starbird, 78 Cal. 225 364 Seaton v. Brooking, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), § 1041 371 820 V. Grimm, 110 Iowa 145 231,' 238 V. Shaner, 158 Pa. St. 69 675 TABLE OF CASES CXIX [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.1 Seattle, The, 170 Fed. 284 980 Seawell v. Payne, 5 La. Ann. 255 440, 508 Sebastian v. Booneville Academy Co., 22 Ky. L. 186 364, 371, 587, 743 Second Nat. Bank v. Burt, 93 N. Y. 233 119 V. Hall, 35 Ohio St. 158 237, 238, 240, 241, 245, 249, 250, 251 V. Lovell 13 Ohio Dec. 972 249 V. Second Nat. Bank, 13 Ohio C. C. 561 83 V. Weston, 161 N. Y. 520 432 V. Willing, 66 Md. 314 458 Second Nat. Bank's Appeal, In re, 83 Pa. St. 203 623 Secor V. Keller, 4 Duer. (N. Y.) 416 798 V. Law, 42 N. Y. 525 995 V. Pendleton, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 281 808 V. Tradesmen's Nat. Bank, 92 App. Div. (N. Y.) 294 617, 657, 719 Security Title Co. v. Schlender, 190 111. 609 723 Sedalia Third Nat. Bank v. Faults, 115 Mo. App. 42 425, 426, 82S Sedam v. Williaftis, 4 McLean (U. S.) 51 531, 559 Sedgwick v. Daniell, 2 H. & N. 319 666 Seeberger v. Wyman, 108 Iowa 527 454, 486, 487 Seehorn v. Hall, 130 Mo. 257 160, 978, 982, 990 Seekell v. Fletcher, 53 Iowa 330 433, 486, 880 Seeley v. Mitchell, 83 Ky. 508 276, 301, 302, 441 Seely's Admr. v. Beck, 42 Mo. 143 174 Seely v. Schenck, 2 N. J. L. 71 265, 795, 796 Seger v. Thomas Bros., 107 Mo. 635 528 Seibert v. Ragsdale, 103 Ky. 206 360, 361, 362 T. Seibert, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 531 291, 389 Seibricht v. Rohrkasse, 3 Ohio Dec. (reprint) 43 ■ 371, 554 Seidell v. Taylor (Wash.), 151 Pac. 41 805 Seighortner v. Weissenborn, 20 N> J. Eq. 172 773 Seitz V. Buffum, 14 Pa. St. 69 796 Selby, Ex parte, 6 DeG., M. & G. 783 509 Selden v. Hall, 21 Mo. App. 452 1007, 1008, 1009, 1014, 1036 Seldner v. Mt. Jackson Nat. Bank, 66 Md. 488 592, 593, 607 Seligman v. Friedlander, 199 N. Y. 373 496, 836 V. Pinet, 78 Mich. SO 491 Selkrig v. Davies, 2 Dow. 230 289, 623 Sellers v. Shore, 89 Ga; 416 633 Sellersville Nat. Bank v. Banks, 9 Pa. County Ct. 92 1018 Selle's Case, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 272 650 Sellew V. Chrisfield, 1 Handy (Ohio) 86 291, 820 Sells V. Hubbell, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 394 358, 364, 367, 666 Selman v. Brown, 78 Ga. 332 426, 486 Selwyn v. Waller, 142 N. Y. S. 1051 • 978, 982 V. Waller, 160 App. Div. (N. Y.) 725 982 Selz V. Cagwin, 104 111. 647 306, 939 V. Mayer, 151 Ind. 422 526, 539, 675 Semmes v. City Fire Ins. Co., o Blatchf. (U. S.) 445 _, 186 v., City Fire Ins. Co., 36 Conn. 543 186 Semper v. Coates, 93 Minn. 76 492 Semple v. Burke, 26 N. Dak. 200 760 Senour Mfg. Co. v. Church &e. Mfg. _^_ Co., 81 Minn. 294 , 250 Sentell v. Hewitt, 50 La. Ann. 3 237, 238 Seruta v. Surace, 111 Maine 508 835 Serviss v. McDonnell, 107 N. Y. 260 558, 561 Sessions, Ex parte, 2 Ch. Chamb. (U. C.) 360 635 Sessums v. Henry, 38 Tex. 37 433 Settembre v. Putnam, 30 Cal. 490 152, 219, 591, 719, 813, 1048 Settle V. Davidsoii, 7 Mo. 604 422 V, Hargadine-McKittrick Dry-Goods Co., 66 Fed. 850 440 Setzer v. Beale, 19 W. Va. 274 149, 192, 210, 214, 883 Seufert v. Gille, 230 Mo. 453 415, 425, 454, 591, 604, 962 Seward v. L'Estrange, 36 Tex. 295 499, 606 Sewell V. Cooper, 21 La. Ann. 582 752 Sexton V. Anderson, 95 Mo. 373 270, 528, 531 V. Lamb, 27 Kans. 426 27S V. Sexton, 9 Grat. (Va.) 204 342 381 393 Seyfang v. Mann, 25 Ont. App. 179 ' 562 Seymour v. Bailey, 66 111. 288 186 V. Butler, 8 Iowa 304 499 V. Freer, 8 Wall. 202 169 V.' Western E. Co. 106 U. S. 320 796 Schackelford v, Schackelford, 32 Grat. (Va.) 481 554, 916 Shackleford v. Williams, 182 Ala. 87 168, 413, 418, 901, 905, 919 Shackleton v. Kneisley, 48 Minn. 451 850 Shad V. Fuller, E. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 501 617 Shadburne v. Sbarbaro,, 182 III. App. 54 726, 731, 902 Shadwell Waterworks Co., In re, 18 Wkly. Eep. 160 717 ■Shaeffer v. Blair, 149 XJ. S. 248 169 Shafer v. Randolph, 99 Pa. St. 250 104, 905 Shafer's Appeal, In re, 106 Pa. St. 49 276, 623 Shaffner v. Pinchback, 133 111. 410 172, 175, 655 Shain v. Dujardin, 105 Cal. xvii 261 Shakopee First Nat. Bank v. Strait, 65 Minn. 162 467, 574 Shaler v. Trowbridge, 28 N. J. Eq. 595 389, 517 Shamburg v. Abbott, 112 Pa. St. 6 743 V. Ruggles, 83 Pa. St. 148 559, 561, 594 Shamokin Banking Co. v. Focht, 21 Pa. Dist. 551 358 Shamp V. Meyer, 20 Nebr. 223 564 Shanks v. Klein, 104 U. S. 18 292, 535, 601, 617, 620, 624, 625, 626 Shannon v. Wright, 60 Md. 520 721, 787 Shapard v. Hynes, 104 Fed. 449 503 V. Lightfoot, 56 Ala. 506 826 Shapard Grocery Co. v. Hynes, 3 Ind. Ter 74 225, 608, 82S Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Wells, 90 Tex. 110 ' 556, 558 Sharp V. Baker, 51 Ind. App. 547 297 V. Hibbins, 42 N. J. Eq. 543 717 V. Hutchinson, 100 N. Y. 533 1008, 1031 V. Milligan, 22 Beav. 606 446 V. Morrow, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 300 726 V. Taylor, 2 Phil. (Eng.) 801 655 Sharpe v. Johnston, 59 Mo. 557 405 Shattuck v.. Chandler, 40 Kans. 516 458, 530, 634 V. Lawson, 10 Gray (Mass.) 405 559, 741, 754, 861 Shaver v. White, 6 Munf. (Va.) 110 292 820 Shaw, In re. 81 Maine 207 ' 638 Shaw V. Cadwell, 17 Can. Sup. Ct. 357 424 V. Carlile, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 594 186 V. Gandolf, 9 La. Ann. 32 981, 984 V. Gunby (Mo. App.), 176 S. W. 548 -435 V. Jones, 133 Ga. 446 486 V. Knowles, 3 K. I. 112 836 V. McDonald, 21 Ga. 395 529 cxx TABLE CF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Shaw V. McGregory, 105 Mass. 96 152, 559, 834 V. Pratt, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 305 491 V. Roberts, 144 Iowa 215 830 V. State, 56 Ind. 188 200 Shea V. Donahue, 15 Lea (T^nn.) 160 275, 357, 670, 671 V. Nilima, 133 Fed. 209 219 Shearer v. Francis, 9 Ky. L. 556 744, 745 V. Handy, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 417 677 V. Paine, 12 Allen (Mass.) 289 149 V. Shearer, 98 Mass. 107 290, 624, 627, 728 Sherman v. Cameron, 76 N. J. Eq. 426 326, 670, 729 Sheble v. Strong, 128 Pa. St. 315 155, 240, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1014, 1020, 1022, 1049 Shebley v. Quatman, 66 Ore. 441 US Shedd V. Bank of Brattleboro, 32 Vt. 709 457, 540, 591, 828 Sheedy v. Second Nat. Bank, 62 Mo. 17 820 Sheehan v. Fleetham, 58 Hun (N. Y.) 605 82S Sheehy v. Mandeville, 6 Cranch (U. S.) 253 493, 499 Sheffield v. Key, 14 Ga. 537 835 V. Mitchell, 31 App. Div. (N. Y.) 266 . 967 Sheffield Gas Consumers' Co. v. Harri- son, 17 Beav. 294 . 778 Sheldon, Matter of, 72 App. Div. (N. Y.) 625 561 Sheldon v. Bigelow, 118 Iowa 586 476, 825 V. Smith, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 593 ' 458 V. Stevens, 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 314 850 V. Wood, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 267 978, 990 Shellito V. Sampson, 61 Iowa 40 452, 466 Shelly V. Hiatt, 52 N. Car. 509 633 Shelton v. Baer, 90 Mo. App. 286 559 " V. Knight, 68 Ala. 598 667 Shenk's Appeal, In re, 33 Pa. St. 371 562 Shepard v. Pratt. 16 Kans. 209 75 V. Ward, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 542 450 Shepherd, Ex parte, 3 Tenn. Ch. 189 666 Sheppard v. Boggs, 9 Nebr. 257 553, 660 V. Bridges, 137 Ga. 615 558, 719, 834 V. Oxentord, 1 Kay & J. 491 789 V. Reeves, 39 Fla. 53 530 Sherburne v. Goodwin, 44 N. H. 271 517 V. Hyde, 185 111. 580 496, 817 Sheridan v. Medara, 10 N. J. Eq. 469 79, 83, 103 Sherk v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 832 292, 525, 528, 531, 552, 591 Sherley v. Thomasson's Exr., 8 Ky. L. (abstract) 351 276 Sherman v. Christy, 17 Iowa 322 437 V. Kreul, 42 Wis. 33 496, 630, 836 v. Oelsner, 135 N. Y. S. 592 817 V. Sherman, 2 Vern. 276 773 v. Smith, 42 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 198 822 Sherrod v. Langdon, 21 Iowa 518 104, 907 V. Mayo, 156 N. Gar. 144 291, 552, 616, 626, 627 Sherry v. Gilmore, 58 Wis. 324 265, 269 Sherwood v. His Creditors, 42 La. Ann. 103 119 V. Snow, 46 Iowa 481 425, 428 Shields V. Clifton Hill Land Co., 94 Tenn. 123 235, 965 V. Fuller, 4 Wis. 102 637, 763, 808 V. Oney, 5 Munf. (Va.) 550 811 Shimer v. Huber, 19 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 414 531 Shinn v. Macpherson, 58 Cal. 596 371 Shipe's Appeal, In re, 114 Pa. St. 205 598, 617 Shipley v. Platts, 17 S. Dak. 357 706 Shipman v. Fletcher, 83 Va. 349 730 V. Hickman, 9 Rob. (La.) 149 617 Shipp V. Snyder, 121 Mo. 155 290 Shirk V. Shultz, 113 Ind. 571 188 Shirk's Appeal, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 119 355, 675 Shirley v. Fearne, 33 Miss. 653 444, 453 V. The Bride, 5 La. Ann. 260 820 Shirran v. Dallas, 21 Cal. App. 405 118 Shirreff v. Wilks, 1 East 48 561, 831 Shivel v. Greer (Tex. Civ. App.), 123 S. W. 207 835 Shoemaker v. Benedict, 11 N. Y. 176 600 Shoemaker v. Bernard, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 358 419, 561, 878, 915 v. King, 40 Pa. St. 107 558, 559 V. Shoemaker, 29 Ky. L. 134 369, 675 V. Smith, 74 Ind. 71 856 Shorb V. Beaudry, 56 Cal. 446 196, 951 Short V. McGruder, 22 Fed. 46 296 V. Stevenson, 63 Pa. St. 95 393, 395 V. Taylor, 137 Mo. 517 855, 902 V. Thomas, 178 Mo. App. 400 124 Shorter v. Hightower, 48 Ala. 526 834 Shotwell V. Ellis, 42 Miss. 439 185 Shoun V. Armstrong (Tenn. Ch, App.), 59 S. W.. 790 238, 247 Shows V. Folmar, 133 Ala. 599 675 Shrader v. Downing, 79 Wash. 476 396, 654, 929 Shreveport V. Mandel Bros., 128 La. 314 25, 486 Shriver v. McCloud, 20 Nebr. 474 170, 175, 656, 850 Shriver's Appeal, 118 Pa. St. 427 350 Shropshire v. Adams, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 339 769 Shrum v. Simpson, 155 Ind. 160 126 Shufeldt V. Seymour, 21 111. 524 811, 854 V. Smith, 139 Mo. 367 559 Shuler v. Dutton, 75 Iowa 155 552 Shulte V. Hoffman, 18 Tex. 678 721, 789 Shumaker v. Davidson, 116 Iowa 569 967 Shumard v. Gano, 8 Ohio C. D. 370 352 Shurlds V. Tilson, 2 McLean (U. S.) 458 596 Shurtleff v. Willard, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 202 399 Shuttleworth v. Marx, 159 Ala. 418 854 Sibley v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 97 Ga. 126 471, 473 v. Minton, 27 L. J. Ch. 53 719 V. Parsons, 93 Mich. 538 596, 926 V. Starkweather, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 631 349 V. Young, 26 S. Car. 415 422, 471 Sickel V. Mosenthal, 30 Beav. 371 778 Sicklesteel v. Edwards, 158 Wis. 122 978, 981, 984 Sickmau v. Abernathy, 14 Colo. 174 270, 307, 526, 527, 528 Siefke v. Minden, 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 631 499 Siegel V. Chidsey, 28 Pa. St. 279 270, 457, 528, 529, 580 V. Marcus, 18 N. Dak. 214 320, 321 V. Moses, 159 111. App. 624 817 V. Wood, 3 Pa. Dist. 463 1008, 1016, 1031 Siegfried v. Ludwig, 102 Pa. St. 547 605, 607 Sieghortner v. Weissenborn, 20 N. J. Eq. 172 582, 587, 588, 788 Sigler V. Knox County Bank, 8 Ohio St. 511 270, 307, 526, 527, 528, 529 Sigourney v. Munn, 7 Conn. 11 276, 289, 623, 664 V. Munn, 7 Conn. 324 728 Sikes V. Work, 6 Gray (Mass.) 433 159, 166, 754 Silas V. Adams, 92 Ga. 350 474, 605 Silkman, Matter of, 121 App. Div. (N. Y.) 202 326, 632, 660 Silliman v. Short, 26 La. Ann. 512 561 TABLE OF CASES CXXl [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Sillitoe, Ex parte, 1 Glyn & Jameson 374 538 Silveira v. Reese, 138 Cal. xix 358, 721 Silver v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 72 Mo. 194 661, 675 V. Worcester, 72 Maine 322 917 Silverblatt .v. Rosenberger, 133 N. Y. S. 990 95 Silverman v. Chase, 90 111. 37 425, 496, 557, 559, 562, 630 V. Kogut, 143 N. Y. S. 947 675 V. Kristufek, 162 111. 222 269 Silvers v. Foster, 9 Kans. 56 826 Sim V. Sim, 11 Ir. Ch. 310 726, 727 Simmins v. Parker, 4 Mart. (N. S.) - (La.) 200 , -617 Simmons v. Curtis, '41 Maine 373 530, 580 V. Ingram, 78 Mo. App. 603 210, 212, 825 V. Leonard, 3 Hare 581 659 V. Lima Oil Co., 71 N, J. Eq. 174 982, 991 V. Norfolk &c. Steamboat Co., 113 N. Car. 147 249 V. Rowe, 4 Cal. App. 752 291, 292 V. Shaft, 91 Kans. 553 217 V. Titche, 102 Ala. 317 265, 795, 796 Simmons Hardware Co. v. Peck, 176 Mo. App. 86 563, 596 Simms v. Kirtley, 1 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 79, 82 914 Simon v. Garlitz (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. W. 461 177 V. Schloss, 48 Mich. 233 721 Simonds v. Strong, 24 Vt. 642 596 Simons v, Vulcan Oil &c. Co., 61 Pa. St. 202 381, 396 Simonton v. McLain, 37 La. Ann, 663 191, 650 v. Rohm, 14 Colo. 51 811 V. Sibley, 122 U. S. 220 386 Simpson, In re, L. IL 9 Ch. App. Cas. 572 642 Simpson v. Baker, 2 Black. (U. S.) 581 802 V. Chapman, 4 DeG., M. & G. 154 719 V. Geddes, 2 Bay (S. Car. 533 888 V. Gernandt (Nebr.), 152 N. W. 549 876, 902 V. Leech, 86 111. 286 290, 625, 627 V. Ritchie, 110 Maine 299 242, 307, 574 V. Schulte, 21 Mo. App. 639 496 , V. Simpson, 44 App. Div. (N. Y.) 492 716, 719, 850 V. Summerville, 30 Pa. Super. Ct. 17 70 V. Tenney, 41 Kans. 561 169, 715 V. Vaughan, 2 Atk. 31 492 V. Young, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 514 835 Simrall V. O'Bannous, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 608 537 Sims V. Banta, 9 Ky. L. (abstract) 286 350 V. Brutton, 5 Exch. 802 517 V. Dame, 113 Ind. 127 104, 125 V. Jacobson, 51 Ala. 186 121 V. Smith, 11 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 565 572, 602 V. Smith, 12 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 685 418 Simson v. Cooke, 1 Bine. 452 118, 837 Sinclair v. Galland, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 508 556, 558 V. Wood, 3 Cal. 98 910 Sindelar v. Walker, 35 III. App. 607 824 v. Walker, 137 111. 43 292, 315, 743 Singer v. Carpenter, 125 111. 117 967 V. Given, 61 Iowa 93 237 V. Heller, 40 Wis. 544 587, 674, 731 V. Kelly, 44 Pa. St. 145 1003, 1005, 1008, 1013, 1020, 1025, 1027, 1028, 1033, 1036, 1037 V. Macalester, 4 Phila-. (Pa.) 312 1027 V. Townsend, S3 Wis. 126 820 Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U. S. 169 266 Singizer's Appeal, 28 Pa. St. 524 367, 650 Singleton v. Thornton, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 589 848 Sinkler v. Lambert, 5 Phila. (Pa.) 36 854 Sinnott v. German-American Bank, 164 N. Y. 386 262 Sinsabaugh v. Dun, 214 111. 70 824 Sinsheimer v. Tobias, 21 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 508 564 V. William Skinner Mfg. Co., 54 111. App. 151 811 Sirrine v. Briggs, 31 Mich. 443 292, 831 Sisson V. Cleveland & T. R. Co., 14 Mich. 489 220 Sistare v. Gushing, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 503 .591 Sitler V. Walker, Freem. Ch-. (Miss.) 77 829, 830 Sitter V. Karraher, 100 111. App. 669 503 Sizer v. Ray, 87 N. Y. 220 559 Skannel v. Taylor, 12 La. Ann. 773 558, 596, 598 Skavdale v. Moyer, 21 Wash. 10 291, 292, 525, 831 Skeels v. Phillips, 54 111. 309 655 Sketchley v. Smith, 78 Iowa 542 816 Skillman v. Lachman, 23 Cal. 198 151, 152, 579, 591, 1048 Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 513 422, 576, 780, 1001 V. Hitt, 32 Mo. App. 402 556 v. Shannon,- 44 Mich. 86 297 v. Southern Grocery Co., 174 Ala. 359 968 V. Stocks, 4 B. & Aid. 437 802 v. Tinker, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 333 573 V. White, 1 Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) 107. 350 Skipp V. Harwood, 2 Swanst. 586 525 Skipwith V. Lea, 16 La. Ann. 247 635 Skolny v. Richter, 139 App. Div. (N. Y.) 534 1003, 1035 Skoog V. New York Novelty Co., 4 N. Y. Civ. Proc. R. 144 817 Slack v. Suddoth, 102 Tenn. 375 322 Sladen v. Lance, 151 N. Car. 492 418, 445, 486 Slater v. Arnett, 81 Va. 432 876 v. Clark, 68 111. App. 433 160, 975, 995 V. Slater, 175 N. Y. 143 326, 660, 632 V. Slater. 78 App. Div. (N. Y.) 449 262, 353, 617, 722 Slatter v. Carroll, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 573 _ 836 Slaughter v. American Baptist Pub- lication Society (Tex. Civ. App.), 150 S. W. 224 817 V. Danner, 102 Va. 270 723 v. Mallet Land &c. Co., 141 Fed. 282 956 Slayden v. Palmo, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 227 487 Sleech's Case, 1 Meriv. 539 639 Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Pa. St. 168 576, 587, 728, 780 Slipp v. Hartley, 5d Minn. 118 888 Slipper V. Stidstone, 5 Term. Rep. 493 849 Sloan V. Moore, 37 Pa. St. 217 587, 720, 721, 788, 789 v. Owens &c. Mach. Co., 70 Mo. 206 421, 453 V. Wilson, 117 Ala. 583 291, 304, 443, 529, 672 Slobig's Appeal, In re, 2 Sad. (Pa.) 36f 720 Slocomb V. De Lizardi, 21 La. Ann. 355 1037 Slocuffl V. Fairchild, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 292 490 V. Head, 105 Wis. 431 239, 253, 965 CXXll TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Sloman's Estate, In re (Mich.), 152 N. W. 959 835 Sloo V. Lea. 18 Ohio 279 493 V. Powell, Dal. Dig. (Tex.) 467 260. 422 V. State Bank, 2 III. 428 457 Slutts V. Chaffee, 48 Wis. 617 496 Small V. Atwood, 1 Younge 407 815 V. Davis, 12 Ind. App. 635 836 Small, In re, 151 Pa. 1 937 Smart V. Breckenridge Bank, 28 Ky. L. 646 558 Smead v. Lacey, 12 Ohio Dec. 597 540 Smiley v. Smiley, 112 Va. 490 357, 670, 671 Smith, Ex parte, 2 Mont. D. & DeG. 314 562 Smith, Ex parte, 3 Madd. 63 276, 698 Smith, Ex parte, 1. Glyn & J. 74 392, 756 Smith, In re, 16 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 113 367 Smith, In re, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 102 292, 820 Smith, In re, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 131 579 Smith, In re, L. R. 4 Ch. App. Cas. 662 S62 Smith V. Adrian, 1 Mich. 495 518 V. Andrews, 49 111. 28 303, 304, 433, 441 V. Argall, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 479 1007, 1015, 1027 V. Ayer, 101 U. S. 320 638, 639, 579 V. Ayrault, 71 Mich. 475 364, 365, 666 V. Barker, 10 Maine 458 820 V. Barringer, 74 N. Car. 665 723 V. Barrow, 2 T. R. 476 745, 755 V. Becker, 62 Kans. 541 187 V. Black, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 142 493, 499, 826 V. Book, 5 U. C. Q. B. (O. S.) 556 294, 759 V. Bowker Torrey Co., 207 Fed. 967 953 V. Brand, 67 N. J. Eq. 529 266 V. Brannon, 21 Ky. L. 267 857 V. Brown, 50 Wash. 240 721 V. Brown, 44 W. Va. 342 351, 667, 766 V. Brush, 11 Conn. 359 729 V. Burnham, 3 Sumn. (U. S.) 435 218, 623 V. Cain, 180 Mo. App. 457 848 V. Canfield, 8 Mich. 493 265, 795, 817 V. Chenault, 48 Tex. 455 796 V. Cisson, 1 Colo. 29 854 V. Clark, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 485 370 V. Collins, 115 Mass. 388 265, 267, 268 V. Colorado &c. Ins. Co., 14 Fed. 399 237 V. Columbia Jewelry Co., 114 Ga. 698 847 V. Cooke, 31 Md. 174 806, 811 V. Corbett, 16 West. L. R. (B. C.) 257 990 V. Cowles, 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 328 624, 628 V. Craven, 1 Cromp. & J. 500 486 V. Crichton, 33 Md. 103 796 V. Cromer, 66 Miss. 157 861 V. Crooks, 3 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 321 730 V. Danvers, 7 N. Y. Super. Ct, 669 276 V. Dennison, 101 111. 531 593 V. Douglass, 4 Daly (N. Y.) 191 809 V. Dunn, 44 Misc. (N. Y.) 288 75, 103 V. Edwards, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 106 371, 554, 559 V. Ervin, 3 Pa. Dist. 485 673 V. Ervin, 168 Pa. St. 271 » 573 V. Everett, 27 Beav. 446 326, 632 V. Everett, 126 Mass. 304 215, 590, 715, 775 V. Ewing, 151 Pa. St. 256 386 V. Fagan, 17 Cal. 178 587, 1053 V. Ferguson, 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 561 835 Smith v. V, V. Ferrario, 113 Ga. 872 888, 889 Finch, 12 B. C. 186 264 First Nat. Bank of Albany, 151 App. Div. (N. Y.) 317 980 V. Fitchett, 56 Hun (N. Y.) 473 717, 723, 730 V. Garth, 32 Ala. 368 169 V. Gibbs, 44 N. H. 335 316 V. Goldsworthy, 4 Q. B. 430 416 V. Green, 8 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 163 732 V. Greer, 7 Ont. L. Rep. 332 660 V. Griffith, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 333 910 V. Harris, 76 Ind. 104 297 V. Harris, 88 Kans. 226 732 V. Harrison, 3 , Jur. (N. S.) 287 772 V. Hart, 179 111. App. 98 384, 887, 901, 904 V. Hawthorne, 76 L. T. (N. S.) 716 632 v. Hazelton, 34 Ind. 481 673 V. Heineman, 118 Ala. 195 307 V. Hill, 13 Ark. 173 486, 597, 599, 618 V. HilL 45 Vt. 90 475 V. Hoffman, 2 Cranch C. C. (U. S.) 651 260, 421 V. Hood, 4 111. App. 360 419, 559 V. Hoover, 39' Ohio St. 249 265, 795, 817 V. Howard, 20 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 121 528, 540 V. Hubert, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 503 126 V. Hulett, 65 111. 495 861 V. Hunt, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 222 796, 811 V. Imus, 57 Mich. 456 279 V. Irvin, 108 App. Div. (N. Y.) ^ 218 835 V. Jackson, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 28 290, 296, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628 V. Jameson, 5 T. R. 601 556, 599 v. Jeyes, 4 Beav. 503 587, 721, 773. 787 V. Jones, 18 Nebr. 481 276, 292, 535, 624 V. Kansas St. Imp. Co., 120 Cal. ^ 517 563 V. Kerr, 3 N. Y. 144 „ 301, 422, 440, 471 V. Kinney, 72 Ore. 519 994 V. Knight, 71 111. 148 85, 876 V. Knight, 77 Iowa 540 731 V. Knight, 88 Iowa 257 352, 353, 359, 360, 362, 637 ' r. Lamon (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 304 721, 850 V. Lancaster, 37 App. (D. C.) 25 92, 733 V. Lawrence, 15 Mich. 499 778 V. Ledyard, 49 Ala. 279 559, 564 v. Loring, 2 Ohio 440 366 V. Ludlow, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 267 600, 927 V. McMicken, 3 La. Ann. 319 119, 291, 292, 830 V. Mallory, 24 Ala. 628 535, 836 V. Millard, 77 Cal. 440 . 561 V. Montgomery, 3 Tex. 199 599 V. Moynihan, 44 Cal. 53 876 V. Mules,. 9 Hare 556 575 V. Mulock, 24 N. Y. Super. Ct. 569 576 V. Packard, 98 Fed. 793 472 V. Padrosa, 139 Ga. 484 75, 215, 218 v. Perry, 5 Dutch. (N. J.) 74 881 V. Proskey, 82 App. Div. (N. Y.) 19 607 V. Proskey, 177 N. Y. 526 601, 675 V. Putnam, 107 Wis. 155 103, 169, 219, 360, 743, 746, 751 V. Rainey, 2Q9 U. S. 53 386 V. Rainey, 9 Ariz. 362 371 V. Ramsey, 1 Gilm. (111.) 373 389 V. Richmond, 114 Ky. 303 172. 175 -- Ridden, 87 111. 165 V. Roberts, 182 111. App. 227 771 400 TABLE OF CASES CXXIH [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Smith V. Robinson, 11 Ala. 270 826 V. Rogers, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 340 499, 605 V. Salomon, 1 Colo. 176 808 V. The Saugerties, 44 Fed. 625 989 V. Schmidt, 142 Mich. 1 445, 558 V, Schoodoc Pond Packing Co., 109 Maine 555 240, 721 V. Schultz, 89 Cal. 526 126 V. Shelden, 35 Mich. 42 556, 558, 607, 809, 834 V. Sheridan, 175 Mich. 391 419, 424. 924 V. Shotliff, 169 Mo. App. 66 902 ■ V. Sloan, 37 Wis. 285 412, 424, 425, 426, 486, 919 V. Small, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 223 275, 276, 762 V. Smith, 135 Ga. 582 715, 725 V. Smith (Iowa), 50 N. W. 64 529 V. Smith, 87 Iowa 93 526, 528 V. Smith, 51 La. Ann. 72 278, 331, 350, 353, 579, 637 V. Smith, 93 Maine 253 723, 825 V. Smith, 123 Minn. 431 773 V. Smith, 18 R. I. 722 668, 673 V. Smith, 30 Vt. 139 291, 400 V. Smith, 5 Ves. Jr. 189 276 V. Smith, 13 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 81 638 V. Southern R. Co., 89 S. Car. 415 889 V. Spinnenweber, 114 Ark. 384 528, 820 V. Standard &c. Mach. Co., 19 Fed. 82 240 V. Stokes, 1 East 363 294 v. Stone, 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 310 451 V. Stubbs, 16 Colo. App. 130 264, 847 V. Tarlton, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 336 212, 276, 281 V. Teer, 21 U. C. Q. B. 412 564 ■ V. Thiesen, 20 Manitoba 120 830 V. Tupper, 4 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 261 422 454 V. Turner, 9 Bush (Ky.) 417 ' 499 V. Underbill, 64 Hun (N. Y.) 639 601, 732, 856 V. Ure, 2 Knapp 188 475 y. Van Gilder, 26 Ark. 527 836 V. Walker, 57 Mich. 456 278, 898 V. Walker, 6 S. Car. 169. 796 V. Warden, 86 Mo. 382 243, 245, 965, 1014 V. Watson, 2 B. & C. 401 979 V. Westcott, 34 Fla. 430 854 V. Western Union Tel. Co., 84 Tex. 359 854 V. Weston, 159 N. Y. 194 432, 454 V. Winter, 8 L. J. Exch. 34 593 V. Wood, 1 N. J. Eq. 74 290, 627 V. Wood, 12 N. Y. S. 724 660 V. Woods, 33 Okla. 233 264 V. Wright, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 113 194, 900 V. Wright, 4 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 274 52 889 V. Zumbro, 41 W. Va. 623 651^ 718 Smitha v. Cureton, 31 Ala. 652 888 Smock V. Pierson, 68 Ind. 405 325 Smucker v. Duncan, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 430 250 Smyth V. Barbee, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 173 829 V. Harvie, 31 111. 62 i 592, 925 V. Strader, 4 How. (U. S.) 404 398 Smythe v. Evans, 209 111. 376 75 Snaith v. Burrage, 4 Taunt. 684 433 Snead v. Barringer, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 134 260, 421, 486, 911 Sneed V. Coyle, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 163 814, 826 V. Deal, 53 Ark. 152 389, 394, 446, 768 V. Kelly, 3 Dana (Ky.) 538 466 V. Wiester, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 277 434, 499 Snell V. Crowe, 3 Utah 26 292, 820 V. De Land, 43 111. 323 796, 900 V. De Land, 136 111. 533 383, 665, 729 V. Dwight, 120 Mass. 9 154, 172, 177 V. Stone, 23 Ore. 327 191 V. Taylor, 182 111. 473 729 Snider v. McKelvey, 27 Ont. App. 339 331 V. Troy, 91 Ala. 224 238 Sniffer v. Sass, 14 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 20 535 Snodgrass v. Broadwell, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 353 796 Snodgrass' Appeal, 13 Pa. St. 471 832 Snook's Petition, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 566 230 Snow V. Hizeland, 179 Fed. 182 1053 V. Rudolph (Tex. Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 249 991 Snowball, Ex parte, L. R. 7 Ch. 534 528 Snowden v. Cunningham, 59 Fla. 604 767 V. Noah, Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) 347 316 Snyder v. Leland, 127 Mass. 291 ' 1020, 1032, 1036 V. Lindsey, 92 Hun (N. Y.) 432 10S9 V. Lunsford, 9 W. Va. 223 528, 529 V. O'Beirne, 132 Mich. 340 674, 729, 733 V. Seaman, 2 App. Div. (N. Y.) 258 386 Snyder Mfg. Co. v. Snyder, 54 Ohio St. 86 553, 660, 728 Snyder Pasteurized Milk Co. v. Bur- ton, 80 N, J. Eq. 185 316 Sobernheimer v. Wheeler, 45 N. J. Eq. 614 823 Society Perun v. Cleveland, 43 Ohio St. 481 155, 240 Society, The, v. Wheeler, 2 Gall. (U. S.) 105 824 Sodiker v. Applegate, 24 W. Va. 411 75, 83, 86 Sohn V. Freiberg, 6 Ohio Dec. 1175 476 Sohns V. Sloteman, 85 Wis. 113 75 Solly v. Forbes, 2 Brod. & B. 38 499 Solomon, In re, 163 Fed. 140 685, 692 Solomon v. Fitzgerald, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 552 626, 627 V. Kirkwood, 55 Mich. 256 573, 576, 596, 780, 785, 1047 V. Solomon, 2 Ga. 18 362, 363, 389, 392, 652 Solvency Mut. Guar. Co. v. Freeman, 7 Hurl. & N. 17 300 Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279 778, 785 Somers v. Harris, 161 App. Div. (N. Y.) 230 328, 850 Somers v. Joyce, 40 Conn. 592 126 Somerset Potters Works v. Minot, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 592 535, 538 Sonnesyn v. Hawbaker, 127 Minn. 15 994 Soper V. Fry, 37 Mich. 236 457 Soule V. Frost, 76 Maine 119 744 v. Hayward, 1 Cal. 345 ' 762 Souls V. Cornell, 15 App. Div. (N. Y.) 161 820 Southard v. Lewis, 4 Dana (Ky.) 148 808 835 V. Steele, 3 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 435 ' 459, 817, 818 South Carolina &c. R. Co. v. Augusta &c. R. Co., 107 Ga. 164 193 South Carolina Bank v. Case, 8 B. & C. 427 421 South Carolina Mfg. Co. v. Bank, 6 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 227 236 Southern v. Harriman, 10 L. T. (N. S.) 263 _ . 816 Southern Commission Co. v. Porter, 122 N. Car. 692 _ i 297 Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Henshaw, 89 Ala. 448 626 Southern Fertilizer Co. V. Reams, 105 N. Car. 283 83, 216, 899 CXXIV TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ l-608j Vol. II, g§ 615-1195.] Southern Jellico Coal Co. v. Smith, 105 Ky. 769 297 Southern Pac. E. Co. v. Meadors, 104 Tex. 469 193 Southern White-Lead Co. v. Haas, 73 Iowa 399 223 South Fork Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 561 451 Southmayd, In re (Pa.), 8 Atl. 72 386 Southmayd v. Backus, 3 Conn. 474 826 V. Russ, 3 Conn. 52 252 V. Southmayd, 4 Mont. 100 152 Southwell V. Church, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 547 721 Southwestern R. Co. v. Thomason, 40 Ga. 408 1055 Southwick V. Allen, 11 Vt. 75 .596 , V. McGovern, 28 Iowa 533 467, 910 Southworth v. Davison, 106 Minn. 119 . 320 V. People, 183 111. 621 216, 723 V. Thompson, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 10 75, 77, 743 Spalding v. Black, 22 Kans. 55 292, 831, 1000, 1002, 1004, 1019, 1020, 1036, 1037, 1055 V. Mure, 6 Term. Rep. 363 849 V. Oakes, 42 Vt. 343 364 v. Wilson, 80 Ky. 589 281, 290 Spann v. Fox, 1 Ga. Dec. 1 644 Sparger v. Moore, 117 N. Car. 449 290, 624, 626 Sparhawk v. Russell, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 305 630 Sparks V. Flannery, 104 Ga. 323 471, 473, 487 V. Woodstock Iron &c. Co., 87 Ala. 294 238 Sparman v. Kiem, 83 N. Y. 245 188 Sparrow v. Kohn, 109 Pa. St. 359 632 Spaulding v. Ludlow Woolen Mills, 36 Vt. 150 499 V. Nathan, 21 Ind. App. 122 170, 476 V. Stubbings, 86 Wis. 255 103, 638 Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Godbold, 92 Ark. 63 118, 265, 284, 796 Spaunhorst v. Link, 46 Mo. 197 550, 558, 559, 562, 591 Speake v. Prewitt, 6 Tex. 252 796, 802 v. White, 14 Tex. 364 603 Spear v. Newell, 2 Paine (U. S.) 267 715, 773 V. Newell, 13 Vt. 288 716, 741, 773 Spears v. Toland, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 203 467, 608 V. Willis, 151 N. Y. 443 386, 551, 573 Speer, In re, 144 Fed. 910 689 Speer v. Bishop, 24 Ohio St. 598 475, 608, 926 Speights V. Peters, 9 Gill (Md.) 472 721 Spence v. Mobile &c. R. Co., 79 Ala. 576 250 Spenceley v. Greenwood, 1 F. & F, 297 262 Spencer v. Barnes, 25 Cal. App. 139 168, 717, 723 V. Bynum (N. Car.), 85 S. E. 216 675 V. Emery, 8 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 278 721 V. Hamilton, 113 N. Car. 49 768 V. Jones, 92 Tex. 516 103, 168, 169, 225, 282 V. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 47 S. W. 29 83, 475 V. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 47 S. W. 665 471 V. Spencer, 2 Y. & J. 249 370, 677 Spencer Optical Mfg. Co. v. Johnson, 53 S. Car. 533 146, 1007, 1008 Sperry V. TuUey (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 1067 364 Speyer v. Desjardins, 144 111. 641 218 Spier v. Hyde, 92 App. Div. (N. Y.) 467 977, 990 Spies T. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14 170, 172, 655 Spiess V. Rosswog, 96 N. Y. 651 278, 394, 446 Spinney v. Lynn, 172 Mass. 464 306, 940 Spiro V. Paxton, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 75 297 Spitz, In re, 8 N. Mex. 622 297, 526 Spokane v. Patterson, 46 Wash. 93 515 Spool Cotton Co. v. King, 68 S. Car. 196 861 Spotswood V. Morris, 12 Idaho 360 1047, 1051, 1052, 1056, 1057 Sprague v. Ainsworth, 40 Vt. 47 450, 499 v. Childs, 16 Ohio St. 107 499 V. Keltic Stone Co., 123 111. App. 616 "^ 563 Sprague Mfg. Co. v. Hoyt, 29 Fed. 421 623, 626 Spraker v. Piatt, 158 App. Div. (N. Y.) 377 1001, 1045, 1052, 1053, 1054 Spratt V. Dwyer (Iowa), 151 N. W. 474 675, 717 V. First Nat. Bank, 7 Ky. L. 791 630 Springer v. Cabell, 10 Mo. 640 743, 757 V. Dwyer, 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 189 675 v. Shirley, 11 Maine 204 434, 499 V. Simpson, 175 III. App. 631 446, 465 Springfield Grocery Co. v. Shackelford, 56 Mo. App. 642 620, 634 Springs v. McCoy, 122 N. Car. 628 486 Spring Valley Water Works Co., In re, 17 Cal. 132 238 Spring Valley Works v. Schottler, 62 , Cal. 69 324 Sproat V. Porter, 9 Mass. 300 100, 111 Sprout V. Crowley, 30 Wis. 187 650, 651, 748, 749, 897 Spurck T. Leonard, 9 III. App. 174 572, 574 Spurlock V. Wilson, 160 Mo. App. 14 89, 115, 173, 282, 290, 386, 926 Spurr V. Cass, L. R. 5 Q. B. 656 797 V. Russell, 59 N. H. 338 291 Spurrier v. La Cloche -^[1902], A. C. 446 677 Staar v. Moy Tong Koon, 145 111. App. 341 721 Staats V. Bristow, 73 N. Y. 264 291, 292, 820, 832 V. Hewlett, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 559 326, 329, 437, 638 Stadelman v. Loehr, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 327 458 Stadler v. Allen, 44 Iowa 198 535 Stafford v. Fargo, 35 111. 481 275, 752 v. Gold, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 533 808i 835 v. Nutt, 51 Ind. 535 494 V. Sibley, 106 Ala. 189 76 V. Sibley, J 13 Ala. 447 898 Stafford Nat. Bank v. Palmer, 47 Conn. 443 230, 237, 240, 241, 245 Stage V. Gorich, 107 HI. 361 462 Stahl V. Osmers, 31 Ore. 199 526 V. Stahl, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 60 836 Stable V. Poth, 220 Pa. 335 861 Staiger v. Klitz, 129 App. Div. (N. Y.) 703 ' 715 V. Theiss, 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 170 817 Stainbank v. Fernley, 9 Sim. 556 590 Stainer v. Tysen, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 279 432 Stall V. Cassady, 57 Ind. 284 604, 608 V. CatskiU Bank, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 466 432 Stambaugh v. Smith, 23 Ohio St. 584 265 Stampfle v. Bush, 71 W. Va. 659 835 Stanberry v. Cattell, 55 Iowa 617 741 TABLE OF CASES cxxv [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 61S-1195.] Stanchfield v. Palmer, 4 Greene (Iowa) 23 901 Standard Bank v. Frind, 14 Ont. Pr. 355 825 Standard Carbonating & Supply Co. v. Capital City Guards, 99 Ga. 265 453 Standard Hay & Grain Co. v, Ratliff, 144 Ky. 161 817 Standard Oil Co. v. Hoese, 57 Nebr. 665 473, 852 Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. New State Shirt & Overall Mfg. Co., 42 Okla. 554 264 Standard Wagon Co. v. Few, 119 Ga. 293 414, 470 Standish v. Babcock, 52 N. J. Eq. 628 371, 525, 535, 536, 669 Stanford V. Lockwood, 95 N. Y. 582 638 Stanhope v. Suplee, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 455 631 V. Swaflord, 80 Iowa 45 508 Stanley v. Leahy, 87 III. App. 465 491 Stannard v. Smith, 40 Vt. 513 878 Stanton v. Lewis, 26 Conn. 444 601 V. Westover, 101 N. Y. 265 531 Stanwood v. Owen, 14 Gray (Mass.) 195 579, 615^ 622, 639 Staples V. Schmid, 18 _R. I. 224 512 V. Sprague, 75 Maine 458 83, 103, 416, 898 Starbuck v. Shaw, 10 Gray (Mass.) 492 741 Stark V. Howcott, 118 La. 489 358, 731 Starkweather v. Jenner, 27 App. D. C. 348 978 Starr v. Case, 59 Iowa 491 350, 353, 396, 598, 617, 637, 654, 731, 732 V. Mayer, 60 Ga. 546 820 V. Starr, 67 Misc. (N. Y.) 305 282, 283 V. Stiles, 2 Ariz. 436 559 Starrs v, Cosgrave Brewing &c. Co., 12 Can. Sup. Ct. 571 618 Star Wagon Co. v. Swezey, 52 Iowa 391 607 State V. Adams Express Co., 66 Minn. 271 1046, 1058 V. Adams Express Co., 3 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 326 943 V. American Surety Co. of New York (Mo. App.), 177 S. W. 1074 633, 634, 835 V. Baldwin, 31 Mo. 561 634 V. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 34 Md. 344 177 V. Bienville Oil Works, 28 La. Ann. 204 345 V. Bierman, 1 Strob. L. (S. Car.) 256 518 V. Bowden, 18 Fla. 17 297 V. Bowman, 178 Mo. 663 938 V. Brown, 38 Mont. 309 291, 392, 486 V. Butman, 61 N. H. 511 405 V. Campbell, 59 Kans. 246 40S V. Cloudt (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 415 118, 121, 818, 826 V. Coleman, Dudley (S. Car.) 32 518 V. Cook, 181 Mo. 596 249 V, Day, 3 Ind. App. 155 297 V. .Dickinson, 59 Nebr. 753 823 V. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301 306, 939 V. Emmons, 99 Ind. 452 291, 536 V. Ferschke, 2 Boyce (DeL) 477 262 V. Finn, 11 Mo. App. 546 72 V. Gay, 10 Mo. 440 SIS V. Gilmore, 80 Vt. 514 518 -V. Home &c. Union, 63 Ohio St. 547 247 V. How, 1 Mich. 512 245, 96S V. Hunt, 25 R. I. 69 75 V. Hynes, 82 Minn. 34 306, 939 V. Kenan, 94 N. Car. 296 297 V. Knowles, 185 Mo. 141 405 State V. Krasher, 170 Ind. 43 - 121 V. Kusnick, 45 Ohio St. 535 405 V. Linaweaver, 3 Head (Tenn.) 51 820 V. McChesney, 35 N. J. L. 548 937 938 V. McConnell, 90 Iowa 197 ' 200 V. McMaster, 13 N. Dak. 58 854 V. Mason, 96 Mo. 127 835 ' V. Matthews, 129 Ind. 281 405 V. Mendenhall, 24 Wash. 12 221 V. Myers, 9 Mo. App. 44 634 V. Neal, 27 N. H. 131 518 V. Neal, 29 Wash. 391 601, 624, 626, 634 V. Parker, 34 N. J. L. 71 937 V. Park Lumber Co., 58 Minn. 330 249 V. Penman, 2 Desaus. (S. Car.) 1 876 V. Pruitt, 65 Mo. App. 154 297 V. Quick, 10 Iowa 451 591 V. Scoggins, 107 N. Car. 959 518 V. Shacklett, 73 Mo. App. 265 634 V. Shacklett, 115 Mo. App. 715 634 V. Shapleigh Hardware Co., 147 Mo. 36$ 967 V. Simmons, 70 Miss. 485 1050 V. Simmons, 66 N. Car. 622 518 V. Smith, 57 Mo. App. 120 634 V. Spencer, 64 Mo. 355 297 V. Standard Oil Co., 49 Ohio St. 137 193, 968 V. Stems, 28 Kans. 154 518 V. Thomas, 7 Mo. App. 205 297 V. Topeka Water Co., 59 Kans. 151 249 V. United States Express Co., 2 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 257 1058 V. United States Fidelity &c. Co., 4 Pennew. (Del.) 428 634 V. United States Fidelity &c. Co., 135 Mo. App. 160 297 V. Wadsworth, 30 Conn. 55 518 V. Wiggin, 20 N. H. 449 SIS V. Wise, 186 Mo. 42 405 State Bank v. Blanchard, 90 Va. 22 1023 State Nat. Bank v. Butler, 149 HI. 575 83 152 Stateu Auto Co. v. Hogg (Tex. Civ! App.), 160 S. W. 982 854 State Sav. Bank v. Foster, 118 Mich. 268 250 Staver Carriage Co. v. Jones, 32 Okla. 713 557 Staver &c. Co. v. Blake, 111 Mich. 282 148, 1022 Stead V. Salt, 3 Bing. 101 459 Stearnes v. Joy, 41 111. App. 157 389 Stearns v. Brookline, 219 Mass. 238 638, 943 V. Haven, 14 Vt. 540 476 V. Houghton, 38 Vt. 583 598, 617 Stebbins, Ex parte, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 77 826 Stebbins v. Harmon, 24 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 445 913 r. Harmon, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 445 727 V. Willard, 53 Vt. 665 35P, 351, 364, 367, 529 Stecker v. Ontario Seed Co., 20 Ont. L. 359 834 Steckman v. Gait State Bank, 126 Mo. App. 664 71 Stedmau v. Eveleth, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 114 233 Steed, In re, 107 Fed. 682 704 Steeds v. Steeds, L. R. 22 Q. .B. D. 537 623 Steel V. Jennings, Cheves (S. Car.) 183 424 v. Lester, L. R. 3 C. P. Div. 121 509 Steele v. First Nat. Bank, 60 III. 23 418 V. Grossmith, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 141 721 CXXVl TABLE OF CASES TReferences are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Steele V. Michigan Buggy Co., SO Ind. App. 635 55, 83, 91|, 96,, 47S V. Moore, 71 W. Va. 436 731 Steilee v. Kerr, 2 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 175 ~ 554 Stegall V. Coney, 49 Miss. 761 371, 455 Stegman v. Berryhill, 72 Mo. 307 356 Steiger v. Bradley, 34 Wkly. Notes Cas. 123 668- Steiglitz V. Egginton, Holt N. V. 141 422, 459 Stein, In re, 127 Fed. 547 121, 685, 696 Stein V. Benedict, 83 Wis. 603 773 V. La Dow, 13 Minn. 412 458 V. Robertson, 30 Ala. 286 295 Steinberg v. Eagan, 234 Pa. 291 723 V. Faulk, 222 Fed. 61 417 V. Larkin, 58 Kans. 201 626 V. Steiner Land &c. Co., 120 Ala. 128 638 Steinfeld v. National Shirtwaist Co., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 286 329, 553 Steinhart v. Fyhrie, 5 Mont. 463 444, 458 Stephani v. Lent, 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 346 187 Stephens v. Gall, 179 Fed. 938 193 V. Orman, 10 Fla. 9 225, 381, 592, 593 V. State, 14 Ohio 386 518 V. Thompson, 28 Vt. 77 434, 499 V. Turner, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 623 796 Stephenson v. Chiswell, 3 Ves. Jr. 576 836 Stepper v. Bruenn, 28 N. Dak. 1 733 Sterling v. Bock, 40 Minn. 11 422 V. Brightbill, 5 Watts (Pa.) 229 367, 832 V. Chapin, 185 N. Y. 395 398 V. Chapin, 102 App. Div. (N. Y.) 589 715 Stern v. Harris, 40 Minn. 209 850 Sternberg v. Larkin, 58 Kans. 201 290, 626 Sternberger v. Bernheimer, 121 N. Y. 154 826 Sternburg v. Callanan, 14 Iowa 251 558, 559, 561, 562 Sterne v. Goep, 20 Hun (N. Y.) 396 353, 637 Sterrett v. Buffalo Third Nat. Bank, 122 N. Y. 659 825 ,. Buffalo Third Nat. Bank, 10 N. Y. St. 818 ' 291, 832 Stettheimer v. Tone, 114 N. Y. 501 475 Steuart v. Gladstone, 10 Ch. Div. 626 331, 57S Steuben County Bank v. Alburger, 101 N. Y. 202 454 Stevens, In re, 104 Fed. 323 362 Stevens v. Baker, 1 Wash. Ter. 315 743 V. Benning, 1 Kay & J. 168 118 v. Catlin, 44 111. App. 114 492 Stevens v. Clark, 112 Md. 659 675 V. Coburn, 71 Vt. 261 716 v. Cook, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1415 360 V. Faucet, 24 111. 483 103, 812, 900 V. Gainesville Nat. Bank, 62 Tex. 499 83 V. Lunt, 19 Maine 70 358, 802 V. McKibbin, 68 Fed. 406 80 V. McLachlan, 120 Mich. 285 424, 425, 486 V. Perry, 113 Mass. 380 533, 820, 826 V. Rollins, 34 Maine 226 849 v. Stevens, 39 Conn. 474 291, 820 V. Yeatman, 19 Md. 480 275, 715, 729, 732, 773 Stevenson, In re, 93 Fed. 789 704 Stevenson v. Brown, 9 Can. L. J. 110 458 v. Farnsworth, 7 111. 715 854 V. Maxwell, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 273 985, 994 ■V. Sexsmith, 21 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 355 554 Stevenson v. Shields, 7 La. 433 574 Steward v. Blakeway, L. R. 4 Ch. 603 276, 288 Stewart, In re, 62 Iowa 614 270 Stewart, In re, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 408 536 Stewart v. Burkhalter, 28 Miss. 396 620, 633 V. Caldwell, 9 La. Ann. 419 471 V. Forbes, 13 Jur. 523 674 v. Gibson, 7 CI. & F. 707 166, 172 V. Hunter, 1 Handy 22 820 V. Levy, 36 Cal. 159 508 V. M'Intosh, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 233 170 V. Milliken, 30 Mich. 503 985 V. Millsaps (La.), 23 So. 887 294 V. Mynatt, 135 Ga. 637 953 V. Robinson, 115 N. Y. 328 579, 638, 639, 882 V. Sonneborn, 51 Ala. 126 594 V. Terwilliger, 177 Mich. 313 764 Stewart Paper Mfg. Co. v. Rau, 92 Ga. 511 963 Stewart's Estate, In re, 193 Pa. St. .347 526, 536 Stibich V. Goenner, 8 Pa. Dist. 227 715 Stickney v. Smith, 5 Minn. 486 260, 847, 861, 876 Stidger v. Reynolds, 10 Ohio 351 381 Stiewel v. Borman, 63 Ark. 30 889, 910 Stiles V. Easley, 51 111. 275 186 V. Haight, 124 App. Div. (N. Y.) 60 362, 363, 729 Still V. Focke, 66 Tex. 715 530, 552, 820 Stillings V. Young, 161 Mass. 287 820 Stillman v. Harvey, 47 Conn. 26 446, 486 V. Lefferts (Iowa), 82 N. W. 491 902 Stills V. American Nat. Bank, 209 Fed. 749 704 Stillwell v. Gray, 17 Ark. 473 808 Stinson v. Lewis, 36 Vt. 91 719 V. Whitney, 130 Mass. 591 418, 486, 926 Stinson v. Andrews, 166 111. App. 92 ,638 V. Barley (Va.), 4 S. E. 531 664 Stirn V. Hemken, 72 Hun (N. Y.) 91 _ 559 Stirnermaun v. Cowing, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 275 593, 607 Stitt V. Rat Portage Lumber Co., 98 Minn. 52 218, 219, 224, 285, 573 Stitzel V. Ehrman (Ky.), 114 S. W. 280 659, 675 Stitzer v. Fonder, 214 Pa. 117 976, 990 Stix v. Mathews, 63 Mo. 371 . 848, 861 Stoakes v. Larson, 108 Minn. 234 486 Stockdale v. Maginn, 207 Pa. 226 352, 667 V. Ullery, 37 Pa. St. 486 433, 786 Stocken v. Dawson, 6 Beav. 371 352, 637 V. Dawson, 9 Beav. 239 525, 630 Stocker v. Brockelbank, 5 E. L. & E. 67 778 V. Wedderburn, 3 Kay & J. 393 778, 785 Stockham v. Wells, 25 Wkly. Notes Cas.. (Pa.) 84 458 Stockman v. Mitchell, 109 Mich. 348 75 Stockton V. American Tobacco Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 352 249 V. Frey, 4 Gill (Md.) 406 504, 506, 812 Stockwell V. Brewer, 59 Maine 286 121, 291, 306, 935, 939 V. Dillingham, 50 Maine 442 421, 424, 486 V. United States, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 531 503, 515, 518 V. United States, 3 Cliff. (U. S.) 284 506 Stoddard v. Murdock, 37 Mo. 580 984 V. Smith, 11 Ohio St. 581 517 TABLE OF CASES CXXVU [References are to sections — Vol.!, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 61S-1195.] Stoddard V. Wood, 9 Gray (Mass.) 90 675, 741 Stoddard. Bros. Lumber Co., In re, 169 Fed. 190 689 Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Krause, 27 Nebr. 82 594, 926 Stoddart v. Key, 62 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 137 262 V. Van Dyke, 12 Cal. 437 499, 819 Stokes, In re, 106 Fed. 312 687, 688, 703 Stokes V. Burney, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 219 511 V. Ducroz, 62 L. T. (N. S.) 176 937 V. Hodges, 11 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 135 360 V. Stevens, 40 Cal. 391 486, 552 V. Stokes, 128 N. Y. 615 657, 719 Stone V. Aldrich, 43 N. H. 52 741 V. Boone, 24 Kans. 337 25, 761 V. Chamberlin, 20 Ga. 259 434 V. Bowling, 119 Mich. 476 820 V. Fowlkes, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 379 729' V. Manning, 3'I11. 530 537 V. Mattingly, 14 Ky. L. 113 350, 743, 744 V. Neeley, 42 Nebr. 567 848 V. Turfmen's Supply Co., 103 Ky. 318 . 85 V. Wendover, 2 Mo. App. 247 349, 745 V. Wright Wire Co., 199 Mass. 306 985 Stone Co. v. McLamb, 153 N. Car. 378 440, 721 Storer v. Hinkley, Kirby (Conn.) 147 836 Storm V. Cumberland, 18 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 245 729, 766 - V. Roberts, 54 Iowa 677 819 Storrie v. Ft. Worth Stockyards Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 286 451, 819, 861, 924 Story v. Moon, 3 Dana (Ky.) 331 721 V. Richardson, 6 Bing. N. Cas. 123 796, 805, 861 Stothart v. Hardie, 110 La. 696 119 Stoughton V. Lynch, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 467 362, 363, 386, 389, 652 V. Lynch, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 209 276, 661, 668, 727 Stout V. Baker, 32 Kans. 113 497, 827 V. Ennis Nat. Bank, 69 Tex. 384 451, 486 V. Folger, 34 Iowa 71 771 V. Fortner, 7 Iowa 183 371, 829 V. McNeill, 98 N. Car. 1 297 V. Seabrook, 30 N. J. Eq. 187 718, 773 V. Zulick, 48 N. J. L. 599 155, 237, 238, 240 Stoittenburgh v^ Vandenburgh, 7 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 229 820 Stovall V. Clay, 108 Ala. 105 718 Stovatl Grocery Co., In re, 20 Am. Bkr. R. 537 685, 702 Stover V. Flack, 30 N. Y. 64 984, 992 V. Stevens, 21 Cal. App. 261 496, 924 V. Stover, 180 Pa. St. 425 283, 284, 532 Stowe V. Flagg, 72 111. 397 242 Stower V. Kamphefner; 6 Cal. App. 80 728 730 Strader v. White, 2 Nebr. 348 ' 897 Stradley v. Cargill Elevator Co., 135 Mich. 367 1051, 1054 Straker v. Wilson, L. R. 6 Ch. 503 674 Strang, In re, 166 Fed. 779 276 Strang v. Bradner, 114 U. S. 555 508 V. Hirst, 61 Maine 9 808 V. Osborne, 42 Colo. 187 1052, 1053 V. Thomas, 114 Wis. 599 146, 731, 1020 Strange v. Lee, 3 East 484 118, 599 Strangford v. Green, 2 Mod. 228 461 Strathy v. Crooks, 6 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 162 725 V. Ci'ooks, 2 U. C. Q. B. 51 617 Strattan v. Tabb, 8 111. App. 225 350, 356 V. O'Connor (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 158 54, 897 Straus V. Heyeiiga, 41 Hun (N. Y.) ^ 646 850 V. Kerngood, 21 Grat. (Va.) 584 „ 533, 820 V. Kohh, 83 111. App. 497 169, 418, 486, 899 V. Sparrow, 148 N. Car. 309 596 Strause v. Hooper, 105 Fed. 590 ^ , . , . 685, 689, 706 Strauss V. Frederick, 91 N. Car. 121 118, 291. 292, 529 Streat v. Wolf, 135 App. Div. (N. Y.) 81 981, 994 Strebe v. Albert, 1 City Ct. (N. Y.) ,376 ■'1058 Strecker v. Conn, 90 Ind. 469 104, 594, 596, 922, 926 Street v. Thompson, 229 111. 613 75 Streichen v. Fehleisen, 112 Iowa 612 496 Strickland v. Strickland, 95 S. Car. 492 592 Strickler v. Gitchel, 14 Okla. 523 498, 561 Strieby v. Clinton &c. Mfg. Co., 52 N. J. Eq 576 967 Stringfellow v. Wise (Va.), 27 S. E. 432 ■ 1014 Stroff V. Swafford, 81 Iowa 695 530 Stroher v. Siting, 97 N. Y. 102 506 Strohschein v. Kranich, 157 Mich. 335 '980 Stroman v. Varn, 19 S. Car. 307 472 Strong V. Baker, 25 Minn. 442 912, 917 V. Clawson, 10 111. 346 716 V. Hines, 35 Miss. 201 529, 832 V. Hoskin, 85 Wis. 497 276 V. Lord, 107 III. 25 290, 627 Stroud V. Stroud, 61 N. Car. 525 290, 624, 627 V. Wiley, 27 Ont. App. 516 551 Strout V. Hopkins, 11 Ky. L. 63 914 Struthers v. Christal, 3 Daly (N. Y.) „ 327 732 V. Pearce, 51 N. Y. 357 281, 381, 389, 394, 446 Stuart V. Adams, 89 Cal. 367 1048 V. F. G. Stewart Co., 91 Fed. 243 266 i V. Harmon, 24 Ky. L. 1829 674, 765 V. Kerr, 1 Morr. (Iowa) 240 774 V. McKichan, 74 111. 122 349, 878, 914 Stubbings v. O'Connor, 102 Wis. 352 617 Stubbs V. Fleming, 92 Ga. 354 83 Stubendorf v. Sonnenschein, 11 Nebr. 235 847 Studabaker v. Faylor, 170 Ind. 498 189 Studebjker Corp. v. Dodds, 161 Ky. 542 75, 91, 217 Studon V. Dahlenberg, 184 Mo. App. 381 168, 215, 825 Stumph V. Bauer, 76 Ind. 157 277, 292 Stuparick Mfg. Co. v. San Francisco Super. Ct., 123 Cal. 290 722 Sturgeon v. Apollo Oil &c. Co., 203 Pa. 369 1022, 1035, 1037 Sturges V. Swift, 32 Miss. 239 752, 764 Sturm V. Fleming, 22 W. Va. 404 186- Sturt v.- Hellish, 2 Atk. 611 773 Stutz V. Handley, 41 Fed. 531 238 Styers v. Stirrat, 65 Wash. 676 75 Style V. Lantrip (Tex. Civ. App.), 171 S. ' W. 786 788, 795 Styles V. Shaver, 151 App. Div. (N. Y.) 903 400, 715 Suau V. Caffe, 122 N. Y. 308 191 Sugg V. Thorton, 132 U. S. 524 817 Sullivan v. King (Ore.), 136 Pac. 335 994 V. Louisville &c. R. Co., 128 Ala. 77 348 V. Ross, 124 Mich. 287 983, 994 V. Smith, 15 Nebr. 476 458, 626 V. Sullivan, 122 Wis. 326 425, 666 V. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543 265 V. Visconti, 69 N. J. L. 452 444 Sully V. Campbell, 99 Tenn. 434 496 Summerill v. Summerill (N. J. Ch.), 93 Atl. 726 724, 929 CXXVIU TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ l-oOS; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Summerlot v, Hamilton, 121 Ind. 87 425, 591, 919 Summers v. Heard, 66 Ark. 550 371, 525 Summerson v. Donovan, 110 Va. 657 741, 743, 751 Summey v. Patton, 60 N. Car. 601 290, 626, 627 Sumner v. Hampson, 8 Ohio 328 276, 289, 290, 296, 371, 526, 623, 624, 627 Sundberg v. Good, 92 Minn. 143 496 Sun Fire Office v. Wich, 6 Colo. App. 103 299 Suprenant, In re, 217 Fed. 470 551, 591, 592 Sutcliffe V. Dohrman, 18 Ohio 181 829, 830 Sutherland v. Webster, 21 Ont. App. 228 564 Sutlive V. Jones, 61 Ga. 676 301 Sutro V. Wagner, 23 N. J. Eq. 388 585, 587, 720, 721, 789 Sutton V. Clark, 6 Taunt. 29, 35, 42 506 V. Coast Trading Co., 49 Wash. 694 264 V. Dillaye, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 529 603 V. Dudley, 193 Pa. St. 194 967 V. Gregory, Peake's Nisi Prius Cas. 150 431 V. Irwine, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 13 454 V. Mandeville, 1 Cranch C. C. 2 727 V. Weber, 127 Iowa 361 445 Swafford v. White, 28 Ky. L. 119 631, 659, 731, 732 Swails V. Coverdill, 17 Ind. 337 803 Swain v. Frazier, 35 N. J. Eq. 326 434 Swallow, The, Olcott 334 465 Swallow V. Thomas, 15 Kans. 66 306, 939 Swan V. Gilbert, 67 111. App. 236 831 T. Gilbert, 175 111. 204 830, 832 V. Steele, 7 East 209 261, 420, 432, 810 V. Smith, 57 Miss. 548 367 V. Stedman, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 548 301, 422, 440, 473 Swann v. Sanborn, 4 Woods (U. S.) 625 908 Swasey v. Antram. 24 Ohio St. 87 578 Swayne, In re, 1 Clark (Pa.) 457 367 Swearingen v. Bassett, 65 Tex. 267 296 Sweeney v. Girolo, 154 Pa. St. 609 291, 825 V. Horn, 7 Pa. Dist. 391 291 V. Neeley, 53 Mich. 421 . 362, 363, 364 V. Stanford, 67 Cal. 635 847 Sweet V. Bradley, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 549 444, 466 V. Ervin, 54 Iowa 101 121, 796, 847 V. McConnel, 2 Nebr. 1 555 V. Morrison, 103 N. Y. 23S 397, 508 V. Read, 12 R. I. 121 820 V. Sweet, 14 Ind. App. 618 675 V. Wood, 18 R. I. 386 446, 486 Sweetser v. French, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 309 454, 473 Sweetzer v. Mead, 5 Mich. 107 304 Sweney v. Talcott, 85 Iowa 103 231, 235 Swenson v. Erickson, 90 111. App. 358 826 Swepson v. Davis (Tenn. Ch.), 60 S. W. 619 582, 668 Swezey v. Brown, 10 Wkly. Notes Caa. 207 835 Swift, In re, 114 Fed. 947 277, 689 Swift V. Dean, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 523 276 389 V. Scott, 181 Mo. App. 1 ' 901 V. Ward, 80 Iowa 700 _ S76, 659 Swigert V. Aspden, 52 Minn. 565 594 Swing V. Hill, 44 Ind. App. 140 496, 616 V. Taylor, 68 W. Va. 621 954 Swinney v. Burnside, 17 Ark. 38 848 Swire v. Redman, L. R. 1 Q. B. Div. 536 556, 558 Swobe V. New Omaha Thomson-Hous- ton Electric Light Co., 39 Nebr. 586 599 Swofford Bros. Dry-Goods Co. v. Mills, 86 Fed. 556 466, 530 V. Owen, 37 Okla. 616 238, 245 Swoope V. Wakefield, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 342 291, 591 Swope V. Burnham, 6 Okla. 73fi 262, 847 Swords V. Owen, 34 N. Y. Super Ct. „ 277 " 264 Swygert v. Bank of Haralson, 13 Ga. App. 640 93, 436, 889, 901, 903 Syers v. Syers, 1 App. Cas. 174 221, 778 Sykes v. Beadon, 11 Ch. Div. 170 655, 656 V. Sykes, 49 Miss. 190 296, 624, 625, 627 Sylverstein v. Atkinson, 45 Miss. 81 424 Sylvester v. Smith, 9 Mass. 119 813 Symms Grocer Co. v, Burham, 6 Okla. 618 817, 826 Tabb v. Gist, 1 Brock. (U. S./ 33 416, 884 Taber v. Breck, 192 Mass. 255 1055, 1059 Taber-Prang Art Co. v. Durant, 189 Mass. 173 277, 281, 282, 283 Tabler v. Mitchell, 62 Miss. 437 817 Taby v. McMurray, 30 Okla. 602 806 Taft, In re, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 603 353, 637 Taft V. Buflfum, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 322 550, 591 V. Church, 162 Mass. 527 465, 466 V. Church, 164 Mass. 504 819, 826 V. Schwamb, 80 111. 289 275, 291, 357, 359, 668, 670, 732 . V. Ward, 106 Mass. 518 147, 1046 Tait, Ex parte, 16 Ves. 193 696, 705 Tait V. Murphy, 80 Ala. 440 831 Talbert v. Hamlin, 86 S. Car. 523 349 Talbot v. Pierce, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 195 371 V. Wilkins, 31 Ark. 411 466 Talcott V. Dudley, 4 Scam. (111.) 427 579 580 Taliaferro v. Brown, 11 Ala. 702 - ' 564 Tallapoosa County Bank v. Salmon (Ala. App.), 68 So. 542 796 Tallmadge v. Penoyer, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 120 517 Tallman v. Atlantic &c. Ins. Co., 29 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 71 299 Talmadge v. Milliken, 119 Ala. 40 425, 427 Talmage, In re, 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 466 638 Talmage, In re, 161 N. Y. 643 275, 639 Tamblyn v. Scott, 111 Mo. App. 46 „ , 83, 104, 825, 878 Tarns V. Hitner, 9 Pa. St. 441 261, 475, 861 Tannenbaum v. Armeny, 81 Hun (N. Y.) 581 715 Tanner v. Hall, 1 Pa. St.| 417 432, 528 v. Hall, 86 Ala. 305 901, 910 V. Hughes, 21 Ky. L. 77 83, 216 V. Hyde, 2 Colo. App. 443 426 T. Sinaloa Land &c. Co., 43 Utah 14 413 Tapley v. Butterfield, 1 Met. (Mass.) „, 515 304, 422, 440 Tappan v. Bailey, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 529 . 1046 V. Blaisdell, 5 N. H. 190 292, 536, 830 v. Kimball, 30 N. H. 136 468 Tarabino v. Nicoli, 5 Colo. App. 545 715 728 850 Tarbel v. Bradley, 7 Abb. N. Cas'. (NI Y.) 273 290, 301, 302, 440, 442,. 625 Tarbell v. Page, 24 111. 46 155, 238 V. West, 13 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 314 385 V. West, 86 N. Y. 280 444, 552 Tarlton v. Herbert, 4 -Ala. 359 817 Tarver v. Evansville Furniture Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 66 604 Tasker v. Shepherd, 6 Hurl. & N. 575 118, 599, 619 Tassey v. Church, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 141 467 T. Church, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 465 472, 742, 832 TABLE OF CASES CXXIX [Eeferencea are to sections— Vol. I, §§ l-608j Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Tatam v. Williams, 3 Hare 347 718 Tate V. Booe, 9 Ind. 13 564 V. Citizens Mut. F. Ins. Co., 13 Gray (Mass.) 79 803 V. Clements, 16 Fla. 339 468, 472, 486, 600, 927- V. Holly, 21 Colo. App. 451 411, 421, 837 V. Kloke, 93 Nebr. 382 994 Tattersall v. Nevels, 77 Nebr. 843 292, 625 Tawas &c. R. Co. v. Iosco Circuit Judge, 44 Mich. 479 953 Tay V. Hawley, 39 Cal. 93 826 V. Ladd, 15 Gray (Mass.) 296 559 Tayloe v. Bush, 75 Ala. 432 900 Taylor, Ex parte, 12 Ch. D. 366 669 Taylor, Ex parte, 8 DeG. M. & G. 254 188 Taylor v. Bemis, 4 Biss. (U. S.) 406 830 V. Bliley, 86 Ga. 154 721 V. Bradley, 39 N. Y. 129 126, 160, 975, 981 V. Branham, 35 Fla. 297 249, 965 V. Brown, 17 U. C. C. P. 387 758 V. Castle, 42 Cal. 367 152, 279, 1047 V. Cawthorne, 2 Dev. Eq. (N. Car.) 221 732 V. Cawthorne, 17 N. Car. 221 732 V. Church, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 279 805 V. Coffing, 18 III. 422 275, 365, 650, 670 V. Cummer Lumber Co., 59 Fla. 638 139 V. Danley, 83 Kans. 646 284 V. Davis, 3 Beav. 388 787 V. Dorr, 43 W. Va. 351 350 V. Farmer (III.), 4 N. E. 370 291 V. Fields, 4 Ves. 396 292, 829, 830 V. Ford, 131 Cal. 440 400 V. Hardin, 38 Ga. 577 764 V. Hare, 1 Bos. &P. N. R. 260 215 V. Henderson, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 453 817, 826 V. Herring, 10 Bosw. (N. Y.) 447 , 727, 914 V. Herron, 72 Kans. 652 425 V. Hill, 36 Md. 494 604 V. Hillyer, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 433 467 V. Holman, 1 Mill Const. (S. Car.) 172 716 v. Hutchison, 25 Grat. (Va.) 536 577, 659, 674 V. Jones 42 N. H. 25 514 V. Love, 43 N. J. L. 142 306, 937, 938 V. McDonald, 4 Ohio 149 820 V. McLaugrhhn, 120 Ga. 703 624 V. Missouri Glass Co., 6 Tex. Civ. App. 337 529 V. Morrison, 7 Dana (Ky.) 241 718 V. Nelson, 26 Cal. App. 681 221, 753 V. Neute, 39 Ch. D. 538 721 V. New England &c. Min, Co., 4 Allen (Mass.) 577 254 V. Peterson, 1 Idaho 513 362, 363, 731 V. Ragland, 42 La. Ann. 1020 350, 351, 355 V. Rasch, 1 Flipp. (U. S.) 385 1022, 1036 V. Riggs, 8 Kans. App. 323 535 V. Rundell, Craig & P. 104 913 T. Russell, 119 N. Car. 30 720 V. Salmon, 4 Myl. & C. 134 815 V. Seiter, 199' 111. 555 967 V. Slater, 17 R. L 801 836 V. Snell, 79 111. App. 462 359 V. Steinman, 95 Nebr. 217 ^01 V. Taylor, 6 N. Car. 70 295, 674 V. Taylor, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 714 437 V. Taylor, 28' L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 188 657, 658, 718 v» The Robert Campbell, 20 Mo. 254 802 V. Thompson, 62 App. Div. (N. Y.) 159 446 V. Thompson, 176 N. Y. 168 508 V. Watts, 14 Ky. L. 451 S29, 772 Taylor V. Webster, 39 N. J. L. 102 910, 919, 1004 V. Wells, 113 Iowa 326 658, 721 V. Wetmore, 10 Ohio 490 599 V. Wrather, 155 Ky. 25 670, 675, 834 V. Young, 2 Bush (Ky.) 428 668 V. Young, 3 Watts (Pa.) 339 594 Teacher v. Calder, [1899] A. C. 451 677. 723 Teague v. Lindsey, 106 Ala. 266 119, 270, 307, 526, 528 Teas V. Woodru£E (N. J. Ch.), 10 Atl. . 392 103 Tebbetts v. Dearborn, 74 Maine 392 389 Teed v. Elworthy, 14 East 210 796, 797 v. Parsons, 100 111. App. 342 564, 760 V. Parsons, 202 111. 455 165, 166, 486 Teeters v. Lamborn, 43 Ohio St. 144 961 Teets v. Snider Heading Mfg. Co., 120 Ky. 653 817 Teller v. Gerry, 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 126 826 V. Hartman, 16 Colo. 447 854 v. Patten, 20 How. (U. S.) 125 825 V. Wetherell, 9 Mich. 464 804, 835 Temple v. Seaver, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 314 398, 604, 605 Tench v. Roberts, 6 Madd. 145 655 Tendring Hundred Water Works Co. v. Jones, (1903) 2 Ch. 615 503 Teney v. Laing, 47 Kans. 297 634 Tennant, Ex parte, L. R. 6 Ch. Div. 303 104 Tennant v. Dunlop, 97 Va. 234 326, 631. 632, 635 V. Guy, 49 Hun (N. Y.) 610 661, 855 V. McKean, 46 Mo. App. 486 371 Tennent v. Guenther, 31 Mo. App. 429 591 Tennent Shoe Co. v. Birdseye, 105 Mo. App. 696 ' 469 Tennessee Automatic Lighting Co. v. Massey (Tenn. Ch. App.), 56 S. W. 35 238, 247, 250 Tennessee Bank v. McKeage, 11 Rob. (La.) 130 292 Tennessee Valley Bank v. Avery, 9 Ala. App. 363 496, 924 Tenney v. Foote, 95 111. 99 170, 172, 503, 508, 515 V. Johnson, 43 N. H. 144 559, 820 V. New England Protective Union, 37 Vt. 64 579 . V. Simpson, 37 Kans. 579 715, 731 Terens, In re, 175 Fed. 495 694, 698 Terhune v. Hackensack Sav. Bank, 45 N. J. Eq. 344 968 V. Skinner, 45 N. J. Eq. 344 967 Terrell v. Rowland, 86 Ky. 67 353, 637 Terrill v. Richards, 1 Nott & McC. (S. Car.) 20 747, 767 Territory v. Redding, 1 Fla. 242 598 Terry, In re, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 110 1035 Terry v. Carter, 25 Miss. 168 753 V. Piatt, 1 Pennew. (Del.) 185 435 Teschmacher v. Lens, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 594 850 Tessier v. Crowley, 17 Nebr. 207 268 Tevis v. Carter, 111 Ky. 938 746 Tevis v. Tevis, 24 Mo. 535 430 Texas &c. R. Co. v. Missouri Iron & Metal Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 178 S. W. 597 825 Texas Banking & Insurance Co. v. Cohen, 47 Tex. 405 299 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Pool, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 307 469, 854 Texas Drug Co. v. Baker, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 684 531 Texas Loan Agency v. Hunter, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 402 954, 957 Thames v. Schloss, 120 Ala. 470 526 Tharp v. Marsh, 40 Miss. 158 103, 124 Thatcher v. Allen, 58 N. J. L. 240 608 cxxx TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Thayer, In re, 7 Am. L. Rev. 177 146, 1016, 1020 Thayer v. Augustine, 55 Mich. 187 79 V. Badger, 171 Mass. 279 352, 620, 637, 667 V. Buffum, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 398 398 V. Goss, 91 Wis. 90 596, 834 V. Humphrey, 91 Wis. 276 475. 540, 541, 554, 559 V. Lane, Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 200 276, 628 Theall v. Lacey, 5 La. Ann. 548 369 Theilen v. Hann, 27 Kans. 778 260 Theriot v. Michel, 28 La. Ann. 107 581 Theus V. Armistead, 116 La. 795 651 Thibodaux v. Keller, 29 La. Ann. 508 306, 935 Thibodo v. Scobell, 5 Can. L. J. 117 720 Thickson v. Barry, 138 111. App. 100 719 Thieriot, In re, 102 N. Y. S. 952 617, 633 Thillman v. Benton, 82 Md. 64 83, 103 Third Nat. Bank. v. Faults, 115 Mo. App. 42 417, 486 V. Marine Lumber Co., 44 Minn. 65 432 V. Snyder, 10 Mo. App. 211 151 Thirkell v. Strachan, 4 U. C. Q. B. 136 677 Thomas, In re, 8 Biss. (U. S.) 139 697 Thomas v. Atherton, 10 Ch. Div. 185 364, 508, 666 V. Ellmaker, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 98 ' 166 V. Gaboury, 80 Ga. 443 675 V. Gwyn, 131 N. Car. 460 , 597 V. Harding, 8 Greenl. (Maine) 417 466 V. Hardsocg, 137 Iowa 597 418, 433 V. HoUingsworth, 181 Ind. 411 278, 661, 715, 718; 731 V. Hurst, 73 Fed. 372 152, 718 V. Lusk, 13 La. Ann. 277 820 V. Mann, 22 Wyo. 99 616 V. Miles, 3 Ohio St. 274 320 V. Nathan (Fla.), 62 So. 206 817 V. Pennrich, 28 Ohio St. 55 . 371, 455 V. Pyke, 4 Bibb. (Ky.) 418 747, 767 V. Rogers, 44 Hun (N. Y.) 624 674 V. Rumsey, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 26 506 V. Scott, 3 Rob. (La.) 256 472, 757 V. Stetson, 62 Iowa 537 371, 455 V. West Jersey R. Co., 101 U. S. 71 193 V. Winchester Bank, 17 Ky. L. 194 820 V. Winchester Bank, 105 Ky. 694 357, 664, 665, 671 Thompson, Matter of, 10 App. Div. (N. Y.) 40 722 Thompson v. Abbott, 61 Mo. 176 953 V. Bowman, 6 Wall (U. S.) 316 169, 276, 281, 292, 444, 467, 888 V. Briggs, 28 N. H. 40 499, 606 V. Brown, M. & M. 40 450 V. Christie, 138 Pa. St. 230 469 V. Emmert, 15 III. 415 499 V. First Nat. Bank, 111 U. S. 529 . 138, 476, 907 V. Frist, 15 Md. 24 829, 830, 832 V. Grosserand, 131 La. 1056 426, 445, 473, 475 V. Harmon (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 1161 563, 834, 926 v. Holden, 117 Mo. 118 169,. 282, 624, 757 V. Johnson, 40 N. J. L. 220 492 v. Lewis, 34 Maine 167 820, 829, 830 V. Lowe, 111 Ind. 272 291, 552, 555, 650, 659, 741, 764 V. McDonald 84 Ga. 5 796, 834 V. McKee, 43 Okla. 243 218 V. Mallory, 108 Gi. 797 475, 889 V. Nicolai, 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 700 232 V. Noble, 108 Mich. 19 360, 361, 657, 661 V. Percival, 5 B. & Ad. 825 499, 557, 606 V. Piot, 52 Pa. Super. Ct. 305 825, 876 V. Smith, 82 Iowa 59E 751, 767 Thompson V. Snow, 4 Greenl. (Maine) 264 79 V. Spittle, 102 Mass. 207 292, 304, S29 V. Thompson, 4 Ohio St. 333 809 V. Walker, 39 La. Ann. 892 850 V. Walker, 40 La. Ann. 676 715 V. White, 25 Colo. 226 496 V. Young, 90 Md. 72 863 Thomson v. Anderson, L. R. 9 Eq. 523 677 V. Batcheller, 134 App. Div. (N. Y.) 506 78 V. Mylne, 11 Rob. (La.) 349 399 V. Porter, 4 Strob. Eq. (S. Car.)- 58 912 V. Thomson, 1 Bradf. Sur. (N. Y.) 24 644 Thornberg v. Bevill, 6 Jur. 407 746 Thorndike v. De Wolf, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 120 104 Thome v. Bowen, 13 Nebr. 445 624 V. Fox, 67 Md. 67 847 Thornton v. Balcom, 85 Iowa 198 231, 235, 238 V. Dixon, 3 Bro. C. C. 199 289, 623 V. Lambeth, 103 N. Car. 86 371 ■ . V. McDonald, 108 Ga. 3 889 V. McNeill, 23 Miss. 369 677 V. Mersereau, 168 Mo. App. 1 825 V. Proctor, Anstr. 94 726, 729 Thorpe v. Jackson, 2 Y. & C. 553 836 V. Hanscon, 64 Minn. 201 189 V. Pennock Mercantile Co., 99 Minn. 22 526, 962, 965, 967 Thrall v. Crampton, 9 Ben. 218 525 V. Sewardj 37 Vt. 573 602 Thurber v. Corbin, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 215 434, 558, 564 V. Mclntire, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 590 562 Thurlow V. Warren, 82 Maine 164 297 Thursby v. Lidgerwood, 69 N. Y. 198 276 292, 601 Thurston v. Fairman, 9 Hun (N. Y.) 584 174 V. Hamblin, 199 Mass. 151 .982, 985, 986 V. Lloyd, 4 Md. 283 852, 878 Thwaites v. Coulthwaite (1896), 1 Ch. 496 170, 175, 656 Tibballs V. Libby, 87 111. 142 232, 234 Tibbatts v. Tibbatts, 6 McLean 80 126 Tibbetts v. Magruder, 9 Dana (Ky.) 79 367, 666 Tibbs v. Parrott, 1 Cranch C. C. 313 861 Tichenor v. Newman, 186 111. 264 331, 753 Ticonic Bank v. Harvey, 16 Iowa 141 832 Tide Water Pipe' Co. v. Kitchenman, 108 Pa. St. 630 1055 V. State Board of Assesors, 57 N. J. L. 516 306, 943 Tiemann v. Molliter, 71 Mo. 512 733 Tieman v. Sachs, 52 Ore. 560 746 Tierney v. Klein, 67 Misc. 173. 331 Tiffany v. Hess, 67 Misc. (N. Y.) 258 835 Tilford V. Forsythe, 14 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 335 350 V. Ramsay, 37 Mo. 563 261, 265. 421, 528 Till V. Roy, 3 Nebr. 261 297 Tillar v. Cook, 77 Va. 477 773, 774 Tillery v. Tillery, 155 Ala. 495 616, 617 Tilley V. Coykendall, 172 N. Y. 587 238 Tilli V. Vandegrift, 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 485 857 ■ Tillier v. Whitehead, 1 Dall. (Pa.) 269 448 Tillinghast v. Champlin, 4 R. I. 173 281, 288, 290, 444, 526, 617, 624, 625, 626, 627, 728 V. Gilmore 17 R. I. 413 459 461 V. Walton, 4 N. Y. St. 35 1037 Tillis V. Folmar, 145 Ala. 176 219, 561, 767 Tillman v. Shackleton, 15 Mich. 447 190. Tillotson V. Paquet, 74 Ore. 539 383, 733 v. Tillotson, 34 Conn. 335 350, 353, 616, 631, 633 TABLE OF CASES CXXXl IReferences are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-119S.] Tillou V. Kingston Mut. Ins. Co., S N. Y. 405 299 Timberlake v. Hughes, 65 Mo. App. 640 983 Timothy v. Hindley, 14 Wkly. Rep 382 732 Tindal v. Bright, Minor (Ala.) 103 741 Tindel v. Park, 154 Pa. St. 36 773, 1003, 1026, 1059 Tinkum v. O'Neale, 5 Nev. 93 796, 811 Tinnin v. Brown, 98 Miss. 378 444, 453 Tipton V. Nance, 4 Ala. 194 741 Tirrell v. Jones, 39 Cal. 655 360 Tirry v. Hogan (Mo. App.), 163 S. W. 873 826 Tisch V. Rockafellow, 209 Pa. St. 419 158, 639 Tischler v. Kurtz, 35 Fla. 323 422, 471 Titcomb v. James, 57 111. App. 296 512, 518 Title & Trust Co. v. Bell, 188 Pa. St. 637 626 Titman v. Twelfth Ward Bank, 12 N. Y. S. 634 620 Tittenson v. Peat, 3 Atk. 529 677, 717 Titus V. Neilson, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 452 296 V. Todd, 25 N. J. Eq. 458 499, 606 Tobey v. Wood, 123 Mass. 88 188 Tobias v. Blin,_21 Vt. 544 79 V. Commercial Sav. Bank, 136 Mich, 135 555 V. Wierck, 30 App. Div. (N. Y.) 486 596 Todd V. Jackson, 75 Ind. 272 486 V. Lee, 15 Wis. 365 578 V. Lorah, 75 Pa. St. 155 237, 371, 527, 528 V. Railerty, 30 N. J. Eq. 254 176, 389, 396, 652, 653, 655, 656, 718 V. Rich 2 Tenn. Ch. 107 721 Tolan V. Carr 12 Daly (N. Y.) 520 389, 673 Toland v. Lutz, 2 Ohio C. C. 453 420 Tolford V. Tolford, 44 Wis. 547 733 Tolhurst V. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers, (1903) A. C. 414 834 Tom V. Goodrich, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 213 849 Tomah Bank v. Warren, 94 Wis. 151 328 Tomlins v. Lawrence, 3 M. & P. 555 260, 451 Tomlinson v. Broadsmith (1896), 1 Q. B. 386 469, 818 V. Burke, 10 N. J. L. 295 265, 795 V. Collett, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 436 500 V. Hammond, 8 Iowa 40 555 V. Spencer, 5 Cal. 291 810 V. Ward, 2 Conn. 396 728 Tompkins v. Levy, 87 Ala. 263 265 V. Tompkins, 18 S. Car. 1 579, 639 V. Wheeler, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 106 621 V. Woodyard, 5 W. Va. 216 270, 435, 527, 528 Toof V. Duncan, 45 Miss. 48 511, 516 Toombs V. Hill, 28 Ga. 371 535, 536 Toothe V. Kittredge, 24 Can. Sup. Ct. 287 718 Tootle V. Cook, 4 Colo. App. Ill 499, 556, 558 V. Jenkins, 82 Tex. 29 622, 639 V. Rice, 53 Kans. 576 473 Topeka Water &c. Co. v. Root, 56 Kans. 187 189 Topliff V. Jackson, 12 Gray (Mass.) 565 559, 727, 912, 914 V. Vail, Harr. (MichJ 340 531, 554 Topping, Ex parte, 4 DeG. J. & S. 551 538 Topping V. Paddock. 92 I11.^92^^^_^^^^^^^ Torbe V.Strauss, 155 Wis. n8^^^^^^^^^^^ Torbert v. Jeffrey 161 Mo. 645 104, 716 Torrens v. Campbell, 74 Pa. St. 470 558 Torrent v. Yager, 52 Mich. 506 941 Torrey v. Baxter, 13 Vt. 452 499, S92, 593 Torrey V. Shawano County, 79 Wis. 152 306, 939 V. Twombly, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 149 364, 850 Toulmin v. Copland, 3 Y. & C. Exch. 625 661, 716 Tournade v. Hagedorn, 5 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 288 215, 486 V. Methfessel, 3 Hun (N. Y.) 144 1035 Towers v. Errington, 78 Misc. (N. Y.) 297 lis, 503 V. Moor, 2 Vern. 98 492 Towle V. Blake, 38 Me. 95 917 V. Dunham, 76 Mich. 251 384 V. Hammond, 99 Fed. 510 551 V. Meserve, 38 N. H. 9 741 V. Pierce, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 329 719 Towler v. Bull, 3 Kans. App. 626 634 Town V. Hendee, 27 Vt. 258 ' 414 Townend v. Townend, 1 Gifford 201 638, 727 Towner v. Lane, 9 Leigh (Va.) 262 295, 674 Townsend v. Anger, 3 Conn, 354 719 V. Bogart, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 355 508, 822 V. Goewey, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 424 746, 747, 1046 V. Hagar, 72 Fed. 949 469 V. Jarman (1900). 2 Ch. 698 553, 660 V. Meyers, 123 N. Y. S. 1075 715 V. Stephenson, 4 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 59 499 Townshend v. Goodfellow, 40 Minn. 312 265 Tracy v. Perry, 5 N. H. 504 518 V. Suydam, 30'Barb. (N. Y.) 110 496, 836 V. Tuffly, 134 U. S. 206 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1022, 1023, 1025, 1028, 1033, 1034, 1036 V. Walker, 1 Flip. (U. S.) 41 526, 554 Tradesman Nat. Bank v. Young, 15 App. Div. (N. Y.) 109 967 Trafford v. Hubbard, 15 R. L 326 820 Trainor v. Robyn, 164 Iowa 508 902 Tramel v. Guaranty State Bank &c. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 176 S. W. 65 826 Traphagen v. Burt, 67 N. Y. 30 218, 276, 773 Travers v. Dyer, 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) 178 774 Travis v. Milne, 9 Hare 141 657 V. Tartt, 8 Ala. 574 496, 630 Trayes v. Johns, 11 Colo. App. 219 215 Treacy v. Power, 112 Minn. 226 671 Treadwell v. Brown, 41 N. H. 12 761 V. Brown, 43 N. H. 290 292 ' V. Wells, 4 Cal. 260 596 V. Williams, 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 649 291, 601, 628 Treat v. Hiles, 68 Wis. 344 212 V. Hiles, 81 Wis. 280 769 Tredwen v. Bourne, 6 M. & W. 461 152 Tregea v. Mills, 11 Wyo. 438 624 Trego V. Hunt (1896), A. C. 7 316, 317, 319, 369, 553, 787 Treiber v. Lanahan 23 Md. 116 166 Trentman v. Swartzell, 85 Ind. 443 371, 528 Trexler v. Africa, 42 Pa. Super. Ct. 542 284 T. R. Foley Co. v. McKinley, 114 Minn. 271 25, 26, 80, 83, 103 Trickett v. Moore, 34 Kans. 755 820 Trimble v. Coons, 2 A. K. Marsh (Ky.) 375 422 V. Strother, 25 Ohio St. 378 809 Trinity College v. Travellers' Ins. Co., 113 N. Car. 244 293 CXXXU TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Troll y. St. Louis, 257 Mo. 626 281, 534, 836 Troster v. Dann, 83 Misc. (N. Y.) 399 222 775 Trott V. Irish, 1 Allen (Mass.) 481 ' 802 Troup's Case, 29 Beav. 353 • 668 Trowbridge v. Cross, 117 111. 109 290, 291, 296, 624, 625 V. Pitcher, 4 Ark. 157 854 V. Sanger, 4 Ark. 179 861 V. Scudder, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 83 237 241 245 V. Wetherbee, 11 Allen (Mass.} 36l' 218 Troy V. Morse, 22, Wash. 280 967 Troy Iron, &c. Factory v. Winslow, -1 Ban. & A. 98, 11 Blatchf. 513 836 Trudel v. Butori, 19 Cal. App. 584 264 True V. Congdon, 44 N. H. 48 796 Truesdell v. Baker, 2 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 351 574 Truitt V. Baird, 12 Kans. 420 743, 746, 747 Trull V. Ti-ull, 13 Allen (Mass.) 407 517 Trullinger v. Corcoran, 81 Pa. St. 395 454 Trumbo v. Hamel, 29 S. Car. 520 530 Trumbull v. Union Trust Co., 33 111. App. 319 458, 471 Trump V. Baltzell, 3 Md. 295 675 Trundle v. Edwards, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 572 808 835 Trust Co. V. Floyd, 47 Ohio St. 525 ' 250 Trustees v. Oland, 35 N. S. 409 . 103 Trustees of Leake & Watts Orphan House V. Lawrence, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 80 630 Tucker, In re [1894], 3 Ch. 429 562 Tuckeir V. Adams, 63 N. H. 361 154, J70 V. Cole, 54 Wis. 539 469, 510, 511 V. Murphy, 114 Ga. 662 564, 760 V. Oxiey, 5 Cranch (U. S.) 34 496 V. Page, 69 111. 179 ■ 677, 861 V. Peaslee, 36 N. H. 167 389, 419, 433, 486, 888, 916 Tufts V. Latshaw, 172 Mo^ 359 638 TuUer v. Leaverton, 143 Iowa 162 121, 265, 291, 294, 371, 552 Tumlin v. Bryan, 165 Fed. 166 686 V. Goldsmith, 40 Ga. 221 896, 910 Tune, In re, 115 Fed. 906 704 Tun^tall V. Wormley, 54 Tex. 476 265 Tupper V. Annand, 16 Can. Sup. Ct. 718 715 V. Foulkes, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 797 422 Turk V. Nicholson, 30 Iowa 407 599 Turnbow v. Broach, 75 Ky. 455 606 TurnbuU v. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 183 Mich. 213 264 V. Pomeroy, 140 Mass. 117 352 Turner v. Bissell, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 192 76, 81 V. Coljins, 1 Mart. (N.. S.) (La.) 369 835 V. Mcllhany, 6 Cal. 287 910 V. Major, 3 Giff. 442 779, 787 V. Otis, 30 Kans. 1 668, 675 V. Eeynall, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 328 200 V. Smith, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 304 823, 829 V. Turner, 9 Ky. L. 456 666, 731 V. Turner (Ky.), 16 S. W. 137 636 V. Turner, 98 Md. 22 672 V. Weston, 133 N. Y. ,650 664 Turnes v. Johnson, 179 111. App. 32 264 Turnipseed v. Goodwin, 9 Ala. 372 295, 360, 361, 586, 674, 727, 878 Turquand, Ex parte, 2 M. D. & D. 339 215 Turquand v. Wilson, 1 Ch. D. 85 731 Turregano v. Barnett, 127 La. 620 115 Tutt, In re, 41 Mo. App. 662 637 Tutt V. Addams, 24 Mo. 186 420, 852 V. Cloney, 62 Mo. 116 563, 718 V. Davis, 13 Cal. App. 715 285, 444 V. Land, 50 Ga. 339 360, 362 Tuttle V. Cooper, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 414 446 V. Cooper, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 281 848 Tuttle V. Harris (N. J. Eq.), 92 Atl. 596 451 Tuyes v. Avegno, 23 La, Ann. 177 364, 983, 984 Twibill V. Perkins, 8 La. Ann. 132 151 Twibill's Succession, 14 La. Ann. 645 634 Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. 5. 587 1057 Tygart v. Albritton, 5 Ga. App. 412 769 V. Wilson, 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 58 383, 387, 659, 661, 670 Tyler v. Creditors, 9 Rob. (La.) 372 458 V. Omeis, 76 Minn. 537 475 V. Scott, 45 Vt. 261 486 V. Teter (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 906 75 V. Tyler, 78 Mo. App. 240 418, 424 V. Waddingham, 58 Conn. 375 69, 472, 486, 500 Tynberg v. Cohen, 67 Tex. 220 811, 826 Tyner v. Stoops, 11 Ind. 22 434, 499 Tyng V. Thayer, 8 Allen (Mass.) 391 667, 731 Tyree v. Lyon, 67 Ala. 1 425, 473 Tyrrel v. Milliken, 135 Mo. App. 293 854 Tyrrell v. Washburn, 88 Mass. 466 1053 V. Washburn, 6 Allen (Mass.) 466 651 Tysen v. Somerville, 35 Fla. 219 .809 Tyson, V. Bryan, 84 Nebr. 202 81 V. Pollock, 1 Penn. & W. (Pa.) 375 450 U Uhl V. Bingaman, 78 Ind. 365 596, 834, 926 V. Harvey, 78 Ind. 26 596, 896, 898, 907 Uhlendorf v. Kaufman, 41 111. App. 373 437 Uhler V. Semple, 20 N. J. Eq. 288 275, 290, 296, 341, 371 381, 624, 625, 627 Ulery v. Ginrich, 57 III. 531 425, 426 Ulman v. Briggs, 32 La. Ann. 655 1007, 1009, 1020, 1036, 1055 ■ Ullman, In re, 180 Fed. 944 685 Ullman v. Myrick, 93 Ala. 532 444, 450 Umbarger v. Plume, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 461 558 Underwriters v. Wiey (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 629 854 Union Bank, In re, 184 Fed. 224 685, 687, 694, 698 Union Bank v. Eaton, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 499 437 V. Hall, Harp. (S. Car.) 245 602 V. Hodges, 11 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 480 499 V. Kansas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223 304, 440 Union Brewing Co. v. Inter-State Bank & Trust Co., 240 111. 454 261, 291 Union India Rubber Co. v. Hibbard, 6. U. C. (C. P.) 77 249 Union Nat. Bank v. Dean, 154 App. Div. (N. Y.) 869 594, 596, 834 V. Neill, 149 Fed. 711 424, 432 v. Neill, 149 Fed. 720 689 v. Underbill, 21 Hun (N. V.) 178 432, 486 V. Underbill, 102 N. Y. 336 415, 433, 435, 486, 487, 888 V. Wickham, 18 Ohio C. C. 685 427 Union Nut &c. Co. v. Doherty, 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 23 455 •V. Doherty, 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 247 432 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Metcalf, 50 Nebr. 452 808 Union Pottery Co. v. Ginder, 2 Lane. L. Rev. (Pa.) 345 827 Union Triist Co. v. Shoemaker, 258 111. 564 630, 836 Union Wine Co. v. Green, 62 Misc. (N. Y.) 551 265 United Dressed Beef Co. v. Burwell, 140 App. Div. (N. Y.) 131 596 TABLE OF CASES CXXXlll [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. 11, i§ 615-1195.] United Nat. Bank v. Weatherby, 70 App. Div. (N. Y.) 279 536 United States v. American Bell Tele- phone Co., 29 Fed. 17 817 V. Ames, 99 U. S. 35 493 V. Archer, 1 Wall. Jr. (U. S.) 173 493 V. Astley, 3 Wash. C. C. 508 422, 454 V. Baulos, 5 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 567 291 V. Baxter, 46 Fed. 350 471, 503, 510 V. Behan, 110 U. S. 338 770 V. Brod, Fed. Cas. No. 14,653 422 V. Duncan, 4 McLean (U. S.) 607 536 V. Grossmayer. 9 Wall. (U. S.) 72 186 V. Gumm, 9 N. Mex. 611 496 V. Hughes, 161 Fed. 1021 496, 848 V. Lawrence, 14 Blatchf. 229 422 V. McGinnis, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 120 518 V. Price, 9 How. (U. S.) 83 492 V. Thomasson, 4 Biss. (U. S.) 99 515, 518 V. Turner, 2 Bond. (U. S.) 379 422, 471 V. United States Fidelity &c. Co., 123 N. Y. S. 938 618 V. Williams (U. S.), 4 McLean 236 292, 830, 831, 832 United States Bank v. Binney, 5 Mason (U. S.) 176 139, 261, 369, 433, 486, 489, 852, 878, 915, 923 United States Exch. Bank v. Zimmer- man, 113 N. Y. S. 33 432 United States Exp. Co. v. Bedbury, 34 111. 459 • 121, 796, -806 United States Nat. Bank v. Underwood, 2 App. Div. (N. Y.) 342 558 United States Wood Preserving Co. v. Lawrence (Conn.) 95 Atl. 8 91, 901, 905 Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram, 43 N. H. 636 239 University v. Finch, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 106 186 Unruh's Estate, In re, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 337 716 Un Wong V. Kan Chu, 5 Haw. 225 , 627 Updike V. Doyle, 7 R. L 446 719 Upham V. Hewitt, 42 Wis. 85 103 Upson V. Arnold, 19 Ga. 190 307 Upton V. Johnston, 84 Wis. 8 169, 675, 897 Ursuline Nuns v. Connelly, 22 La. Ann. 51 820 Urton V. Hunter, 2 W. Va. 83 811 Usher v. Ayleward, 1 Vern. 360, 361 623 V. Waddingham, 62 Conn. 412 434, 486, 499 Ussery v. Crusman (Tenn. Ch. App.) 47 S. W. 567 146, 638, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1019, 1026, 1034, 1036 Utley V. Smith, 24 Conn. 290 667 Utter V. McLean, S3 Hun (N. Y.) 568 826 Vaccaro v. Security Bank, 103 Fed. 436 685, 686, 696, 702 V. Toof, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 194 594 Vaiden v. Hawkins (Miss.), 6 So. 227 103, 364, 445, 454, 486, 487, 661, 718 Vail V. Winterstein, 94 Mich. 230 190 Valentin v. Sarrett, 25 Idaho 517 350, 850, 851 Valentine v. Gilborne, 27 S. Dak 309 850 V. Hickle, 39 Ohio St. 19 223 V. Wysor, 123 Ind. 47 635 Vallandingham v. Duval, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 262 862 Vallett V. Parker, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 615 848, 852, 876, 878 Valton V. National Loan Fund &c. Soc, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 9 . 298 Van Aernam v. Blustein, 102 N. Y. 355 147, 1001, 1046, 1051, 1058 Van Aken v. Clark, 82 Iowa 256 290, 291, 719 Van Alstyne v. Cook, 25 N. Y. 489 722, 1024, 1032 Van Bergen v. Lehmaier, 72 Hun (N. Y.) 304 469 Van Bokkelen v. Berdell, 130 N. Y. 141 729 Van Bossum v. Walker, 11 Barb. 237 (1851) 528 Van Brocklen v. Smeallie, 140 N. Y. 70 624 Van Brunt v. Harrigan, 8 S. Dak. 96 847 V. Mather, 48 Iowa 503 425, 486, 901 V. Taylor, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 123 424 Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 148 111. 9 284 Vance v. Blair, 18 Ohio 532 221, 418, 745, 747, 767, 834 V. Cowing, 13 Ind. 460 836 V. McNabb Coal &c. Co., 92 Tenn. 47 953 Vancleave v. Nelson, 49 La. Ann. 621 592 Van Damm v. Van Damm, 140 N. Y. S. 1005 617 Vandegrift v. Vandegrift, 226 Pa. 254 173, 175, 177, 655 Vandenheuvel v. Storrs, 3 Conn. 203 808 Vanderbilt v. Richmond Turnpike Co., 2 N. Y. 479 509 Vanderburgh v. Bassett, 4 Minn. 242 450, 511, 820 V. Hull, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 70 88 Vandergriff v. Berton, 83 App. Div. (N. Y.) f48 262 Vanderhurst v. De Witt, 95 Cal. 57 79, 83, 475, 888 Vandervoort v. Palmer, 4 Duer. (N. Y.) 677 ' 817 Van Deusen v. Blum, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 229 ' 422 V. Crispell, 114 App. Div. (N. Y.) 361 397 Vandever v. Clark, 16 Ark. 331 491 Vandike v. Rosskam, 67 Pa. St. 330 292, 1008, 1016, 1019, 1020 Vandike's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 9 832 Van Dolsen v. Abendroth, 1 N. Y. City C. 469 , 1020 Van Doren v. Horton, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 7 601 Van Duzer v. McMillan, 37 Ga. 299 350, 352 V. W. F. Zimmerman Lumber Co. (Miss.), 43 So. 177 75 Van Dyk v. Mosterdt (Iowa), 153 N. W. 206 413, 796 Van Dyke v. Carleton, 61 N. H. 574 935 V. Jackson, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 419 660 V. Seelye, 49 Minn. 557 471, 473 Van Eps v. Dillaye, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 244 434, 499, 604, 817 Van Fleet v. King, 33 App. Cas. (D. C.) 47 729 Vanhorn v. Corcoran, 127 Pa. St. 255 146, 239, 1007, 1008, 1014, 1020 V. Van Horn (N. J.), 20 Atl. 826 664, 729 Vanhoosier v. Dunlap, 117 Mo. App. 529 854, 861 Van Housen v. Copeland, 180 111. 74 218, 284, 350, 674 V. Copeland, 79 111. App. 139 886 Van Ingen v. Whitman, 62 N. Y. 513 1008, 1015, 1016, 1019, 1020, 1029, 1031, 1055 Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 N. Y. 523 468, 600, 927 Van Kirk v. Wilds, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 520 820 Van Kleeck v. McCabe, 87 Mich. 599 547, 579, 808, 835, 836, 907 Van Kuren v. Trenton Locomotive &c. Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 302 103, 193, 576, 720, 781 CXXXIV TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. 11, §§ 615-1195.] Van Leyen v. Wreford, 81 Mich. 606 493 Van Loon v. Lindsay (Pa.), 12 Luz. Leg. Reg. (N. S.) 93 668 Vann v. Husseyr 46 N. Car. 381 291 Van Natta v. Harroun Real Estate Co., 221 Mo. 373 795, 817 Vanneman v. Young, 52 N. J. L. 403 238 Van Ness v. Corkins, 12 Wis. 186 494 V. Fisher, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 236 769 • V. Forrest, 8 Cranch (U. S.) 33 752 V. Van Ness, 32 N. J. Eq. 669 727 Vannoy v. Klein, 122 Ind. 416 888 Van Reimsdyk v. Kane, 1 Gall. (U. S.) 630 260, 433, 486 Van Rensselaer v. Emery, 9 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 135 291, 789 Van Riper v. Poppenhausen, 43 N. Y. 68 836, 1003, 1014, 1020, 1027, 1036, 1055 Van Slyck v. Skinner, 41 Mich. 186 302, 442 Van Staden v. Kline, 64 Iowa 180 468, 626 Van Tassel v. Williams, 76 Hun (N. • Y.) 503 825 Van Tine v. Hilands, 131 Fed. 124 175, 656, 976i 982 V. Hilands, 142 Fed. 613 349, 674, 730 Van Valkenburg v. Bradley, 14 Iowa 108 474, 604, 605, 607 Van Vleet v. Sledge, 45 Fed. 743 718 Van Voorhis V. Webster, 85 Hun (N. Y.) 591 275, 276, 277 Vanzandt v. Massey, 12 Fhila. (Pa.) 340 854 V. Winters, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 181 826 Van Zuuk v. Pothoven, 132 Iowa 19 536 Varnum v. Winslow, 106 Iowa 287 554, 673 Vattier v. Roberts, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 255 1057 Vaughan v. Kuiath, 44 Mont. 484 263, 264 V. McGannon, 52 Ark. 244 861 Vaught V. Hogue, 32 Ky. L. 1061 218 Vawdrey v. Simpson [1896], 1 Ch. 166 677 Veal V. The Keely Co., 86 Ga. 130 528 V. Hassan, 3 MoCord (S< Car.) 278 603 Vechsler v. Blitzer, 16S App. Div. (N. Y.) 967 675, 733 Veck V. Culbertson (Tex. Cxv. App.), 42 S. W. 253 664 Veeder v. Mudgett, 95 N. Y. 295 232 233 Veith V. Ress, 60 Nebr. 52 721 722 743 Venable v. Levick, 2 Head (Tenn.)' 351 381, 414, 421, 445, 455, 486, 487 V. Stevens, 94 Ga. 281 562 Veneman v. Ruckle, 120 111. App. 251 731 Venning v. Leckie, 13 East 7 747, 749 Vennum v. Palmer, 123 111. App. 619 222 Vere v. Ashby, 10 B. & C. 288 809 Vergennes Bank v. Cameron, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 143 600 Vermeule v. Vermeule, 82 N. J. Eq. 434 994 Vermillion V. Bailey, 27 111. 230 725 Vernam v. Harris, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 451 499, 606 Vernon v. Manhattan Co., 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 524 596 V. Manhattan Co., 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 183 • 563 V. Upson, 60 Wis. 418 530 Very v. Clarke, 177 Mass. 52 ' 532 Vetsch V. Neiss, 66 Minn. 459 412, 425, 426, 486 Vetter v. Lentzinger, 31 Iowa 182 652 Vetterlein, In re, 44 Fed. 57 688 V. Barnes, 6 Fed. 693 554, 598 Vetterlein V. Barnes, 124 U. S. 169 693 Vibbard v. Roderick, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 616 104 Vich V. Watts, 155 Iowa 664 889, 895 Vickerman, In re, 29 Am. Bkr. R. 298 704 Vickery v. Stemm, 140 N. Y. S. 1007 743 Victor V. Glover, 17 Wash. 37 529, 530 V. Spalding, 202 Mass. 234 121, 596 Victoria Lumber Co. v. Montgomery, 130 La. 120 470, 487 Vienne v. Harris, 14 La. Ann. 382 852 857 Vilas V. Farwell, 9 Wis. 460 ' 579 Vilas Bank v. Bullock, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 309 1003, 1018, 1019 Viles V. Bangs, 36 Wis. 131 371, 455, 803 Villa V. Jonte, 17 La. Ann. 9 886 Vinal V. Burrill, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 401 600 Vinall V. Hendricks, 33 Ind. App. 413 322 Vince, In re, 2 Q. B. 478 214 Vincent v. Martin, 79 Ala. 540 615, 633, 638, 639 V. Moriarty, 31 App. Div. (N. Y.) 484 173 Vinegar Bend Lumber Co. v. Hamilton- Brown Shoe Co., 129 Ala. 271 847 V. Howard, 186 Ala. 451 445, 919 Vinsen v. Lockard, 7 Bush (70 Ky.) 458 188 Violett V. Fairchild, 6 La. Ann. 193 550, 563 Virginia Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 90 Va. 658 299 V. Vaughan, 88 Va. 832 299 Vittitow V. McKinney, 99 Ark. 602 905 Vliet V. Simanton, 63 N. J. L. 458 253 Voegtlin v. Bowdoin, 54 Misc. (N. Y.) 254 977 Voigt Brewery Co. v. Pacifico, 139 Mich. 284 847 Voisen v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 62 Hun (N. Y.) 4 298 Vokes V. Eaton, 119 Ky. 913 247 Volk V. Roche, 70 111. 297 399 Von Breman v. MacMonnies, 200 N. Y. 41 315, 316, 318, 322 Vonderbank v. Schmidt, 44 La. Ann. 264 319 Von Phul V. New Orleans, 24 La. Ann. 261 306, 942 Von Schmidt v. Von Schmidt, 115 Cal. 239 358 Von Tagen v. Roberts, 2 Pearson (Pa.) 137 576 V. Roberts, 4 Leg. Op. (Pa.) 610 850 Voorhees v. Jones, 29 N. J. L. 270 75, 77, 425, 426 Voorhies v. Baxter, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 43 836 Voorhis V. Childs, 17 N. Y. 354 492, 496, 630, 808, 835 Vose v. Philbrook, 3 Story (U. S.) 335 719, 815, 836 Voshmik v. Urquhart, 91 Wis. 513 458 Vosper V. Kramer, 31 N. J. Eq. 420 371, 554 Voss v. Sylvester, 203 Mass. 233 191 Vredenburg v. Behan, 33 La. Ann. 627 155, 243, 245, 247, 965 Vredenburgh v. Lagan, 28 La. Ann. 941 427 Vyse V. Foster, L. R. 7 H. L. 318 658 W Wabash Portland Cement Co. v. Bra- cey, 160 111. App. 18 854 Wachter v. Heman, 82 Mo. App. 243 715 Waddell v. Cook, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 47 292, 830 Waddington v. Vredenbergh, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 227 367, 558 Wade V. Hornaday, 92 Kans. 293 68, 217 TABLE OF CASES CXXXV [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Wade V. Kendrick, 37 Can. S. Ct. 32 420 V. Martin, 157 Ala. 21"S 276 V. Rusher, 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) S37 371, 669, 719 Wadhams v. Page, 1 Wash. 420 556 Wadhams v. Page, 6 Wash. 103 262 Wadley v. Jones, 55 Ga. 329 723, 746, 767, 816 Wadsworth v. Duncan, 164 111. 360 1001, 1045, 1049. 1053 V. Manning, 4 Md. 59 81, 103, 747, 753, 768 Wager v. Wagoner, 53 Nebr. 511 189 Waggoner v. First Nat. Bank, 43 Nebr. 84 25, 104, 825 V. day, 2 Hen. & Mun. (Va.) 603 362, 719 V. Minter, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 173 773 Wagner v. Buttles, 151 Wis. 668 69, 75, 905 V. Freschl, 56 N. H. 495 432, 604 V. Sanders, 49 S. Car. 192 718, 719, 882 V. Simmons, 61 Ala. 143 151, 425, 426 V. Wagner, SO Cal. 76 657 Wagnon v. Clay, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 257 919 Wagoner v. Warne (N. J.), 14 Atl. 215 720 Wahl V. Barnum, 116 N. Y. 87 212 Wahouma Drug Co. v. Clay (Ala.), 69 So. 82 826 Waisner v. Waisner, 15 Wyo. 420 659 Wait V. Brewster, 31 Vt. 516 606, 608 V. McKibben, 92 Kans. 394 861 V. Wait, 28 Vt. 350 961 Waite, In re, 1 Lowell (U. S.) 207 399 Waite V. Aborn, 60 App. Div. (N. Y.) 520 850 V. Dodge, 34 Vt. 181 139, 797, 798 V. Foster, 33 Maine 424 471, 605, 607 V. High, 96 Iowa 742 420, 466 V. Merrill, 4 Greenl. (Me.) 102 142 V. Vinson, 14 Mont. 405 450 Waits V. McClure, 10 Bush (Ky.) 763 811, 861 Wakeham, In re, L. R. 13 Q. B. Div. 43 118 Wakeman v. Somarindyck, 73 App. Div. (N. Y.) 601 169 Walburn v. Ingilby, 1 Myl. & K. 61 147, 815 Walcoff V. Bittker, 67 Misc. (N. Y.) 414 988 Walcott V. Canfield, 3 Conn. 194 506 V. Hanaford, 2 Porto Rico Fed. 444 729 Waldeck v. Brande, 61 Wis. 579 557 Walden v. Sherburne, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 409 52. 83, 424, 600, 888, 916, 927 Walgamood v. Randolph, 22 Nebr. 493 876 Waldo V. Beckwith, 1 N. Mex. 97 861 V. Martin, 4 B. 8e C. 319 174 Waldo Bank v. Greely, 16 Maine 419 486, 852, 876, 878 Waldron v. Simmons, 28 Ala. 629 836 Wales V. Chamblin, 19 Mo. 500 854 V. Dennis, 9 Wash. 308 ,, 721 Walford v. Harris, 78 Hun (N. Y.) 341 658 Walkenshaw V. Perzel, 32 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 233 1013, 1022, 1025, 1027, 1030, 1032, 1034 Walker, Ex parte, 4 DeG., F. & J. 509 307, 675 Walker v. Anglo-American Mortg. & Trust Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.) 334 506 V. Bean, 34 Minn. 427 459 v. Bruce, 44 Colo. 109 153 V. Clark, 8 Iowa 474 817 V. Creaven, 25 N. J. L. R. 329 623 V. Dickerson, 3 N. Car. 23 260, 454 Walker V. Duberry, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 189 ^ J ' ggg V. Eyth, 25 Pa. St. 216 764 V. Fitts, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 191 820 V. Frierson, 180 Ala. 11 724 V. Goodrich, 16 111. 341 618 V. Harris, 1 Anstr. 245 215, 386, 850 V. Herring, 21 Grat. (Va.) 678 218 V. Hirsch, L. R. 27 Ch. Div. 460 103, 104 v. House, 4 Md. Ch. 39 579, 617, 721 V. Kee, 16 S. Car. 76 430 V. Lamoureux, 13 Quebec K. B. 209 826 V. McMicken, 9 Mart. (O. S.) (La.) 192 604 V. Marine Nat. Bank, 98 Pa. St. 574 270 V. Matthews, 58 111. 196 877 V. Maxwell, 1 Mass. 104 835 v. Miller, 139 N. Car. 448 261, 265, 269, 284 V. Mottran, L. R. 19 Ch. Div. 335 322 V. Parkham, 3 McCord L. (S. Car.) 295 912 V. Rooke, 6 Q. B. D. 631 795 V. Schindel, 58 Md. 360 275 V. Steele, 9 Colo. 388 803 834 V. Stimmel, 15 N. Dak. 484 264 V. Trott, 4 Edw. (N. Y.) 38 720 V. Tupper, 152 Pa. St.' 1 81, 83, 104, 434, 499, 888 V. Wait, 50 Vt. 668 119, 147, 579, 741. 1053 V. Walker, 88 Ky. 615 639 V. Walker, 66 Vt. 285 424, 426 V. Whipple, 58 Mich. 476 573, 576 V. White, 60 Mich. 427 304, 441, 529 V. Wood, 170 111. 463 1009, 1011 V. Yellow Poplar Lumber Co., 18 Ky. L. 76 451 Wall V. Boisgerard, 11 Smed. & M. (Miss.) ,574 815 V. Fife, 37 Pa. St. 394 666 V. London & Northern Assets Corp. (1898), 2 Ch. 469 416 Wallace, In re, 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 603 627 Wallace v. Baisley, 22 Ore. 572 861 V. Finberg, 46 Tex. 35 191 V. Galloway, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 510 820 V. Hull, 28 Ga. 68 295, 820 V. James, 5 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 163 508 V. Kelsall, 7 M. & W. 264 824 V. Milligan, 110 Ind. 498 722, 823 V. Patterson, 2 Harr. & M'H. (Md.) 463 820 V. Reed, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 457 425, 486 v. Sisson, 98 Cal. xviii 715 V. Steagall, 52 111. App. 471 528 V. Taylor, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 74 854 Wallbrecht v. Blush, 43 Colo. 329 264 Waller v. Barrett, 24 Beav. 413 158 V. Davis, 59 Iowa 103 559, 591 V. State, 38 Ark. 656 518 Wallerstein v. Ervin, 112 Fed. 124 196, 537 Walling V. Burgess, 122 Tnd. 299 290, 535, 620, 624, 626, 627 Wallingford v. Burr, 17 Nebr. 137 325 Wallis V. Randall, 81 N. Y. 164 600 V. Wallace, 6 How. (Miss.) 254 454 V. Wheelock, 20 La. Ann. 246 763 V. Wood, 7 S. W. (Tex.) 852 910 Wallworth v. Holt, 4 Myl. & C. 619 815 Walls v. Atlanta Newspaper Union. 141 Ga. 594 56 V. Baird, 91 Ind. 429 489 Walmsley v. Mendelsohn, 31 La. Ann. 152 634, 659, 719 CXXXVl TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ l-608j Vol. II, §§ 615-1:95.] Walmsley V. Walmsley, 3 Jones & Lat. 556 369, 727, 929 Walpole V. Eenfroe, 16 La. Ann. 92 382, 401 Walsh V. Adams, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 125 830, 831, 832 V. Kelly, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 98 270 V. Kirly, 228 Pa. 194 - 817 V. Lennon, 98 111. 27 151, 422, 426, 434 V. McKeen, 75 Cal. 519 718 V. Parr, 33 Ky. L. 242 761 V. St, Paul School Furniture Co., 60 Minn. 397 721, 722 Walstrom v. Hopkins-, 103 Pa. St. 118 557 Walter v. Godshell, 32 S. Car. 187 846, 847 V. Herman, 110 Ky. 800 537, 820 Walter A. Wood Mowing &c. Mach. Co, V. Oliver, 103 Mich. 326 558 Walton V. Butler, 29 Beav, 428 538 V, Oliver, 49 Kans. 107 237, 245 V. Riley, 85 Ky. 413 238 V. Tusten, 49 Miss. 569 444, 453 Walworth v, Henderson, 9 La. Ann, 339 828 Wandelohr v. Logan, 21 Ky. L, 1773 489 Wann v. Kelly, 5 Fed. 584 674 V. McNulty, 2 Gilm, (111.) 355 493, 499 Wanner v. Winters, 33 111. App. 149 466 Wantling v. Howarth, 65 III. App. 598 574 Warbritton v. Cameron, 10 Ind. 302 564 Warburton v. Davis, 123 Md, 225 717 Ward, In re, 2 Flip. (U. S.) 462 104 Ward V. Barber, 1 E, D, Smith (N, Y.) 423 456, 602 V, Best, 8 Ky, L, 784 741 V. Brandt, 11 Mart, (O, S.) (La.) 331 291, 665 V. Brigham, 127 Mass. 24 155, 241, 242, 244, 245 V. Dow, 44 N. H. 45 848 V, Higgins, 45 Hun (N, Y.) 588 371 V. Howell, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 60 888 V, Johnson, 13 Mass. 148 493, 499 V, Joslin, 105 Fed. 224 250 V, Leviston, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 466 802 V. Newell, 42 Barb, (N, Y.) 482 1004, 1018, 1034, 1055 V, Thompson, 22 How, (U, S.) 330 275 V, Tyler, 52 Pa. St. 393 605 V, Ward, 61 Hun (N. Y.) 625 318 V, Woodburn, 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 346 531 V. Yarnelle, 173 Ind. 535 342 Warden v. Marcus, 45 Cal. 594 291 Warder v. Gibbs, 92 Mich. 29 430 V. Newdigate, 11 B, Mon, (Ky.) 174 419, 444, 486, 487 Wardwell v, Haight, 2 Barb, (N, Y.) 549 563 Ware v, Hylton, 3 Dall. (U. S.) 199 186 v. Owens, 42 Ala. 212 276 Warfel v. Calder, 8 Lane, Bar. (Pa.) 205 290 Warfield v. Booth, 33 Md. 63 SS3 Waring v. Cram, 1 Pars, Sel, Eq, Cas, 516 654 V, Robinson, 1 Hoff, Ch, (N. Y.) 524 722, 827 Warner, In re, 82 Mich, 624 967 Warner, In re, 7 Nat. Bank, Reg, 47 194 Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend, (N, Y,) 103 1046 V. Grafton Woodworking Co., 210 Fed, 12 • 307 V. Griswold, 8 Wend, (N. Y.) 665 170, 509, 515 V, Myrich, 16 Minn, (Gil. 81) 91 69 V. Perkins, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 518 820 V. Smith, 1 DeG., J. & S, 337 121 Warner-Smiley Co. v. Cooper, 131 Ala, 297 861 Warren, In re, 2 Ware (U, S.) 322 144, 486, 535, 689 Warren v. Ball, 37 111, 76 138, 594, 859 V, Burnham, 32 Fed, 579 652 V, Chambers, 12 111. 124 854 V. Farmer, 100 Ind, 593 528, 535, 559 T. French, 6 Allen (Mass.) 317 424, 486 V. Maloney, 29 Mo. App, 101 550 V, Raben, 33 Nebr, 380 350, 674 V, Schainwald, 62 Cal. 56 341, 347, 381 V. Stagner, 7 Wkly. Notes Cas, (Pa.) 127 721 V, Taylqr, 60 Ala. 218 371, 537, 669 V. Wallis, 38 Tex, 225 820 V, Warren, 56 Maine 360 719 V. Wheelock, 21 Vt, 323 291 Warren Brick Co. v. Lagarde Lime &c. Co., 12 Ga. App. 58 817 Warren Deposit Bank v, Younglove, 112 Ky, 767 432 Warrin v. Warrin, 154 N. Y. S. 458 675 Warring v. Arthur, 98 Ky, 34 155, 365. 651, 741, 744 V. Hill, 89 Ind. 497 364, 666 Wasem v. Gray, 43 Colo, 140 486 Washburn v. Bank of Bellows Falls, 19 Vt, 278 496, 526, 534, 620, 630, 829 V. Goodman, 17 Pick, (Mass.) 519 579, 615, 636, 642, 668, 673, 719 V. Walworth, 133 Mass, 499 306, 834, 942 , V, Washburn, 23 Vt, 576 390, 624, 659 Washington 'Cotton Co. v. Morgan, 192 Fed, 310 686 Wass V, Atwater, 33 Minn. 82 77 Waterbury v. Head, 12 N. Y, St. 361 796 V, Merchants' Union Exp. "Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 157 582, 1051 Waterer v, Waterer, L. R, 15 Eq, 402 276, 289, 627 Waterman v, Glisson, 115 Ga, 773 854 ' V, Hunt, 2 R. I, 298 529 V, Johnson, 49 Mo, 410 552 Waterman's Appeal, 26 Conn, 96 958 Waters v, Harris, 60 N. Y, Super. Ct. 192 1020, 1025, 1033, 1037 V, Maddox, 7 La, Ann, 644 834 V. Taylor, 2 Ves, & B. 299 292, 587, 721, 728, 773, 831 Watkins v, Adams, 53 Colo, 290 836 V, Delahunty, 133 App. Div, (N, Y.) 422 591, 954, 962 Watkinson v. Bank of Pennsylvania, 4 Whart, (Pa.) 482 596 Watney v. Trist, 45 L. J. Ch, 412 550 V, Wells, 30 Beav. 56 587 V. Wells, 9 Jur, (N. S.) 396 668, 726 Watson, Ex parte. Buck 449 538 Watson, Ex parte, 16 Ves, 265 188 Watson, Ex parte, 19 Ves. 459 906, 921 Watson v. Bayliss, 71 Wash. 499 214 V. Bettman, 88 Fed. 825 721, 789 V, Coon, 247 111. 414 816 V, Coon, 155 111. App, 158 817 V, Farley, 85 Conn, 705 825 V. Fletcher, 7 Grat. (Va.) 1 170, 172, 175, 364, 655 V. Hamilton, 180 Ala, 3 71, 89, 876, 902 V. Hinchman, 42 Mich, 27 822 V, Itasca First Nat. Bank, 95 Tex. 351 554 V. McKinnon, 73 Tex. 210 526, 591, 721 V. Miller, 55 Tex, 289 804, 808, 835 v. Murray, 23 N, J, Eq, 257 170, 172, 655, 656, 674 V, Owens, 1 Rich, (S. Car.) Ill 500 V, Wells, S Conn, 468 469 TABLE OF CASES CXXXVU [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 613-1X95.] Watson V. Williamson (Tex. Civ. App.), 76 S. W. 793 "^ ' 728 V. Woodman, L. R. 20 Eq. 721 450, 718 Watt V. Foster, 4 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 543 720 V. Johnson, 49 N. Car. 190 291 V. Kirby, 15 111. 200 559 Watton V. Cruce, 44 Okla. 186 237 Watts V. Adler, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 634 716 V. DriscoU, 82 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 255 i- V / j^^ V. DriscoU ri901], 1 CH. 294 657 V. Patton, 66 Miss. 54 389 V. Pierson, 170 Mo. App. 532 825, 876 V. Robinson, 32 U. C. Q. B. 362 562 V. Taft, 16 U. C. Q. B. 256 1008, 1022, 1036 Wauby v. Jabn, 34 Pitts. L. J. (Pa.) (N. S.) 91 729 Waugh V. Carriger, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.) 31 422 V. Carver, 2 H. Bl. 235 ■ 39, 51, 75, 83, 89, 275. 475, 921 V. Eden, 12 Colo. App. 158 355 V. Mitchell, 21 N. Car. 510 290,, 677, 719, 728, 815 V. Schlenk, 23 111. App. 433 677 Wann v. Kelly, 2 McCfray (U. S.) 628 748, 754, 763, 982, 990 Want V. Reece, 1 Bing. 18 399 Waun V. McNulty, 7 111. 355 826 Wausau First Nat. Bank v. Conway, 67 Wis. 210 608 Waxelbaum, In re, 98 Fed. 589 692, 703 Waxelbaum v. Connor, 94 Ga. 529 831 Way V. Bassett, 5 Hare 55 633, 836 V. Fravel, 61 Ind. 162 558, 767 V. Milestone, 2 H. & H. 32 716 V. Stebbins, 47 Mich. 296 624, 626, 627, 628, 672 Waydell v. Liier, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 410 434, 499, 606 Wayne v. Hinkle, 20 Wkly. L. Bui. 19 668 v. Hinkle, 9 Ohio Dec. 389 359 Wayt V. Peck, 9 Leigh (Va,) 434 292 W. D. Wilson Printing Ink Co. V. Bowker, 27 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 153 79, 104 Weall V. King, 12 East 452 506 Wear-Boogher Dry Goods Co. V. Kelly, 84 Miss. 236 559 Weaver v. Ashcroft, SO Tex. 427 830 v. Carpenter, 42 Iowa 343 826 v. Rogers, 44 N. H. 112 824 V. Upton, 29 N. Car. 458 350, 351 v. White, 64 Hun (N. Y.) 636 562 Webb, In re, 4 Saw. (U. S.) 326 696, 706 Webb V. Allen, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 605 721, 789 V. Allington, 27 Mo. App. 559 424 v. Butler (Ala.), 68 So. 369 556, 559, 591, 715. 716, 719, 720, 749 V. Fordyce, 55 Iowa 11 369, 729 V. Gregory, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 282 496 V. Helion, 26 N. Y. Super. 'Ct. 625 719 V. Hicks, 123 N. Car. 244 103, 217 v. Johnson, 95 Mich. 325 103, 882, 901 v. Michener, 32 Minn. 48 912, 917 v. Parks, 85 App. Div. (N. Y.) 621 446 V. Rockefeller. 195 Mo. 57 238 Webber v. Webber, 146 Mich. 31 729 V. Williams, 36 Maine 512 200 Weber v. Hertz, 188 111. 68 291, 830, 831 V. Kemper, 7 Cine. Wkly. L. Bui. 301 850 V. Weber, 90 Wis. 467 722 V. Zacharias, 105 111. App. 640 718 Webster v. Beau, 77 Wash. 444 768, 769, 770 V. Bray, 7 Hare 159 674 Webster V. Clark, 34 Fla. 637 25, 79, 83, 85, 89, 103, 104, 138, 216, 476, 907 V. Lanum, 137 Fed. 376 1020 V. Lawson, 73 Wis. 561 558, 559 V. Rackett, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 229 413 V. Stearns, 44 N. H. 498 825, 888 V. Webster, 3 Swanst. 490 632, 720 V. Webster, 180 Mass. 310 553 V. Williams, 62 Ark. 101 331 Wechselberg v. Flour City Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 90 138, 250, 965 Wedderburn v. Wedderburn, 2 Keen 722 731 V. Wedderburn, 22 Beav. 84 326, 632 Weddle v. Stone, 12 Irjd. 625 564, 771 Weed V. Kellogg, 6 McLean (U. S.) 44 888 V. Richardson, 19 N. Car. 535 371 Weeks v. Hutchinson, 135 Mich. 160 825 V. McClintock, 50 Ark. 193 350, 385 v. Mascoma Rake Co., 58 N. H. 101 301, 304, 440 Wehmeier v. Banking Co., 49 Ind. App. 454 721, 850 Wehrman v. McFarland, 10 Ohio Super. Ct. Com. PI. 320 732 Weidig V. Moore, 24 Cin. Wkly. Law Bui. 376 741 Weil V. Guerin, 42 Ohio St. 299 492, 496 V. Jaeger, 174 111. 133 559 Weiland v. Sell, 83 Kans. 229 (1910) 72, 79 Weimer v. Rector, 43 W. Va. 735 826 Weinrich v. Koelling, 21 Mo. App; 133 297 Weinstein v. Welden, 80 Misc. (N. Y.) 348 212, 384 Weir, In re, 59 Misc. (N. Y.) 320 291, 617 Weir Furnace Co. v. Bodwell, 73 Mo. App. 389 ■ 240 Weir Plow Co. v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 38 301, 440, 602 Weirich v. Dodge, 101 Wis. 621 400, 756 Weirick v. Graves, 73 111. App. 266 486, 557, 602 Weise v. Gray's Harbor Commercial Co., Ill III. App. 647 962 Weisman v. Smith, 59 N. Car. 124 718 Weiss V. Hamilton, 40 Mont. 99 115, 616, 618 v. Weiss, 75 Misc. (N. Y.) 644 743, 758, 759 WeisSenborn v. Sieghortner, 21 N. J. Eq. 483 588 Weisz V. Davey, 28 Nebr. 566 796 Welborn v. Coon, 57 Ind. 270 616, 617, 620 Welbourn v. Kleinle, 92 Md. 114 635 Welch, In re, 77 Misc. (N. Y.) 427 277, 326, 638, 729 Welch V. Importers' &c. Bank, 122 N. Y. 177 238 V. McKenzie, 66 Ark. 251 296, 625 V. Miller, 210 Pa. 204 763 Weld V. Johnson Mfg. Co., 86 Wis. 552 617, 624, 626, 627, 638 V. Peters. 1 La. Ann. 432 444, 472 Welker v. Wallace, 31 Ga. 362 511, 517 Welles, In re, 4 Lac. Leg. N. (Pa.) - 135 289 Welles, In re, 191 Pa. St. 239 290, 574 Welles V. Battelle, 11 Mass. 477 306, 935 V. March, 30 N. Y. 344 458, 580, 708 Wellington v. Mackintosh, 2 Atk. 569 677 Wells v. Babcock, 56 Mich. 276 79, 159, 169, 359, 361, 668 V. Brown, 83 Ala. 161 718 v. Carpenter, 65 111. 447 745, 765 V. Clarkson, 5 Mont. 336 826 V. Collins, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 213 766 V. DuBose, 140 Ga. 187 232 V. Ellis, 68 Cal. 243 580, 708 CXXXVlli TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. 11, §§ 615-1195.] Wells V. Erstein, 24 La. Ann. 317 €75 V. Evans, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 251 451 V. Gates, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 554 241, 445, 1046, 1047 V. McGeoch, 71 Wis. 196 342, 364, 381, 384, 655, 666 V. Masterman, 2 Esp. 731 431 V. Mitchell, 23 N. Car. 484 371 796 824 V. Rodgers, 60 Mich. 525 ' 'l054 V. Siess, 24 La. Ann. 178 419 V. Strange, 5 Ga. 22 719, 784, 850 V. Turner, 16 Md. 133 888 V. Williams, 1 Salic. 46 186 V. Wilson, 3 Ohio 425 1055, 1057 Welsh V. Canfield, 60 Md. 469 674 V. Kirkpatrick, 30 Cal. 202 826 V. Morris, 81 Tex. 159 265 Wendall v. Osborne, 63 Iowa 99 847, 848 Wendlandt v. Sohre, 37 Minn. 162 558, 666, 837 Wendling v. Jennisch, 85 Iowa 392 362, 363, 727 Wenham v. Campbell, 4 Ohio Dec. 122 450 Wenlock v. River Dee Co., L. E. 36 Ch. Div. 675n 486 Wentworth, In re. Surrogate Ct., 44 U. C. Q. B. 207 631 Wentzel v. Earbin, 189 Pa. St. 502 318 Werner v. Her, 54 Nebr. 576 307, 457, 526 V. Leisen, 31 Wis. 169 586,. 587, 1059 Wessell V. Havens, 91 Nebr. 426 316 Wessels v. Weiss, 166 Pa. St. 490 53, 74, 897 Wesson v. Washburn Iron Co., 13 Allen (Mass.) 95 290 West, In re, 39 Fed. 203 535, 69S West V. Armstrong, 4 Ky. L. (abstract) 998 371 V. Chasten, 12 Fla. 315 307, 371, 559, 721 V. Citizens' Ins. Co;, 27 Ohio St. 1 299, 803, 834 V. Kendrick, 46 Ga. 526 764 v. Randall, 2 Mason 181 815 V. Russell, 74 Cal. 544 718 V. Skip, 1 Ves. Sr. 239 525, 829, 830 V. Skip, 1 Ves. Sr. 241 830 V. Skip, 1 Ves. 456 371 T. Valley Bank, 6 Ohio St. 168 119, 539 Westbrook v. Hays, 89 Ga. 101 826 V. Wheeler, 25 Ont. 559 576 West Coast Grocery Co. v. Stinson, 13 Wash. 255 304, 440 West Coast Lumber Co. v. Apfield, 86 Cal. 335 808, 835 Westcott V. Fargo, 61 N. Y. 542 147, 1053, 1058 Westcott V. Gilman (Cal.), 150 Pac. 777 25, 89, 111, 113, 168, 267 V. Price, Wright (Ohio) 220 419 Westerfield v. Price, 80 Hun (N. Y.) 401 729 Western Assur. Co. v. Fowle, 65 Wis. 247 888 •Western Dist. Warehouse Co. v. Hob- son, 96 Ky. 550 320 Western Grocery Co. v. Jata (Tex. Civ. App.), 173 S. W. 518 795, 826 Western Inv. Co. v. Davis, 7 Ind. Ter. 152 238 Western Lumber & Pole Co. v. Jos- lyn, 66 Wash. 524 924 Western Securities Co. v. Atlee (Iowa), 151 N. W. 56 290, 626 Western Stage Co. v. Walker, 2 Iowa 504 416, 599, 603, 615, 919 Western U. Tel. Co. v. Hirsch (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 394 795 West Hickory Min. Assn. v. Reed, 80 Pa. St. 38 290 Westinghouse Elec. &c. Co. v. Hubert, 175 Mich. 568 594, 596, 834 Weston v. Barton, 4 Taunt. 673 118 V. Ketcham, 39 N. Y. Super. Ct. 54 389, 390, 652 V. Watts, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 608 601 West Point Foundry Assn. v. Brown, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 284 241 Westwood V. Cole, 66 Misc. (N. Y.) 53 221, 371, 576, 586, 674, 753 Wetherbee v. Potter, 99 Mass. 354 749 Wetherill v. McCloskey, 28 W. Va. 195 797, 798, 1030 Wetherwax v. Paine, 2 Mich. 555 820 Wetmore v. Crouch, 150 Mo. 671 982 Weyer v. Thornburgh, 15 Ind. 124 528, 630, 836 Whalen v. Harrison, 26 Mont. 316 173 V. Stephens, 193 111. 121 730 Wharton v. King, 69 Ala. 365 861 V. Woodburn, 20 N. Car. 647 422, 454 Whatley v. Jamison (Ga. App.), 80 S. E. 702 995 Wheat V. Hamilton, 53 Ind. 256 809, 942 V. Rice, 97 N. Y. 296 558 Wheatcroft v. Hickman, 9 C. B. ' (N. S.) 47 411 Wheatley v. Calhoun, 12 Leigh (Va.) 264 121, 276, 389 V. Tutt, 4 Kans. 240 448, 449, 456, 818 V. Wheeler 34 Md. 62 727, 878 Wheaton v. Cadillac Automobile Co., 143 Mich. 21 597, 599 Wheeler, Ex parte. Buck. 25 307, 531 Wheeler v. Arnold, 30 Mich. 304 364, 631, 651, 741, 754, 773 V. Bullard, 6 Port. (Ala.) 352 819 V. Farmer, 38 Cal. 203 83, 103 V. Lack, 37 Ore. 238 11 V. Sage, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 518 396, 652, 655, 919 V. Smith, 18 Wis. 651 912 V. Timpson, 59 Hun (N. Y.) 625 473 V. Rice, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 205 425 V. Wheeler, 33 Maine 347 759 Wheelock v. Doolittle, 18 Vt 440 468, 600 V. Rice, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 267 855 Whelan v. Cook, 29 Md. 1 186 V. Shain, 115 Cal. 326 826 Wheless v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.), 122 S. W. 929 503, 513 Whetstone v. Shaw, 70 Mo. 575 741, 754 Whigham's Appeal, 63 Pa. St. 194 831 Whilden v. Chapman, 80 S. Car. 84 721 Whimbey v. Clark, 22 Quebec Super. Ct. 453 715 Whincup v. Hughes, L. R. 6 C. P. 78 215 Whipple v. Lee, 46 Wash. 266 721 V. Parker, 29 Mich. 369 155, 240, 245, 965 V. Stuart, 26 Mont. 219 224, 278 Whisenant V. Hybart, 160 Ala. 271 289 Whitaker v. Bledsoe, 34 Tex. 401 767 V. Brown, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 75 435 V. Brown, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 505 511, 876 V. Salisbury, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 534 491 Whitcher v. Morey, 39 Vt. 459 154, 170, 176 Whitcomb v. Converse, 119 Mass. 38 275, 357, 359, 360, 401, 666, 670, 671 V. Fowle, 7 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 295 1031, 1032 V. Whitcomb, 85 Vt. 76 276, 279, 731 V. Whiting, 2 Doug. 628 468 White, In re, 103 Fed. 774 704 White V. Boone, 71 Tex. 712 499, 606 V. Bullock, 18 Mo. 16 733 TABLE OF CASES CXXXIX [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] White V. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 34 App. (D. C.) 460 494, 496 V. Conway, 66 Cal. 383 718 V. Dillinger (Okla.), 151 Pac. 194 835 V. Dougherty, Mart. & Y. (Tenn.) 309 371 V. Eiseman, 134 N. Y. 101 1002, 1008, 1014, 1016 V. Famham, 99 Maine 100 500 V. Fitzgerald, 19 Wis. 480 166 V. Gardner, 37 Tex. 407 381 V. Hackett, 20 N. Y. 178 1034 V. Harlow, 5 Gray (Mass.) 463 741 V. Heffner, 30 La. Ann. 1280 297 V. Jones, 38 111. 159 292, 831 V. Jones, 14 La. Ann. 681 451 V. Jones, 1 Eobt. (N. Y.) 321 316 V. Jones, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 328 553, 720 V. Jouett, 147 Ky. 197 391,, 652, 748, 758 V. Kearney, 9 Rob. (La.) 495 888 V. Kearney, 2 La. Ann. 639 486, 599 V. McPeck, 185 Mass. 451 825 V. Magann, 65 Wis. 86 386, 559 V. Murphy, 3 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 369 596 V. Osborn, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 72 759 V. Parish, 20 Tex. 688 526, 554, 559, 823 V. Pecos Land & Water Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 634 194 V. Rech, 171 Pa. St. 82 434, 499 V. Reed, 124 N. Y. 468 291, 664, 673, 674 731, 858 V. Rodemann, 44 App. Div. (N., Y.) 503 355, 768, 770 V. Sawyer, 16 Gray (Mass.) 586 508 V. Schnebly, 10 Watts (Pa.) 217 820 V. Smith, 63 Ark. 513 222, 775 V. Smith, 12 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 595 506, 812 V. Thielens, 106 Pa. St. 173 559 V. Toles, 7 Ala. 569 444 V. Trowbridge, 216 Pa. 11 316, 553 V. Tucker, 9 Iowa 100 912, 917 V. Tudor, 24 Tex. 639 604, 605, 606 V. Union Ins. Co., 1 Nott & McC. (S. Car.) 556 600, 603, 604, 605, 621, 665 V. Waide, Walk. (Miss.) 263 743 V. White, 5 Gill (Md.) 359 591 V. White, 4 Md. Ch. 418 719 V. White, 169 Mass. 52 716, 719 V. White, 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 417 668, 673 V. Woodward, 8 B. Hon. (Ky.) 484 291, 371, 829, 830 White Cloud Milling &c. Co. v. Thom- son (Mo.), 175 S. W. 897 537 V. Thomson, 166 Mo. App. 170 537 White Co. V. Fayette Auto Co., 43 Pa. Super. Ct. 532 817 Whitehead v. Bank of Pittsburgh, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 172 607 V. Chadwell, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 432 535 V. Hughes, 2 Cromp. & M. 318 456 Whitehill v. Schickle, 43 Mo. 537 223, 745 Whitehurst v. Brice, 14 Ga. App. 209 459 Whitely v. Bradley, 13 Cal. App. 720 591 White Mountain Bank v. West, 46 Maine 15 419, 796, 802, 820 White's Case, 10 Watts (Pa.) 217 820 White Sewing-Machine Co. v. Hines, 61 Mich. 423 118 Whitesides V. Collier, 7 Dana (Ky.) 283 772 V. Lafferty, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) J50 389, 673 White Star Line v. Star Line of Steam- ers, 141 Mich. 604 72, 194 Whitewright v. Stimpson, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 379 1031, 1032 Whitfield V. Hovey, 30 S. Car. 117 817 Whiting V. Farrand, 1 Conn. 60 592, 599 V. Leakin, 66 Md. 255 76, 275, 573 V. Turley, Dall. (Tex.) 453 811 V. Withington, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 413 861 Whitia V. Butler's Estate, 99 Mich. 51 425, 427 Whitley v. Bradley, 13 Cal. App. 720 70, 721, 962 V. Lowe, 2 DeG. & J. 704 718 Whitlock V. McKechnie, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 427 895 V. Mozley, 142 Ga. 305 847, 863 Whitlock Cordage Co. v. Hine (Md.), 93 Atl. 431 532, 535 Whitlow, In re, 184 Mo. App. 229 75, 89, 633, 634 Whitman v. Bartlett (Ala.), 46 So. 972 977 V. Boston & M. R. Co., 3 Allen (Mass.) 133 627, 835 V. Bowden, 27 S. Car. 53 389, 393 V. Keith, 18 Ohio St. 134 811 V. Leonard, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 177 586, 604 V. Porter, 107 Mass. 522 666, 1046 V. Robinson, 21 Md. 30 573, 587, 721 V. Wood, 6 Wis. 676 861 Whitmore v. Adams, 17 Iowa 567 454 V. Mason, 2 Johns. & H. 204 675 v: Shiverick, 3 Nev. 288 281, 291, 371, 817 Whitney v. Backus, 149 Pa. St. > 29 1053 V. Cammann, 137 N. Y. 342 238 V. Cook, S Mass. 139 732, 808 V. Gotten, 53 Miss. 689 290, 624, 625, 626, 850 V. Dewey, 158 Fed. 385 342, 381 V. Dutch, 14 Mass. 457 188 V. Ferris, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 66 475 V. Gretna State Bank, 50 Nebr. 438 75 V. Ladd, 10 Vt. 165 830 V. Reese, 11 Minn. 138 861 V. Whitney, 115 Ky. 552 358, 553, 665 V. Whitney, 27 Ky. L. 1197 354, 659, 728 V. Wyman, 101 U. S. 392 238, 239, 951 Whitt V. Blount, 124 Ga. 671 261 Whittaker v. Collins, 34 Minn. 299 506, 509, 806, 811, 812 Whittaker v. Howe, 8 Beav. 383 779, 787 V. Jordan, 104 Maine 516 616, 617 Whittemore v. Elliott, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 518 188 V. Macdonnell, 6 U. C. C. P. 547 1000, 1008, 1011, 1019, 1020, 1036 Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 10 Gray (Mass.) 582 193 Whittier v. Gould, 8 Watts (Pa.) 485 556, 557 Whittingstall v. Grover, 55 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 213 630 Whittle V. Davie (Va.), 82 S. E. 724 671 V. McFarlane, 1 Knapp 311 661, 667, 729 Whitton V. Smith, Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 231 440, 444 V. State, 37 Miss. 379 518 Whitwell V. Arthur, 35 Beav. 140 583, 584 V. Warner, 20 Vt. 425 244, 962 Whitworth v. Ballard, 56 Ind. 279 605 V. Benbow, 56 Ind. 194 531 V. Harris, 40 Miss. 483 778 V. Patterson, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 119 371, 541 cxl TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Wickes V. Hatch, 103 App. Div. (N. Y.) 426 720 Wickham v. Davis, 24 Minn. 167 823, 829, 831 Wickliffe V. Eve, 17 How. (U. S.) 468 , 598, 617 Wicks V. Lippman, 13 Nev. 499 743, 74S, 751 Widdifield v. Widdiiield, 2 Bin. (PS.) 245 886 Wiegand v. Copeland, 14 Fed. 118 728 Wiericli \. DeZoya, 2 Gilm. (111.) 385 389, 390 Wiesenfeld v. Byrd, 17 S. Car. 106 450, 622, 836 Wiester v. Wiester, 117 Cal. xvii 675 Wiggiu V. Cumings, 8 Allen (Mass.) 353 767 V. Fine, 17 Mont. 575 726 V. First Freewill Baptist Church in Lowell, 49 Mass. 301 1054 V. Goodwin, 63 Maine 389 591, 675, 764 V. Tudor, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 434 489 Wiggins V. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219 170, 175, 177, 655, 674 V. Blackshear, 86 Tex. 665 118, 371, 496, 526, 528, 529 V. Brand, 202 Mass. 141 352, 573, 659, 667, 668 V. Graham, 51 Mo. 17 75 V. Markham, 131 Iowa 102 366, 381, 391, 652 Wight V. Hunter, 1 East 20 755 V. Wood, 85 N. Y. 402 674 Wightman v. Townroe, 1 M. & S. 412 39 Wilbeck v, Chittenden, 50 Mich. 426 632 Wilby V. Phinney, 15 Mass. 116 658, 742 Wilcox, In re, 94 Fed. 84 694, 696 Wilcox V. Carey, 9 Dana (Ky.) 297 820 V. Comstock, 37 Minn. 65 719, 743 V. Derickson, 168 Pa. St. 331 579, 615, 638, 639 V. Dodge, 12 111. App. 517 422, 881 V. Henry, 1 Dall. (U. S.) 69 186 V. Jackson, 7 Colo. 521 ' 444, 458 V. Kellogg, 11 Ohio 394 528, 531 V. Pratt, 52 Hun (N. Y.) 340 344, 587, 721 V. Pratt, 125 N. V. 688 715, 773 V. Singletary, , Wright (Ohio) 420 459, 460 V. Wilcox, 13 Allen (Mass.) 252 290, 303, 624, 627 V. Woods, 4 III. 51 847 Wilcoxon V. Wilcoxon, 111 111. App. 90 725 Wild V. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 129 79, 86, 104, 158, 204, 486, 579, 638, 639, 640 V. Dean, 3 Allen (Mass.) 579 270, 558, 809 V. Erath, 27 La. Ann. 171 270, 275 V. Milne, 26 Beav. 504 292, 728 Wilder v. Block, 10' Ohio- Dec. (Re- print) 162 563 V. Keeler, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 167 535 T. Morris, 7 Bush (Ky.) 420 . 381, 592, 602 Wildes V. Chapman, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 669 531 Wildrick v. Heyshem, 96 App. Div. (N. Y.) 515 861 Wile V. Denison Clothing Co., 158 Iowa 109 435, 538, 825, 924 Wiles V. Maddox, 26 Mo. 77 291, 292, 831, 832 Wiley V. Brundred, 158 Pa. St. 579 400 V. Griswold, 41 Iowa 375 466 V. Holmes, 28 Mo. 286 494 V. Logan, 95 N. Car. 358 449, 802 V. Sledge, 8 Ga. 532 806, 820 V. Stewart, 23 III. App. 236 486 Wiley V. Stewart, 122 III. 545 426 V. Tentple, 85 HI. App. 69 S56, 558 V. Wiley, 115 Md. 646 219, 718 Wiley's Appeal, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 244 331 Wiley's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 270 716 Wilgus V. Lewis, 8 Mo. App. 336 559 Wilhelm v. Caylor, 32 Md. 151 716, 718 V. Hardman, 13 Md. 140 188 Wilhite V. Boulware, 88 Ky. 169 283, 289, 301, 441, 669 Wilkersou v. Tichenor, 23 Ky. L. 244 537 Wilkes V. Clark, 12 N. Car. 173 798 Wilkins v. Boyce, 3 Watts (Pa.) 39 420 Wilkinson v. Eykyn, 14 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 158 444 V. Frasier, 4 Esp. 182 (1803) 41 V. Henderson, 1 Myl. & K. 582 496, 630, 835, 836 V. Jett, 7 Leigh (Va.) 115 75 V. Page, 1 Hare 276 677 V. Tilden, 9 Fed. 683 720, 787 V. Yale, 6 McLean (U. S^ 16 531 Willamette &c. Co. v. McGroldrick, 10 Wash. St. 229 914 Willard v. Bullen, 41 Ore. 25 475, 729 V. Tayloe, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 557 778 V. Wright, 203 Mass. 406 449, 486 Willet V. Brown, 65 Mo. 138 281, 290, 296, 624, 627 V. Chambers, Cowp. 814 260, 511, 517 V. Blanford, 1 Hare 253 637 V. Stringer, 17 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 152 517, 832 Willey V. Carter, 4 La. Ann. 56 444 - V. Crocker &c. Nat. Bank, 141 Cal. 508 196, 878, 903 V. Renner, 8 N. Mex. 641 83, 191, 743 William Bagaley v. United States, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 377 186 William L. Blanchard Co. v. Hilton, 83 N. J. L. 780 413 ' Williams, In re, 3 Woods (U. S.) 493 688 Williams v. Bank of Michigan, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 539 1046 V. Barnett, 10 Kans. 455 444 v. Barton, 13 La. 404 770 V. Bingley, 2 Vern. 278n 787 V. Boston, 208 Mass. 497 306, 940 V. Boyd, 75 Ind. 286 564, 558, 837 V. Bradley, 5 Ohio Cir. Ct. 114 836 V. Brimhall, 13 Gray (Mass.) 462 455 V. Brookline, 194 Mass. 44 638 V. Bush, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 623 . 554, 558 V. Butler, 35 111. 544 199, 214, 884 V. Colby, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 637 958, 960, 967 V. Connor, 14 S. Car. 621 170, 596 V. Crocker, 36 Fla. 61 530 V. Donaghe, 1 Rand. (Va.) 300 433, 815 T. Farrand, 88 Mich. 473 261, 319, 328, 553 V. Frost, 27 Minn. 255 458 V. Gage, 49 Miss. 777 291, 526, 534, 832 V. Gilchrist, 11 N. H. 535 435, 487 V. Gillespie, 30 W. Va. 586 417, 440, 458 V. GilUes, 75 N. Y. 197 169, 975 V. Gillies, ,13 Hun (N. Y.) 422 276, 440 V. Gillies, 53 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 429 261 V. Hendricks, 115 Ala. 227 503, 506, S15, 518 V. Henshaw, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 79 160, 744, 749, 751, 753, 987, 990 V. Henshaw, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 378 358, 743 TABLE OF CASES cxli [References are to sections — Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Williams V. Hewitt, 47 La. Ann. 1076 239, 244, 965 V. Hitchings, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 326 499 V. Hurley, 135 Ala. 319 119, 121, 826 V. Johnson, 2.08 Mass. 544 193 V. Jones, 5 B. & C. 108 223 V. Knibbs, 213 Mass. 534 217, 355 V. Lane, 158 Cal. 39 733 V. Lawrence, 47 N. Y. 462 897 V. Lewis, 115 Ind. 45 291, 292, 446, 829, 831 V. Lindblom, 142 N. Y. 682 731 V. Love, 2 Head (Tenn.) 80 371, 399, 669, 987 Willey V. Crocker-Woolworth Nat. Bank, 141 Cal. 508 486, 500 Williams v. McKee, 13 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 143 350, 355 V. Meyer (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 66 278, 296 V. Inhabitants of Milton, 215 Mass. 1 128, 216, 673, 940, 1053 V. Moore, 62 N. Car. 211 627 V. Muthersbaugh, 29 Kans. 730 496, 820 V. Pedersen, 47 Wash. 472 351 V. Poole, 28 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 292 719 V. Roberts, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 493 444 V. Rogers, 14 Bush (Ky.) 776 475 v. Saginaw, 51 Mich. 120 121, 941 V. Shelden, 61 Mich. 311 • 268 V. Smith, 4 Bush (Ky.) 540 291 V. State, 37 Ark. 463 186 V. Thomas, 6 Esp. 18 426 V. Whedon, 109 N. Y. 333 620, 621 V. Whitmore, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 262 603 V. Williams, 104 Cal. 85 ■ 731 V. Williams, 221 111. 541 773 V. Williams, 83 Misc. 560 716 V. Williams, 1 Wils. Ch. 473n 779 V. Wilson, 4 Sand. Ch. (N. Y.) 379 326, 327, 632, 660 Williams' Appeal, 122 Pa. St. 472 276 Williams Land Co. v. CruU (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 339 118, 121 Williamson v. Adams, 16 111. App. 564 371 559 V. Barbour, 9 Ch. Div. 529 ' 469 T. Fontain, 7 Baxt.. (Tenn.) 212 290, 626, 627 V. Haycock, 11 Iowa 40 850 V. Johnson, 1 B. & C. 146 421 V. McGinnis, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 74 499, 826 V. Monroe, 101 Fed. 322 381, 391, 652, 654 V. Monroe, 3 Cal. 383 721 V. Nigh, 58 W. Va. 629 168 V. Succession of Scott, 133 La. 307 836 V. Wilson, 1 Bland (Md.) 418 579, 580, 721 Wpi. W. Kendall Boot & Shoe Co. v. Johnston (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 583 371 Willingham v. King, 23 Fla. 478 187 Willings V. Consequa, Pet. (C. C.) 301 499 Willis V. Barron, 143 Mo. 450 398, 496, 742, 764 V. Bremner, 60 Wis. 622 486, 530 V. Chapman, 68 Vt. 459 ^ _ 1045,, 1046, 1047 V. Crawford, 38 Ore. 522 103, 210, 217, 882 V. Dyson, 1 Stark. 164 418, 596, 824 V. Freeman, 35 Vt. 44 276, 281, 536 V. Greiner (Tex.), 26 S. W. 858 1057 V. Hill, 2 Dev. & B. L. (N. Car.) 231 600 T. Hill, 19 N. Car. 231 419. 467, 486 V. Mason, 140 Ky. 88 189 V. Morrison, 44 Tex. 27 826 V. Rector, 50 Fed. 684 476 Willis V. Sharp, 113 N. Y. 586 638 V. Sutton, 116 Ga. 283 836 V. Thompson, 85 Tex. 301 371, 531 Willis Coal &c. Co. v. Furstenfeld, 146 Mo. App. 279 556, 834 Willison V. Pattison, 7 Taunt. 439 186 Williston V. Camp, 9 Mont. 88 605, 708 Willock V. Dubbs, 32 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) (Pa.) 250 729 Willoughby v. Hildreth, 182 Mo. App. 80 89, 878, 889, 901, 907 Wills V. Cutler, 61 N. H. 405 486 V. Downs, 38 111. App. 269 297 V. Jones, 13 App. D. C. 482 805 Wills Point Bank v. Bates, 72 Tex. 137 888 Willson V. Nicholson, 61 Ind. 241 620 V. Owen, 30 Mich. 474 176, 177 V. Whaley, 7 Ky. L. (abstract) 527 424, 800 Willworth V. Leonard, 156 Mass. 277 189 Wilmer, In re, 153 App. Div. (N. Y.) 804 1046 Wilsford V. Wood, 1 Esp. N. P. 182 809 Wilson, Ex parte, 84 S. Car. 444 425, 486 Wilson, In re, 4 Pa. St. 430 530 Wilson V. Albright, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 125 820 V. Anthony, 19 Ark. 16 _ 985 V. Balcarres Brook Steamship Co. [1893], 1 Q. B. 422 677 V. Bean, 33 III. App. 529 ' 1008 V. Black, 164 Pa. St. 555 276, 550 V. Carter Oil Co., 46 W. Va. 469 195, 196, 847 V. Church, 13 Ch. Div. 1 588 V. Cobb, 28 N. J. Eq. 177 210, 882 ,v. Cobb, 29 N. J. Eq. 361 278 V. Codman, 3 Cranch (U. S.) 193 910 V. Conine, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 280 830 V. Dargan, 4 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 544 455 V. Davis, 1 Mont. 183 573 V. Edmonds, 130 U. S. 472 - 80 V. Pitcher, 11 N. J. Eq. 71 721, 787 V. Forder, 20 Ohio St. 89 474, 604, 605 V. Gamble, 50 Nebr. 426 529 V. Genesee Mut. Ins. Co., 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 511 299 V. Greenwood, 1 Swanst. 471 344, 721, 789 ' V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 103 App. Div. (N. Y.) 203 220 V. Hawker Lbr. Co., 74 W. Va. 65 721, 823 V. Henderson, 123 Cal. 258 166 v. Holloway, 62 L. J. Ch. 781 288 v. Home, 37 Miss. 477 496 v. Hunter, 14 Wis. 683 301, 422, 440, 442 V. International Bank, 125 App. Div. (N. Y.) 568 617 V. Jennings, 15 N. Car. 90 434 V. Keller, 195 Pa.. St. 98 381, 658 V. Potter, 19 Ky. L. 988 914 V. Lineberger, 83 N. Car. 524 349, 561 V. Louisville &c. R. Co., 103 App. Div. (N. Y.) 203 220 V. McCarty, 13 Can. L. J. (N. S.) 303 668 V. McCarty. 25 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 152 360, 362, 363 V. McConnell, 9 Rich. Eq. f(S. Car.) , 500 630 V. McCorraick, 86 Va. 995 466, 467. 811 V. Moore, 1 Myl. & K. 127 517 V. Morse, 117 Iowa 581 191 V. Niles, 2 Hall (N. Y.) 358 817 V. Ray, 13 Ind. 1 212 V. Richards, 28 Minn. 337 486 cxlii TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §| 615-1195.] Wilson V. Richardson, 2 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 448 720 V. Robertson, 21 N. Y. 587 528 V. Simpson, 89 N. Y. 619 579, 615 V. Smith, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 379 861 V. Soper, 13 B. Hon. (Ky.) 411 371, 398, 531, 617, 626, 635 V. Stilwell, 9 Ohio St. 467 564, 760 V. Stilwell, 14 Ohio St. 464 558 V. Sullivan, 17 Utah 341 530 V. Torbert, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 296 603 V. Tummon, 6 Man. & G. 236 498 V. Wallace, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 53 796, 802 V. Waugh, 101 Pa. St. 233 469, 591 V. Wilkinson, 97 Ga. 814 668 V. Williams, 14 Wend, (N. Y.) 146 454 V. Wilson, 6 Idaho 597 221 V. Wilson, 26 Ore. 251 743, 752 V. Wilson, 74 S. Car. 30 281, 357, 358, 623, 624, 671, 672 V. Yegen, 38 Mont. 504 265, 847, 861 Wilson Cotton Mills v. Randleman Cot- ton Mills, 115 N. Car. 475 238 Wilson Obear Grocery Co. v. Cole, 26 Mo. App. 5 508, 820 Wilt V. Bird, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 258 767 Wiltse V. Fifield, 143 Iowa 332 276 Win V. Devine, 62 N. J. L. 374 861 Winans^v. Winans, 99 Mich. 74 281 Winchester v. Glazier, 152 Mass. 316 350, 359, 360, 361, 397, 654, 668 V. Whitney, 138 Mass. 549 888 Winchester & Partridge Mfg. Co. v. Creary, 116 U. S. 161 888 Windham v. Paterson, 1 Stark. 144 745 Windham County Bank v. Kendall, 7 R. I. 77 430, 431 Winfrey v. Clarke, 107 Ala. 355 836 Wing V. Bliss, 138 N. Y. 643 728 Wingarden v. Verhage, 68 Mich. 14 295, 674 Winkles v. Simpson Grocery Co., 138 Ga. 482 425 Winn V. Hillyer, 43 Mo. App. 139 486 Winnard v. Clinton, 233 111. 320 729 Winner v. Kuehn, 97 Wis. 394 820 Winona Lumber Co. v. Church, 6 S. Dak., 498 _ 166 Winship V. Bank o£ United States, 5 Pet. (U> S.) 529 83, 139, 216, 411, 418, 426, 429, 431, 486, 500, 689, 919, 922 Winslow V. Chiffelle, Harp. Eq. (S. Car.) 25 276, 281, 624 V. Herrick, 9 Mich. 380 493 V. Lane, 63 Maine 161 769 V. Leland, 128 111. 304 657, 675 V. Newlan, 45 111. 145 819, 888 V. Wallace, 116 Ind. 317 270, 304, 525, 528, 529, 823 V. Young, 94 Maine 145 169, 900 Winsor v. Savage, 9 Met. (Mass.) 346 491 Winstanley v. Gleyre, 146 111. 27 168, 169, 276, 882 Winston v. Ewing, 1 Ala. 129 292, 820 V. Ibanez (Mass.), 106 N. E. 141 825 Winter v. Innes, 2 Jur. 981 630, 639, 836 Wintermute v. Torrent, 83 Mich. 555 418, 486, 741 Winters v. Means, 25 Nebr. 241 817, 828 Wipperman v. Stacy, 80 Wis. 345 418, 471, 670, 882 Wise V. Ferguson (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S. W. 816 764 V. Frey, 7 Nebr. 134 297 V. Perpetual Trustee Co. (Eng.), A. C. 139 (1903) 166 V. Williams, 72 Cal. 544 847, 848, 907 V. Wise, 244 Pa. 611 929 Wise Realty Co. v. Stewart (Cal.), 146 Pac. 534 400 Wisham v. Lippincott, 9 N. J. Eq. 353 496, 533, 630, 827 Wishek v. Hammond, 10 N. Dak. 72 656, 669 Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Ross, 142 111. 9 509 Wisconsin Sulphite Fibre Co. v. D. K. Jeffris Lumber Co., 132 Wis. 1 976, 985, 991, 993, 994 Wisner v. Field, 11 N. Dak. 257 350, 354 Wisotzkey v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 112 App. Div. (N. Y.) 599 80 Wiswell v. Wilkiijs, 4 Vt. 137 716 Witbeck v. Chittenden, 50 Mich. 426 326 Witcher v. Brewer, 49 Ala. 119 509, 511 Witherbee v. Witherbee, 17 App. Div. (N. Y.) 181 721 Witherington v. Huntsman, 64 Ark. 551 371, 455 Withers v. Mills, 153 N. Y. S. 1016 315, 660 V. Pemberton, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 56 982, 983, 985, 987, 989 V. Withers, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 355 349 Witmer v. Schlatter, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 359 244, 811, 965 Witter V. Richards, 10 Conn. 37 291, 536, 820, 830 Wittingham v. Darrin, 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 478 715 Wittram v. Van Wormer, 44 III. 525 419, 487 Witz V. Tregallas, 82 Md. 351 677 Woarms v. Bauer, 26 N. Y. St. 936 835 Woddrop V. Ward, 3 Desaus. (S. Car.) 203 526 Woelfel V. Thompson, 173 Mass. 301 670 Woerz v. Schumacher, 161 N. Y. 530 668 Wolbert v. Harris, 7 N. J. Eq. 605 720, 721, 722, 786 Woldenberg v. Berg, 45 Ore. 291 673 Wolf v. Lawrence, 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 481 103, 897 V. Levi, 17 Ky. L. 1024 361, 664, 668 V. Mills,, 56 111. 360 508 V. New Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Co., 52 La. Ann. 1357 796, 847 V. Strahl, 54 Hun (N. Y.) 636 848 Wolfe V. Gilmer, 7 La. Ann. 583 295, 674 V. Joubert, 45 La. Ann. 1100 262, 264 V. Pugh, 101 Ind. 293 508 Wolff V. Madden, 6 Wash. 514 561 Wolfley V. Brown, 7 Ariz. 157 503 Wolfort V. Reilly, 133 Mo. 463 634 Wolle V. Brown, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 365 475' Wood, Ex parte, 10 Ch. D. 554 554 Wood, In re, 34 Ont. L. 278 660, 673, 727 Wood V. American Fire Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 382 299 V. Beath, 23 Wis. 254 369, 582, 586 V. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 104 467, 600, 888 V. Carter, 67 Nebr. 133 496 V. Connell, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 542 889 V. Cullen, 13 Minn. 394 500, 741, 810, 905 V. Deutchman, 80 Ind. 524 850 V. Dodgson, 2 M. & S. 195 538, 564 V. Fithian, 24 N. J. L. 33 847 V. Fox, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 451 V. Gault, 2 Md. Ch. 433 ' 574 V. Jefferies (Va.), 83 S. E. 1074 563, 596 V. Martin, 115 Ga. 147 265, 863 V. O'Kelley, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 406 798 V. Pennell, 51 Maine 52 476, 907 V. Rutland &c. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 31 Vt. 565 808, 834 V. Scoles, L. R. 1 Ch. 369 357, 670, 671 V. Shepherd, 2 Pat. & H. (Va.) 442 459, 461, 465, 487 V. Vallette, 7 Ohio St. 172 54, 80, 83, 103, 897 V. Warner, 15 N. J. Eq. 81 573 V. Watkiuson, 17 Conn. 50* 494 TABLE OF CASES cxliii [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Wood V. Witherow, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 517 291 V. Woad, L. R. 9 Exch. 190 575, 743 V. Wood, 26 Barb. (N. Y. ) 356 637 V. Wood, 50 W. Va. 570 721, 850 Woodard, In re, 95 Fed. 260 704 Woodbury v. Jones, 44 N. H. 206 770 Woodford v. Dorwin, 3 Vt. 82 432, 604 Woodling V. Knickerbocker, 31 Minn. „268 512, 513, 514 Woodman v. Boothby, 66 Maine 389 398 V. Toye, 204 Mass. 265 715 Woodmansie v. Holcomb, 34 Kans. 35 270, 527, 528, 529 Woodruff, In re. Tuck. (N. Y.) 1 633 Woodruff V. King, 47 Wis. 261 304 V. Scaife, 83 Ala. 152 412, 418, 449, 486, 487, 919 Woods V. Ridley, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 194 741 V. Ward, 48 W. Va. 652 882 V. Wilder, 43 N. Y. 164 186, 577 V. Woods, 3 Manitoba 33 188 V. Woods, 127 Mass. 141 825 Woodson V. Wood, 84 Va. 478 603, 604 Woodward v. Clark, 30 Kans. 78 905 V. Cowing, 41 Maine 9 83, 144, 773 V. McAdam, 101 Cal. 438 265 V. San Antonio Traction Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 95 S. W. 76 957 V. Winship, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 430 414, 473, 825 Woodward-Holmes Co. v. Nudd, 58 Minn. 236 282, 290, 296, 624, 625, 626, 627 Woodworth v. Bennett, 43 N. Y. 273 170, 172 V. Downer, 13 Vt. 522 467, 602, 604 V. Fuller, 24 111. 109 861 V. Spofford, 2 McLean (U. S.) 168 499 Woody V. Haworth, 24 Ind. App. 634 602 V. Pickard, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 55 459 Woolans v. Vansickle, 17 Grant Ch, (U. C.) 451 732 Wooldridge v. Wilkins, 3 How. (Miss.) 360 627 Wooley V. Batte, 2 Car. & P. 417 364 Woolf V. Woolf (1899), 1 Ch. 343 188 Woolley V. Canyon Exch. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 159 S. W. 403 994 V. Gaines, 114 Ga. 122 189 Woolsey v. Henke, 125 Wis. 134 854 V. Seely, Wright (Ohio) 360 491- Woolson V. Fuller, 71 Vt. 335 ' 415, 455 Woolverton v. Austin, 57 App, Div, ^ (N. Y.) 347 665 Wooten V. Harris, 153 N. Car. 43 320 Wooters v. Smith, 56 Texas 198 493 Worcester Corn Exchange Co., lu re, 3 DeG., M. & G. 180 364, 365 Word V. Word, 90 Ala. 81 836 Worley v. Smith, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 270 764 Worman v. Giddey, 30 Mich. 151 297, 693 Wormser v. Lindauer, 9 N. Mex. 23 83 V. Meyer, 54 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 189 445 Wormwell v. Hailstone, 6 Bing. 668 1046 Worrell v. Whitney, 185 Fed. 1002 686 Worster v. Forbush, 171 Mass. 423 265, 426, 485 Worthington v. Griesser, 77 App. Div. (N. Y.) ■ 203 240, 246 V. Macdonald, 9 Can. Sup. Ct. 327 729 Worthy v. Brower, 93 N. Car. 344 295 Wray v. Hutchinson, 2 Mylne & K. 235 650 v. Milestone, S Mees. & W. 21 751 v. Spence, 145 Pa. St. 399 889 v. Wray, 93 L. T. (N. S.) 304 284 Wrexham v. Hudleston, 1 Swanst. 514n 583 Wright v. Amann, 192 Fed. 649 887, 902 V. Ames, 4 Abb. Dec. 644 420 V. Barton, 34 Nebr. 776 630 I Wright V. Boynton, 37 N. H. 9 199, 817, 884 V. Brooks, 47 Mont. 99 265 901 V. Brosseau, 73 111. 381 , 561, 809 V. Carman, 47 N. Y. St. 125 559 V. Cobleigh, 21 N. H. 339 767 V. Cudahy, 168 111. 86 574 V. Cumpsty, 41 Pa. St. 102 V. Curtis, 27 111. 514 '''• '"' ITi V. Duke, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 409 291, 381, 400, 551 V. Eastman, 44 Maine 220 364, 749 V. Ewen, 19 Phila. (Pa.) 312 826 V. Fonda, 44 Mo. App. 634 594 V. Graham, 4 W. Va. 430 186 V. Herrich, 125 Mass. 154 798, 810 V. Hooker, 10 N. Y. 51 119, 260, 261 V. Hunter, 5 Ves. 792 349, 358, 364, 732 V. Hunter, 1 East 20 666 V. Kane (Nov. Sc), Cass. Dig. 596 661 V. Kelley, 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 57 561 v. Lee 2 S. Dak. 596 249 V. McCampbell, 75 Tex. 644 ,, , „ 618, 826, 849 V. Market Bank (Tenn.), 60 S. W. ,,623 276, 536 V. Merchants' &c. Packet Co., 104 Miss. 507 413 V. Michie, 6 Grat. (Va.) 354 743, 746 V. Pulham, 2 Chit. 121 596 V. Eadcliffe, 61 Mo. App. 257 292, 773, 820 V. Railey, 13 La. Ann. 536 469 V. Ross, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 207 576, 850 V. Russel, 2 W. Bl. 934 118 V. Sewall, 9 Rob. (La.) 128 564 V. Smith, 105 Fed. 841 219 V. Snowe, 2 DeG. & Sm. 321 188 V. Swayne, 44 Ky. 441 1055 V. Taylor, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 538 103 V. Troop, 70 Maine 346 741, 743 V. Ward,. 65 Cal. 525 719 V. Whiting, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 235 564 V. Williamson, 3 N. J. L. 532 796; 834. Wright Restaurant Co. v. Seattle Res- taurant Co., 67 Wash. 690 279, 329 Wulff V. San Joaquin County Super. Ct., 110 Cal. 215 728 Wyatt V. Sweet, 48 Mich. 539 731 Wyckoff V. Howe Scale Co., 110 Fed. '520 266 Wycoff V. Purnell, 10 Iowa 332 751, 850 Wyer v. Winchester, 2 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 69 617, 626 Wyles V. Beals, 1 Gray (Mass.) 233 530, 820 Wylie V. Wylie, 4 Gr. Ch. 278 623, 627 Wyman v. Hooper, 2 Gray (Mass.) 141 381 Wynkoop v. Wynkoop, 119 App. Div. (N. Y.) 679 '^^ 725 Yale V. Yale, 13 Conn. 185 371, 455 Yale Gas Stove Co. v. Wilcox, 64 Conn. 101 982 Yandes v. Lefavour, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 371 450, 451, 467, 888 Yarbrough v. Bush, 69 Ala. 170 827 Yarnell v. Anderson, 14 Mo. 619 606 Yarwood v. Billings, 31 Wash. 542 723 731 733 Yates V. Cousins, 60 L. T. Repr (n! S.T 535 659 V. Donaldson, 5 Md. 389 491 V. Finn, L. R. 13 Ch. Div. 839 353, 637, 638 V. Lyon, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 205 188 V. Lyon, 61 N. Y. 344 188 V. Petty, 1 Har. & J. (Md.) 58 677, 717 cxliv TABLE OF CASES [References are to sections— Vol. I, §§ 1-608; Vol. II, §§ 615-1195.] Yatsuyanagi v. Skimamura, 59 Wash. 24 89, 666 Yeager v. Focke, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 542 531 V. Wallace, 57 Pa. St. 365 418, 486 Yeatman v. Woods, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 20 290, 626, 627 Yeaton v. Berney, 62 111. 61 186 •Yeoman v. Lasley, 40 Ohio St. 190 168, 341, 381 Yerger's Appeal, 100 Pa. St. 88 981 Yergler v. Kaufmann, 176 111. App. 563 551, 715, 719 Yerkes v. McFadden, 141 N. Y. 136 817, 826 Yetzer v. Applegate, 83 Iowa 726 381, 729, 733 Yocum V. Benson, 45 III. 435 861 Yoho V. McGovern, 42 Ohio St. 11 457 Yoke V. Barnet, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 81' 401, 767 Yoos V. Doyle, 4 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) • 128 573, 674 York V. Orton, 65 Wis. 6 559 York Bank's Appeal, In re, 36 Pa. St. 458 465 Yorks V. Tozer, 59 Minn. 78 281, 346, 366, 402 Yorkshire Banking Co. v. Beatson, L. R. 5 C. P. 109 261, 923 Yost V. Critcher, 112 Va. 870 70, 215, 291, 341, 342, 381, 400, 652 Youmans v. Moore, 69 S. Car. 350 420 Young, Ex parte, 19 Ch. D. 124 817 Young, Matter of, 223 Fed. 659 686 Young V. Axtell, 2 H. Bl. 242 37, 138 V. Barras, 74 Mich. 343 665, 666, 727 V. Bell (N. J. Eg.), 41 Atl. 226 558 V. Berryman, N. B. Eq. Cas. 110 356 V. Buckett, 51 L. J. Ch. 504 721 V. Campbell, 10 Fac. Dec. 196 623 V. Clapp, 147 111. 176 270, 457, 527, 528, 563 V. Clute, 12 Nev. 31 598 V. Currier, 63 N. H. 419 491 V. Frier, 9 N. J. Eq. 465 823, 829 V. Huber, 29 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 49 767 V. Hunter, 4 Taunt. 582 809 V. Jones, 3 Hughes (U. S.) 274 328 V. Keighly, 15 Ves. 557 529, 829, 830, 831 V. Krueger, 92 Wis. 361 817, 826 V. Mock, 79 Miss. 714 823 V. Pearson, 1 Cal. 448 850 V. Potter, 150 Mich. 375 729 V. Read, 25 Tex. (Supp.) 113 371 Young V. Scoville, 99 Iowa 177 350, 353, 631, 636, 637 V. Shriner, 80 Pa. St. 463 496 V. Smith, 25 Mo. 341 905, 920 V. Tibbitts, 32 Wis. 79 594, 596 V. Thrasher, 115 Mo. 222 290, 624, 625, 627 V. Wheeler, 34 Fed. 98 218, 444 V. Winkley, 191 Mass. 570 730, 731 Younglove v. Liebhardt, 13 Nebr. 557 350 743 Younts V. Starnes, 42 S. Car. 22 ' 617 Youtsey v. Lemley (Iowa), 151 N, W. 491 413, 919 Zabriskie v. Hackensack &c. R, Co., IS N. J. Eg. 178 416 V. Smith, 13 N. Y. 322 796, 811 Zacharie v. Blandin, 6 La. 193 674 V. Godfrey, 50 111. 186- 186 Zaepfel v. Baumgardner, 6 Lane. Bar. (Pa.) 141 ■ , 550 Zahn V. McMillin; 179 Pa. St. 146' 342, 384 ZaUnoff V. Hammond (1898), 2 Ch. 92 725 Zane v. Sawtell, 11 W. Va. 43 623, 624 Zanturjian v. Boornazian, 25 R. I. 151 316, 318 Z. C. Miles Co. v. Gordon, 8 Wash. 442 79 Zell's Appeal, In re, 111 Pa. St. 532 270 Zell's Appeal, In re, 126 Pa. St. 329 352, 353, 356, 637, 667 Zemon v. Trim, 181 Mich. 130 263 Ziegenhein v. Smith, 116 111. App. 80 448, 825 Ziegler's Appeal, 2 Sad. (Pa.) 351 727 Ziemer v. C. G. Bretting Mfg. Co., 147 Wis. 252 953, 959, 968 Zimmerman v. Chambers, 79 Wis. 20 715, 720 V. Erhard, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 311 190 V. Erhard, 83 N. Y. 74 191, 262, 263, 578 V. Harding, 227 U. S. 489 224, 650, 729, 769 V. Huber, 29 Ala. 379 350, 355, 390, 652, 730 V. Kunkel, 43 'Hun (N. Y.) 638 836 Zollar V. Janvrin, 47 N. H. 324 596 Zoller V. Grant, 3 N. Y. S. 539 831 Zuber v. Roberts, 147 Ala. 512 75 Zuel V. Bowen, 78 111. 234 425, 426, 854 Zwietusch v. Becker, 153 Wis. 213 230 THE LAW OF PARTNERSHIP CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY AND HISTORICAL SECTION SECTION 1. Earliest partnerships. 10. American Uniform Partnership 2. Babylonian law. Act. 3. Jewish law. 11. Scope of Uniform Partnership 4. Roman law. Act. 5. Chinese law. 12. General view of Uniform Part- 6. Partnership and the law mer- nership Act and changes chant. made by it in existing part- 7. Early English law. nership law. 8. Later developments in English 13. Uniform Partnership Act as law. considered in succeeding chap- 9. Codification. ters. § 1. Earliest partnerships. — Partnerships have existed from the earliest times. Sharing profits in a common business undertaking is the most distinctive feature of partnership. The first man and the first woman, thrown together among primeval conditions, joining forces against the elements and the dangers without, and the pangs of hunger within, and giving mutual pro- tection and assistance, each to the other, typify the earliest form of partnership. They associated their skill and labor and made their home secure from the beasts of prey that infested the forests about. The primitive furnishings of their abode, the crude weapons of offense and defense, the stpres of nuts and fruits hidden in their cave home, all were produced and assembled by their common efforts and for their common benefit. When their 1 § 2 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 2 efforts succeeded, there was their profit — the finished product. In case of a failure, they shared the loss — ^their labor and time expended. The first partnerships were necessarily of the rudest sort, and the common undertakings were of a simple character with no laws governing the subject, except the law of the strongr est arm, the quickest eye, and the heaviest club. As the popula- tion of the earth increased and government became better established, the various phases of the subject now known to us were evolved and gave rise to a separate system of laws with special adaptation to this relation. Many of these laws are now outgrown and obsolete, but there is a tendency toward a broader view of the subject, and such construction of the laws as will meet the changing conditions of a commercial age of larger or- ganizations. § 2. Babylonian law. — Approximately 2300 B. C. — al- most a thousand years before the Mosaic law was given to the Jews, Khammurabi, King of Babylon, and one of the greatest law-givers of history, compiled a system of laws in the famous code which bears his name. This is perhaps the first code which definitely recognizes and regulates the relation of partnership; not, it is true, in all respects as we now understand the relation, but, nevertheless, sufficient to give a definite standing to the subject. The principal occupations of the Babylonians were agriculture and commerce, and it is chiefly to these pursuits that the laws were directed. Commercial partnerships were, at that time, chiefly for single transactions, and we have record of one of these transactions, illustrating the application of the then existing customs and laws. "Adad-iddinam and Arad Martu made a partnership and went to Sippura, and in the gate of the Sun-god they returned the property and the capital they invested, and each took as much as he was entitled to and went his way." Under the agricultural laws, in Section 46, this rule is established : "If his (the landlord's) rent he has not received, and has given his field for a half or a third, the corn which is in the field, the farmer and the owner of the field shall divide according to the terms of the contract." Under this code, the likeness to our pres- 3 INTRODUCTORY AND HISTORICAL § 2 ent laws is emphasized, by the joint sharing, to a certain extent at least, of profit and loss. Section 46, above quoted, shows a division of profit, at least of gross profit, if we may here so use the term. Section 48 of the code provides for division of the loss, in case of failure of the crop for certain specific reasons. There are certain rules of our present law as to profit and loss, which are not completely covered or included in the above code, but the similarity, in a general way, is clearly seen. In the Baby- lonian year book, further rules are given in detail, as follows: "If a farmer takes for a half-partnership, everything is equal — ■ man as man — house as house — seed as seed." "When harvest time comes, the master sends from his place an ox for threshing the corn, and the corn of the field he takes." These rules, like our court decisions, further illustrate the code, and they show an even closer approach to present laws than the code itself. The following form of Babylonian contract of partnership may per- haps prove to be of interest. "Fourfeddan, a field within the field of the Sun-god, the field Arad-ulmas-sittum, son of Tariburn, from Arad-ulmas-sittum, the master of the field, Arad-ulmus and Anul-adad, sons of Usatim, this field for cultivation on rent for one year have hired ; one with the other an agreement has been established. In the day of harvest they shall reap as right and left [equally] the corn, the rent of the field they shall pay, the agreement they shall close, the property jointly they shall possess. [Date] 22nd day, month Sukul, year of Ammiditana, the King." From a study of the whole code, and of the rules in the year books, we find that the Babylonians had three systems of letting land — (1) by a relation of partnership — (2) by land hired and rent paid in kind — (3) by farmers who did the work and re- ceived both a wage and a certain portion of the produce. Thus we see that the Babylonian partnership, both conlmercial and ag- ricultural, approached, in the main, the modern partnership, and was, in part, the forerunner and perhaps even the model from which the modern form of this branch of the law was evolved, and that, in over four thousand years, the basic rules of this sub- ject have been changed or modified but little. § 3 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 4 § 3. Jewish law. — The ancient Jews were a pastoral and not a commercial people. Their earliest form of partnership re- lated to the holding of land. The word "shutolin" was first used in reference to the joint ownership of land, but later the word, as changed and modified, was applied to partnership, and the re- lations growing therefrom. In case the contribution of both partners was to be money, it did not become partnership property until both partners had put the money in a common bag, and both partners had lifted it. As to other property brought into the partnership, other technical rules -were provided. There was one advantage in their system, however, in that there was little if any chance for a dispute between the partners or third parties as to whether or not a partnership existed, since there was proof at hand in case there should be a dispute. There was a sharing of both profit and loss between the partners, and the division of the profit or loss, in the absence of a special agreement, was in equal proportions. The partners, as a rule, had the power each to bind the other by contract. One peculiar feature of the ancient Jewish partnership, however, was the absence of any firm name. In this particular, it approached the feature of joint ownership of land, and the development of joint land ownership under Jewish law into partnership probably explains this peculiarity. Another peculiar feature was found in the association of capital and labor. The question of usury was injected, and it was held that in order to avoid the taint of usury in such an association the capitalist must pay wages to the business man, and a dif- ferent manner of division of profits and loss was evolved in this case. The union of law and religion under ancient systems of jurisprudence is well illustrated by the Jewish law governing partnerships. A Jew and an unbeliever could not form a partner- ship, as it was said that in case of dispute the unbeliever would, in giving his oath, swear by another than by the Jewish God. A great part of Jewish commerce and consequently of Jewish part- nership of advanced periods, grew out of the caravans of ancient times. These caravans were in constant danger from the Bedouins of the desert, and the rule grew up that if one partner J _ INTRODUCTORY AND HISTORICAL § 4 could save the caravan from the robbers, and his partners could not so save it, he saved it for himself alone, and not for the part- nership ; but if the partners could so save it, he who saved it did so for the benefit of all. This would seem a dangerous rule to establish, as it would encourage a dishonest partner to secure men to attack the caravan, and then save it himself, by working in collusion with them. A study of these ancient laws shows that the same general rules prevailed at the time here discussed as we now enjoy; that in fact our present partnership law but embodies the theory established in several of the old nations, the Jews in- cluded, with a few changes, additions, or omissions in places to conform to modern conditions. These brief statements demon- strate the genius of the old commercial nations in dealing with the subject, the adaptability of the subject to varying conditions, and the pressing need of the relation in carrying on the commerce of any nation. § 4. Roman law. — It is commonly thought that the Roman law had but little influence upon the English law, and, consequently, upon American law, except in those states where the French prevailed and gave a civil-law tone to the legal system. Investigation will, however, show the fallacy of this conception, and it is perhaps nowhere better shown than in the law of part- nership. In the system growing out of the code of Justinian, we find that with a few changes, it could almost be taken as a code of American partnership law of to-day. Partnership, as defined by a noted writer on Roman law, is : "A contract by which two or more persons agree to combine their property or labor, or both, on the condition of sharing the common profit and loss.'"- The same theory of profit and loss which prevails in our law to-day is present. If nothing is stipulated as to the share of each part- ner in profits or losses, the presumption is that each shares equally, but the contract could provide for a different division. Partnership could be either general or special, according to the provisions of the contract. General partnerships are divided into 1 Moray's Outlines of Roman Law, p. 368. S J LAW OF PARTNERSHIP O two classes, in which the partners either placed (1) all their property, time, and efforts in a common ownership, or else (2) so held their efforts and services in and relating to some profes- sional or business association only, without including ventures in other matters. The special partnership was also divided into two classifications: (1) One formed for a single purpose or trans- action and (2) one to hold in common some particular thing. As to dissolution of the Roman partnership, and as to the usual rules as to rights and duties inter se, and other partnership mat- ters, the law was very similar to our own. There was, however, one very great exception to the similarity of the Roman law to modern law; as to third persons, there was no iniplied agency of one partner for the other, and only the partner transacting the business with the third person was liable. § 5. Chinese law. — The jurisprudence of China though different in many particulars from that of the western nations contains many similar principles in its laws relating to partner- ships. As a rule, only the active members of the partnership are held liable indefinitely as to amount, while the other members are held only to the amount of their capital. In case of a joint stock company, only the directors are liable personally. All the stockholders who were not directors are only liable for the value of their stock. The family, in China, is the unit for many pur- poses, and property is often held by a whole family in common. In case a member of a family should be an active partner in a bankrupt concern, in general the interest of the partner in the family property could be taken on the partnership liability. It will be seen that a common Chinese partnership partakes of the nature of our limited partnerships. It is, however, perhaps safe to say that even in China the great features of the law of partner- ship closely resemble our own laws. § 6. Partnership and the law merchant.^ — During the Middle Ages, in its periods of great commercial activity, partner- 2 See Mitchell, Early Forms of American Legal History, Vol. Ill, Partnership, Select Essays in Anglo- p. 183. 7 INTRODUCTORY AND HISTORICAL § O ships were very common. It seems that there were two general forms, one of which was the "commenda," in which one partner furnished the capital, and the other conducted the business. The commendator, as the partner was called who furnished the cap- ital, usually took the risk of loss, and received the greater share in the profits. The managing partner was called the tractator. The commenda shows the earliest form of dormant partnership and limited liability. Another form of partnership at this time was the "societas" or "compagnia," in which the partners were associated together with equal rights, and were liable individually for the debts of the society, and had power to bind their fellows in contract. Such organizations usually did business in the name of one member with the addition of the term "et socii," which seems to have been the origin of the firm name. At first, resort was had to general notoriety or the books of the firm in order to determine who were liable as partners, but later it was re- quired that the names of partners be registered with certain guilds, and with city authorities, and that dissolution be made by a public instrument. It seems that at first one partner could not bind the others without special authority, but later the power ^of one partner to bind the others was recognized by implication, perhaps because in most instances he was specially authorized to do so. The principle of unlimited liability for the debts of the firm seems also to have been one of gradual growth. The nature of the commenda and the societas, as has been seen, was very different. They had a different origin and purpose, the first being a speculative transaction, the second usually a per- manent association of persons having confidence in each other to carry on business together, and the liabilities were different. But it is probable that the beginnings of partnership in England came directly from these Italian societies. The merchants of the Mediterranean traded in England, and their liability would be governed by the laws of their associations. English mer- chants in their associations followed largely the plan of organiza- tion adopted by the Italians, and in fact the greater part of partnership law is ari outgrowth from mercantile customs. The § 7 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 8 joint Stock company, or partnership in which shares could be freely sold, which is also in a way the predecessor of the modern corporation, likewise had its origin with the Italian merchants of the middle ages, and this form of organization was greatly used in business relationships to engage in trade with colonies which were at that time being established by the leading Euro- pean nations. There are examples of the first two forms of partnership in the thirteenth century or earlier, and gradually they developed until they reached their full importance about the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The third form seems to have been of later origin. The partnership law of the con- tinental nations of Europe has as its basis the Roman or civil law, modified by the Law Merchant. It seems that the law of partnership in all modern nations not English-speaking, is a com- bination of the civil and mercantile law, while in English-speak- ing nations it is the combination of common law and mercan- tile law. § 7. Early English law. — There are no partnership cases in the English reports until well into the seventeenth century. The earliest cases involved the right to an accounting and to survivorship. Blackstone makes very little mention of partnerr ship, and that little refers to equity taking concurrent jurisdic- tion in the matter of accounts of all partnership dealings,^ and to the doctrine that "stock used in a joint undertaking, by way of partnership in trade, shall always be considered as conimon and not as joint property, and there shall be no survivorship therein."* The reason seems to be that all earlier questions con- nected with the relation were settled under the law merchant in the courts of the merchants, or staple courts. In those days the merchants desired speedier justice than could be accom- plished in the courts of law, and to this end established some- what informal courts of their own, which were open at all times and decided submitted questions without delay. Then the statute 33 Bl. Com. 437, citing 1 Eq. Cas. ■*2 Bl. Com. 399, citing 1 Vern. Abr. 367. 217 and Co. Litt. 182. y INTRODUCTORY AND HISTORICAL § o of the Staple, 2 Edw. Ill, Statute 2, was passed in 1353, which recognized that merchants may not often long tarry in one place for levying of their merchandise, and promised them speedy right from day to day and from hour to hour, according to the laws used in such staples before such time, and created mayors and constables of the staple who were elected by the merchants of each merchant town. From the law merchant have come the right of one partner to have an accounting from the other, and the doctrine of non-survivorship, which distinguish the rights ■of partners in partnership property from the rights of joint tenants at common law.^ § 8. Later developments in English law. — The earliest cases in the English law reports dealing with partnership had to do with a partner's right to an accounting," or denied the right of survivorship oh the death of one of two partners/ The first treatise in English on the subject of partnership was written by Watson, and published near the close of the seventeenth century. In the earlier years of the nineteenth century the .partnership was the most important form of association of per- sons together for the doing of business, and at that time the greater number of the basic principles of partnership law be^ came well settled. Many texts on the subject were written, among which may be mentioned those of Story, Collyer, and Parsons, which had a strong influence in slmping the trend of subsequent decisions. In 1860 was published the first edition of Lindley on Partnership, and this text with its many subse- quent revisions has since been the standard text in England, 5 See What Is the Law Merchant, «Y. B. 30 Edw. L, Account 127; by Francis M. Burdick, 2 Columbia Y. B. 38 Edw. Ill Account 7; Fitz- Law Rev. 470, citing Bracton De Le- herbert Nat Brev. Account 267 (D). gibus Anglicse, 1. v. f. 334a, 1. vi. ''Hamond v. Jethro, 2 Brownl. & 444a;' Pollock and Maitland's His- G. 97n; Jeffereys v. Small, 1 Vern. tory of English Law, Vol. 2, p. 212 ; Ch. 217, 23 Eng. Reprint 424. See Clermont's Fortescue, pp. 120, 121 ; also Bellasis v. Hester, 1 Ld. Raym. Coke 4th Inst. 272; 27 Edw. Ill, 280. Stat. 2 ; Zouch Jurisdiction of Admir- ^ alty, p. 128. § 9 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 10 and has been of large influence in America. In the latter years of the nineteenth century and the first years of the present, the trend in business organization was almost entirely toward the corporation with its artificial personality and limited liability, and the partnership, which at one time had this field entirely to itself, became of secondary consideration in the minds of most persons. Recently, with the increasing stringency of statu-' tory regulation of corporate action, there has been a tendency to return to the partnership as a form of association of persons in business. § 9. Codification. — The most conspicuous development in the history of partnership law within the last generation has been in the direction of codification. In 1890 the English Part- nership Act was passed. This was not intended to be the enact- ment oi new law, but rather a codification of the existing law on the subject, as found in the decisions. Mr. Lindley says of this act :^ "This act is not a complete pode of partnership law ; the mode of administering partnership assets in the event of death or bankruptcy is not to be found in it, neither is there anything in it relating to good will. The Act itself provides by Section 46 that existing rules of equity and of common law shall continue in force except so far as they are inconsistent with the express provisions of the act. Opinions will naturally differ as to the utility of statutes which deal with important branches of law, but which do not profess to deal with them ex- haustively. No doubt an incomplete piece of work is unsatis- factory; but it does not follow that such a work is not worth executing; if it is well done as far as it goes, it may be a great boon; and the Partnership Act, 1890, although imperfect, has the merit of reducing a mass of law, previously undigested ex- cept by^ private authors, .into a series of propositions authori- tatively expressed and as carefully considered as any Act of Parliament is likely to be. * * * With one important exception the Partnership Act, 1890, introduced no great change 8 Lindley Partnership (8 ed.), p. 2. 11 INTRODUCTORY AND HISTORICAL § 10 in the law. It amended the law in some small particulars, and it removed doubts on one or two controverted points ; but, speak- ing generally, the Act made no important change in the law save in respect of the mode of making a partner's share of the partnership assets available for the payment of his separate judgment debts." § 10. The American Uniform Partnership Act. — In sev- eral American states the partnership law has been codified. This is true in Louisiana, which follows the civil law, in California and other western states, including Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Oklahoma, which have practically adopted the California code. In New York, Ohio and some other states portions of the partnership law have been codified, and in all jurisdictions limited partnerships are governed by a statutory code. The Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws is a body of men whose aim and work has been "to express in legislative form, clarify, simplify and make uniform our commercial law."" This body prepared the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was adopted by the conference in 1896, and since that time has been adopted by almost every state in the union. This conference has also prepared sev- eral other uniform acts on subjects of commercial law. Per- ceiving certain advantages in a uniform codification of the part- nership law in the various states, the conference was engaged for several years in preparing such an act. In its final shape the act was drafted by Professor William Draper Lewis, was adopted by the Conference on Uniform State Laws in October, 1914, and has since been enacted into law by some of the state legislatures.^" Other well-known authorities on partnership law who took part in the consideration of the act were Dr. Floyd R. Mechem, Dr. Francis M. Burdick, and Dr. Samuel Williston. The reasons advanced in favor of such codification may probably be best expressed in the words of Dr. Samuel Williston, one of 9 William Draper Lewis, 24 Yale sin Laws 1915; Act March 26, 1915^ Law Journal 617. Act No. 15, Pennsylvania Laws 1915. 10 Act July 6, 1915, ch. 358, Wiscon- § 10 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 12 the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.^^ "Codification has an ugly sound to most American lawyers. We have been trained to believe that no code can be expressed with sufficient exactness, or can be sufficiently elastic to fulfil adequately the functions of our common law. The iridescent legal Utopia pro- posed by Bentham and his followers, in which every one should readily know the law, or be able quickly to find it by turning to a code, and in which the professional lawyer would be abol- ished, has been proved a dream. We know, to-day, that law must adapt itself to changing conditions; that what is right in one time and place is not necessarily universal truth; that so long as the skein of human affairs is full of difficult tangles the law controlling those affairs can not be simple, or understood easily by uninstructed persons; that much of our law is in too vague a form to be written down ; that new cases may arise to- morrow for which the common law will find an answer — though neither the question nor the answer could be suggested by one who framed a code to-day. * * * j^ must not be forgotten, however, in any criticism of codification, that practically the whole civilized world, except English-speaking countries, is gov- erned by codes ; that these codes have been adopted chiefly during the past century after trial of systems of unwritten or custo- mary law and that foreign expert opinion seems practically unanimous in favor of codification. We are, therefore, driven to believe that there is nothing chimerical in the plan of codi- fication itself, but that if it has serious disadvantages in English- speaking countries they must be due either to (1) the inferior workmanship of the codes which have actually been produced, or (2) to the greater vagueness or rapidity of the growth of the law of English-speaking countries which makes adequate codi- fication impracticable. The first of these evils should be remedi- able if time, patience, hard work, and learning, can be combined to meet them. The second objection, if applicable to parts of our law, can not be true of many other parts, including such 1163 University of Pennsylvania Law Rev., p. 196. 13 INTRODUCTORY AND HISTORICAL § 10 parts of the commercial law as the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws have attempted to codify. The law of these sub- jects is in the main crystallized and indeed, is so far fixed in its main points by numerous judicial decisions that it is practically impcfssible to change it without legislation. * * * A. diffi- culty in regard to even partial codification which troubles many is the lack of elasticity which statute law has as compared with the dommon law. That this objection is wholly without force need not be contended, but it may easily be over-emphasized in regard to such codification of such matters as are here under discussion. The main principles of these subjects have already become inelastic in the common law. They could , no more easily be changed than could a statute itself, except by legisla- tion. What may be called the fringe of the subject is doubtless open to possible development and growth at .common law, but this possibility still remains for all the uniform statutes pro- vide that as to matters not specifically covered by the act, the rules of common law and equity are applicable." Upon this point Dr. William Draper Lewis says,^^ "In expressing in legis- lative form our commercial and business association law, the Commissioners, if their work is well done, are creating that which will probably long outlast the present generation. The ^Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act, for instance, which was the first act sanctioned by the Conference, would have been equally applicable to cortimercial conditions in the early eighteenth century, and with comparatively slight modifications, could have been adapted to conditions in classic Rome. Again, in spite of recent great industrial changes, the Uniform Partnership Act would have met conditions in Lord Mansfield's day as well as those of to-day. As these two acts would have worked as well in 1765 as in 1915, there may be a reasonable expectation that they will meet conditions of one hundred and fifty years hence." Dr. Williston continues to enumerate the advantages of codifi- cation as follows : "1. To produce uniformity of law. 2. To state the* law in a compendious form in which it will be susceptible 12 24 Yale Law Journal 618. § 11 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 14 of easier reference and more exact determination than if sought from decisions. 3. To settle uncertain questions of law without litigation. Legislation is cheaper than litigation as a means of fixing the law in these particulars. In the newer states this advantage is entitled to the greatest weight. 4. To harmonize into a more consistent whole a body of doctrines, many of which have grown up, if not at haphazard, at least without particular reference to one another."^^ § 11. Scope of Uniform Partnership Act, — The Uniform Partnership Act, like the English Partnership Act, is not a com- plete codification, in every respect, of the law relating to part- nership. It is declared that in any case not provided for in the act the rules of law and equity, including the law merchant, shall govern. There are some features connected with partnership law, which are not mentioned in the Act. Nothing is said as to whether the partnership can sue in the firm name, or the partners must sue. The Commissioners probably judged it unwise to put any provisions of this kind in the act, lest there should be a conflict with the civil code provisions of some of the states. Few specific rules touching" bankruptcy of a partnership are laid down. These, however, are cared for in the Federal Bankruptcy Act. There are no specific provisions touching the subject of fraudulent conveyances, though the provision which makes a firm continuing the business after retirement or admission of a part- ner liable to the creditors of the old firm will obviate much of the prior confusion as to whether conveyances of partnership piroperty were in fraud of creditors. The Act as once drafted contained a section on fraudulent conveyances, but the commis- sioners later concluded that it would be better to draft a uniform law on the subject of fraudulent conveyances.^* § 12. General view of Uniform Partnership Act, and changes made by it in existing law. — There are six parts in 13 63 U. P. Law Rev. 199, "William Draper Lewis, 29 Har- vard Law Rev. 297. 15 INTRODUCTORY AND HISTORICAL § 12 the Uniform Partnership Act. Of these, the first, Sections 1-6, is taken up with preliminary provisions, including definitions, rules for the construction of the statute and provisions that the law of estoppel and agency shall apply under the act and that the rules of law and equity shall govern a case not provided for in the act. The second part. Sections 6-8, deals with the nature of a partnership, defines it, and prescribes tests for de- . termining whether a partnership exists, and what is partnership property. The third part. Sections 9-17, is concerned with the relations of partners to persons dealing with the partnership. The specific subjects are the agency of the partner for the part- nership in the business, the conveyance of real property of the partnership, the binding of a partnership by a partner's admis- sion, wrongful act or breach of trust, the nature of a partner's liability, the liability of an incoming partner and partnership liability by estoppel. This portion of the act makes several changes in the rules now recognized by many, if not most juris- dictions. It provides for the conveyance of real property in the partnership name, makes an incoming partner liable for the debts of the firm previously contracted, and makes some changes in partnership liability by estoppel, providing that no one can be charged because he has been held out as a partner unless he has consented to it, and that if there is no actual partnership, persons held out as partners may be jointly liable. The fourth part. Sections 18-23, deals with the relations of partners to one another, specifically treating of the rights and duties of the partners. There are probably no rules laid down in these sec- tions which have not the support of American decisions, al- though Section 18 allows a surviving partner reasonable com- pensation for winding up the business, which is contrary to the commonly accepted rule. Section 21 makes a partner liable as trustee for secret profits. The fifth part, Sections 24-28, has to do with the property rights of a partner, and specifically con- siders the extent of such rights, the nature of a partner's right in specific partnership property, the nature of his interest in a partnership, the assignment of such interest and the subjection § 12 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 16 of such interest to a charging order. Section 25, while probably not changing greatly the general rules as to a partner's rights in specific partnership property, creates a new name for the char- acter of his holding, that of tenancy in partnership. It also provides that a partner can not assign his interest in particular partnership property, and that such interest is not subject to at- tachment by his separate creditor. Section 28 is an innovation in partnership law, in this country, though taken from the English act, and it provides for the issuance of a charging order on the in- terest of one partner, at the suit of a judgment creditor, which will take the place of attachment of a partner's interest by an individual partner, this being forbidden by Section 25; Section 26 definitely states that a partner's interest in the partnership is personal property, thus adopting the English rule of equitable conversion for all purposes, in contra-distinction to the general American rule, and doing away with the rule in some decisions that his share in partnership lands is real estate, and descends to his heirs. The sixth part, Sections 29-41, is entitled Dissolu- tion and Winding Up, and contains about half the printed matter of the entire act. It defines dissolution as the change in a business caused by a partner ceasing to be associated with its car- rying on, and prescribes the causes of dissolution, and states the rights, powers and liabilities of partners after dissolution, rules for distribution of assets, rights and powers on continuance of the business and the rights of retiring partners and the estates of deceased partners. In this part of the act several changes in the general rules of law have been made, beginning with the defini- tion of dissolution as not a termination of the partnership. Section 31 allows dissolution in contravention of an agreement to continue the business for a fixed term, a rule not accepted by all of the decisions. Section 38 provides for damages if a dis- solution is wrongfully made, in breach of contract. Section 35 changes the generally accepted rule in providing that actual no- tice of dissolution need only be given to those who have for- merly extended credit to the firm, and not to those who have had former dealings with it. Section 38 gives a partner on disso- 17 INTRODUCTORY AND HISTORICAL § 13 lution the right to receive his share of the surplus in cash, thus setting at rest a disputed proposition. Section 40 makes the contributions of partners to losses a part of the partnership assets. Section 41, in connection with Section 17, makes one of the most radical changes, in providing that on retirement of a partner or admission of a new one, and a continuance of the business without liquidation, the creditors of the old firm be- come creditors of the new one, while under the general rule to- day the old creditors have no right against the new firm as such or its assets, in the absence of assumption of their debts. Section 34 makes all the partners liable for the act of a partner in the course of firm business done after dissolution of the firm by act of a partner, death or bankruptcy, but before he had knowledge of such fact. § 13. Uniform Partnership Act as considered in succeed- ing chapters. — There has been no text on partnership pub- lished since the Uniform Partnership Act has been drafted and adopted, and since it seems likely to be adopted in many jurisdic- tions in this country, perhaps in most, its provisions will be dis- cussed rather fully in this book, so far as practicable in the ab- sence of decisions construing it. In considering the various subdi- visions of the general subject of partnership in the following chapters, reference is made specifically to the different sections of Uniform Partnership Act, especially where it has changed the general or prevailing rule, or where it adopts one of sev- eral conflicting rules. It may be said that while the Uniform Partnership Act is not perfect, and while in some minor details it may fail of being entirely satisfactory, on the whole it marks an advance. The great advantages to be secured from it are definite- ness and certainty in statement of the rules of partnership law, and uniformity of that law in the jurisdictions adopting it. The first of these advantages may be urged in favor of any codifica- tion; the second is of peculiar force in the United States, with approximately fifty state courts of last resort -and their variously conflicting decisions. The time spent in its framing, by men of 2 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol.. 1 § 13 tAW OF PARTNERSHIP 18 high attainment, who are the greatest living authorities in Amer- ica on partnership law, and their sponsorship for it, should in- dicate that it is practically as sound and workable a code of laws as can be made in the present state of human enlightenment. CHAPTER II DEFINITIONS SECTION , SECTION 25. Definitions generally. 28. General aspects of partnership 26. Difficulty of definition. liability. 27. Partnership liability the real question. § 25. Definitions generally. — Partnership may be defined as the relation existing between two or more individuals or asso- ciations of individuals, who have associated themselves together for the purpose of sharing the profits and losses arising from a use of capital, labor or skill in some common transaction or series of transactions. This definition does not attempt to cover the various conditions arising out of the relation, such as agency, etc., but simply points out the essential elements of the term. Mr. Elliott in his work on contracts gives the following defini- tion : "A partnership is the relation which results from a contract whereby two or more competent persons, each of whom is thereby given power to act in the double capacity of principal for him- self and agent for his a'ssociates within the scope of their agree- ment, combine their property, labor or skill in a lawful enter- prise or business, as principals, to share as common owners in the resultant profits."^ The Uniform Partnership Act defines partnership as "an asso- ciation of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a busi- ness for profit."^ In this definition, "business" includes every trade, occupation or profession, and "person" includes indi- viduals, partnerships, corporations and other associations.* Many other definitions are collected in the notes.* 1 Elliott Contracts, § 476. * The following are various defini- 2 Uniform Partnership Act, § 6. tions that have been given of a part- 3 Uniform Partnership Act, § 2. nership. "Partnership is the relation 19 25 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 20 The persons who have joined in a partnership relation are called partners. The relation is also spoken of as copartnership, the term being synonymous with partnership, and the partners are subsisting between two or more per- sons who have contracted together to share as common owners the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them on behalf of all of them." Shumaker Partnership (2 ed.), § 2. "Partnership is a legal relation based upon the express or implied contract of two or more competent persons to unite their property, labor or skill in carrying on some lawful business as principals for their joint profit." Mechem Partnership, § 1. "A partnership is a voluntary unin- corporated association of individuals, standing to one another in the rela- tion of principals, for carrying out a joint operation or undertaking for the purpose of a joint profit." Dixon Partnership, § 1. "Partnership is a contract of two or more competent persons to place their money, effects, labor and skill, or some or all of them, in lawful commerce or business, and to divide the profit and bear the loss in certain proportions." Parsons Partnership, ch. 2, § 1. "Partnership is the relation which subsists between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a busi- ness carried on by all or any of them on behalf of all of them." Pollock's Dig. Partnership (3 ed.), § 4. "Partnership is a voluntary con- tract between two or more persons, joining together their money, goods, labor and skill, or either or all of them, upon an agreement that the gain or loss shall be divided propor- tionably between them, and having for its object the advancement and protection of fair and open trade." Watson Partnership, p. 1. "Partnership is a relation existing, by virtue of a contract, express or in. ilied, between persons carrying on a business owned in common, with a view of profit to be shared by them." Gilmore Partnership, § 1. "A partnership is a combination by two or more persons of capital, or labor or skill, for the purpose of business for their common benefit." Parsons Partnership, p. 6. This defi- nition was approved in Morse v. Pa- cific R. Co., 191 111. 356, 61 N. E. 104; Evans v. Warner, 20 App. Div. 230, 47 N. Y. S. 16. "Except when one allows the pub- lic or individual dealers to be de- ceived by the appearances of partner- ship when none exists, he is never to be charged as a partner unless by contract and with intent he has formed a relation in which the ele- ments of partnership are to be found. And what are these? At the very least the following: Community of interest in some lawful commerce or business, for the conduct of which the parties are mutually principals of and agents for each other, with gen- eral powers within the scope of the business, which powers, however, by agreement between the parties them- selves, may be restricted at option, to the extent even of making one of the sole agent of the others and of the business." Beecher v. Bush, 45 Mich. 188, 7 N. W. 785, 40 Am. Rep. 465. Quoted in Brotherton v. Gilchrist, 144 Mich. 274, 107 N. W. 890, 115 Am. St. 397. 21 DEFIKITIONS I 25 called copartners. Often the organization carries on business in a certain name, generally a combination of the names of the members. This name is the firm name. In ordinary commercial language a partnership is often spoken of as a firm, or concern. "A partnership is a joint undertak- ing to share in the profit and loss." Eastman v. Clark, 53 N. H. 276, 16 Am. Rep. 192. There is a partnership whenever such a relation exists between two persons that each is as to the other, in. respect of some business, both principal and agent. Unless such a relation exists, they are not partners, and partnership is but a name for this reciprocal relation. Morgan v. Farrel, 58 Conn. 413, 20 Atl. 614, 18 Am. St 282. Partnership is a contract involving the mutual consent of the parties for the purpose of carrying on a com- mercial business — a business bringing a profit; and dividing the profit in some shape between the partners. Jessel, M. R., in Pooley v. Driver, 5 L. R. Ch. Div. 458. "Partnership is a contract of two or more competent persons to place their money, effects, labor and skill, or some or all of them, in lawful commerce or business, and to divide the profits and bear the loss in cer- tain proportion." 3 Kent Com. 23. The above definition is approved in the following cases: Goldsmith v. Eichold, 94 Ala. 116, 10 So. 80, 33 Am. St. 97; Omaha &c. Refining Co. V. Rucker, 6 Colo. App. 334, 40 Pac, 853; Ellison v. Stuart, 2 Pennew. (Del.) 179, 43 Atl. 836; Waggoner V. First Nat. Bank, 43 Nebr. 84, 61 N. W. 112. "A partnership is a contract between two or more parties to combine their capital, labor and skill, or some or all of them, in a business in which they are to have a community of in- terest, as pi:incipals, for the purpose of joint profits. The sharing of profits is not a conclusive test of partnership, and as between them- selves the question of partnership is one of intention on their part." T. R. Foley Co. v. McKinley, '114 Minn. 217, 131 N. W. 316; O'Brien Mercan- tile Co. v. McKinley, 114 Minn. 521, 131 N. W. 319. Partnership is "a voluntary con- tract between two or more persons for joining together their money, goods, labor and skill, or either or all of them, upon an agreement that the gain or loss shall be divided pro- portionally between them." Howze V. Patterson, S3 Ala. 205, 25 Am. Rep. 607. Substantially the same defini- tion is found in Howell v. Harvey, 5 Ark. 270, 39 Am. Dec. THd. "A partnership is a contract, ex- press or implied, between two or more competent persons to place their money, effects, labor and skill, or some or all of them, in business, and to divide the profits and bear the losses in certain proportion." Kent v. Cobb, 24 Colo. App. 264, 133 Pac. 424. Substantially the same definition is found in Chapin v. Cherry, 243 Mo. 375, 147 S. W. 1084. A "partnership" is an agreement between two or more persons to unite their labor, skill, money and prop- erty, or either, in a lawful business for their mutual benefit. Eilers Mu- sic House V. Reine, 65 Ore. 598, 133 Pac. 788. ' § 25 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 22 It is said by Mr, Justice Lindley : "The terms partnership and partner are evidently derived from to part, in the sense of to di- vide amongst or share, and doubtless the division of profits "Partnership is the result of a con- tract between two or more competent parties to combine their money, prop- erty, skill or labor for the transaction of some lawful business for profit." Conyngton Partnership Relations, § 1. "Partnership, often called co-part- nership, is usually defined to be a voluntary contract between two or more competent persons to place their money, effects, labor and skill, or some or all of them, in lawful com- merce or business, with the under- standing, that there shall be a com- munion of the profits thereof between them," Story Partnership (6 ed.), § 2. The above definition has been substantially adopted in the follow- ing cases : Berthold v. Goldsmith, 24 How. (U. S.) 536, 16 L. ed. 762; Hunt V. Oliver, 118 U. S. 211, 30 L. ed. 128, 6 Sup. Ct. 1083; Stone v. Boone, 24 Kans. 337; Post v. Kim- berly, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 470; Niagara County V. People, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 504; Harvey v. Childs, 28 Ohio St. 319, 22 Am. Rep. 387; In re Gibb's Estate, 157 Pa. St. 59, 27 Atl. 383, 22 L. R. A. 276; Galveston &c. R. Co. V. Davis, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 468, 23 S. W. 301. See also Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. 637, 16 So. 601, 27 L. R. A. 126, 43 Am. St. 217n (this case con- tains an exhaustive review of the sub- ject) ; T. R. Foley Co. v. McKinley, 114 Minn. 271, 131 N. W. 316. The English Partnership Act of 1890, S3 and 54 Vict, ch. 39, § 1 (1), defines partnership as the relation which subsists between persons carry- ing on a business in common with a view of profit. Partnership is "the association of two or more persons for the purpose of carrying on business together, and dividing its profits between them." Cal. Civ. Code, § 2395; Mont. Civ. Code, § 3180; N. Dak. Civ, Code, § 4370; S. Dak. Civ. Code, § 4027; Westcott v. Gilman (Cal,), 150 Pac. 777. "A joint interest in the partnership property, or a joint interest in the profits and losses of the business, constitutes a partnership as to third persons. A common interest in profits alone does not." Ga. Civ. Code, § 2629. A partnership is "as between the members thereof, the association, not incorporated, of two or more persons who have agreed to combine their labor, property and skill, or some of them, for the purpose of engaging in any lawful trade or business, and sharing the profits and losses, as such, between them." Partnership Law, N. Y. Laws (1897) ch. 420, § 2. "Partnership is a synallagmatic and commutative contract made be- tween two or more persons for the mutual participation in the profits which may accrue from property, credit, skill or industry, furnished in determined proportions by the par- ties." Civ. Code, art. 2801. By the Civil Code of Louisiana, art. 2825, a commercial partnership is one formed for the buying and selling of personal property, and the carrying of such property for hire by ships or other vessels. Shreveport Ice &c. Co. V. Mandel, 128 La. 314, 54 So. 831. The Civil Law definition is thus given by Pothier Traite du contrat de Societe. "Le contrat de societe est 23 DEFINITIONS § 26 amongst the partners is an almost universal object of partner- ships. But this object appears to be rather an accident than of the essence of the partnership relation."^ The term, "firm," is probably derived from the medieval Latin firma, signature, hav- ing reference to the firm name by which contracts of the partner- ship were signed. / § 26. Difficulty of definition. — One point of practical agreement may beoioted in almost every instance where a text- writer has submitted a definition of partnership, or where a court in deciding a case has attempted a similar task — ^the difficulty in framing a satisfactory definition has seemed so great that com- ment on such difficulty accompanies most definitions.® Some un contrat par lequel deux ou plusiers personnes mettent, ou s'obligent de mettre, en commun quelque chose, pur faire en commun un pforit hon- nete, dont ils s'obligent reciproque- ment de se rendre compte." He also gives the following definition in an- other work, Pothier Pand. lib. xvii, tit. 2, art. 1, § 1 : "Societas est con- tractus de conferendis bona fide rebus aut operis, animo lucri quod hones- tum sit ac licitum in commune faci- endi." The Prussian code, Allgem. Lands- recht fur die Preuss. Staat th. i. tit. 3, § 169, thus defines the relation : "Ein Vertrag durch welchen mehrere Per- sonen ihr Vermogen oder Gewerbe oder auch ihr Arbeiten und Bemu- hungen ganz oder zum Theil zur Erlangung eines gemeinschaftlichen Endzwecks vereinigen, wird ein Ge- sellschaftsvertrag genannt." ^Lindley Partnership (8 ed.), p. 10. fi"The most difficult question in- volved in a consideration of the law of partnership is the determination of what, in fact, constitutes a partner- ship. Indeed some of the best minds that have grappled with the subject have been reluctant to formulate a definition, and the success of those who have overcome this reluctance must have been small, to merit the re- mark of an eminent jurist of to-day that 'the various definitions have been approximate rather than exhaust- ive.' " George Partnership, p. 2. Mr. Justice Lindley says: "To frame a definition of any legal term which shall be both positively and negatively accurate is possible only to those who, having legislative author- ity, can adapt the law to their own definition. Other persons have to take the law as they find it; and rarely indeed is it in their power to frame any definition to which excep- tion may not be justly taken. All that they can usefully attempt is to analyze the meanings of the words they use, and to take care not to em- ploy the same word in different senses, where so to do can possibly lead to confusion. Without attempt- ing, then, to define the terms part- ners and partnership, it will suffice to point out as accurately as possible the leading ideas involved in those § 27 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 24 reason for the divergent definitions is easily discovered in the different statutory enactments in the various states and nations, and also in the different phases of the subject as brought to the attention of the particular court giving the definition, and in the consequent effect of such a decision upon the ideas of a text-book writer within the immediate influence of such decision. No discussion of the merits of the different definitions will be at- tempted, as the reasons for their formulation and their relative strength or weakness will largely appear in the chapters im- mediately succeeding. § 27. Partnership liability the real question. — The defini- tions of a partnership, varying and uncertain as they are, may perhaps be understood better, when one considers that the element of partnership with which the decisions have almost always been concerned, is partnership liability. In almost every case in which a partnership has been defined, the real question has been whether certain persons were liable to each other, or to third parties, as partners. Partnership liability differs in too many ways from the liability arising from any other relation in which the parties may place themselves to be defined in a few words. Several of the succeeding chapters will be concerned with partnership liabilities, rights and duties, and the main questions connected with partner- ship liabilities will be left for those chapters. But it is well to bear in mind from the first, that the question considered in nearly words. The terms in question are agreed to share shall be the profit evidently derived from to part, in arising from some predetermined the sense of to divide amongst, or to business engaged in for their corn- share, and this at once limits their mon benefit. An agreement that application, although not very pre- something shall be attempted virith a cisely ; for persons may share almost view to gain, and that the gain shall everything imaginable, and may do so be shared by the parties to the agree- either by agreement amongst them- ment is the grand characteristic of selves or otherwise. But in order every partnership, and the leading that persons may be partners in the feature of nearly every definition of legal acceptation of the word, it is the term." Ewell's Lindley on Part- requisite that they shall share some- nership, p. 1. thing by virtue of an agreement to It was said in Donnell v. Harshe, that effect, and that which they have 67 Mo. 170: "A definition of part- 25 DEFINITIONS § 28 all the cases is not so much what a partnership is, as, Is there part- nership liability in this particular case ? § 28. General aspects of partnership liability. — The gen- eral elements of partnership liability are well stated in the case of Meehan v. Valentine.'' In this case, Mr. Justice Gray said : "In the present state of the law upon this subject, it may perhaps be doubted whether any more precise general rule can be laid down than * * * that those persons are partners, who con- tribute either property or money to carry on a joint business for their common benefit, and who own and share the profits thereof in certain proportions. If they do this, the incidents or con- sequences follow, that the acts of one in conducting the partner- ship business are the acts of all; that each is agent for the firm and for the other partners; that each receives part of the profits < as profits and takes part of the fund to which the creditors of the partnership have a right to look for the payment of their debts ; that, all are liable as partners upon contracts made by any of them with third persons within the scope of the partnership business ; and that even an express stipulation between them that one shall not be so liable, though good between themselves, is ineffectual as against third persons." Judge Stone, in the case of Goldsmith v. Eichold,^ in discuss- ing the nature and essentials of the relation, says : "Partnership is not necessarily an entire merger of the individual, his labor, energy, or estate in the firm. The extent of the merger is de- termined by the agreement entered into, and the purpose the part- ners have in view. Anything left out of the partnership agree- nership broad enough to embrace all "It is not practicable to frame an cases and narrow enough to exclude exact and comprehensive definition such as ought to be excluded, has of a partnership, for there can be no been found a very difficult and em- rigid test applicable to all cases.," barrassing task to those writers who T. R. Foley Co. v. McKinley, 114 have published books on the subject. Minn. 271, 131 N. W. 316. The -courts have been embarrassed, ''145 U. S. 611, 36 L. Ed. 835, 12 also, in nice refinements about part- Sup. Ct. 972. nerships inter sese, and partnerships ^ 94 Ala. 116, 10 So. 80, 33 Am. which are only as to creditors." St. 97. § 28 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 26 merit and its views, whether it be money, property, labor or skill, pertains to the individual in as absolute right, as if there had been no contract of partnership. The merger of the individual into the firm or company extends to and includes everything embraced, expressly or impliedly, in the terms of the agreement, and to that extent changes the character of his ownership. The indi- vidual parts with the separate right and power to manage, direct and control that of which, before that tirtie, he had been supreme arbiter. His dominion was an integer. It becomes a fraction. He surrenders to the partnership' an interest in his property, labor, skill, energy, one or more, as the agreement may bind him by express or implied stipulations, in consideration of a corre- sponding surrender, to like extent and for like purposes', by his copartners. The agreement consummated, each partner becomes/ seized and rightfully possessed of the same interest in and power over whatever has been contributed to the firm by his copartners, as he retains in that contributed by himself. This and no more. These properties of partnership render it eminently a relation of trust. All its effects are held in trust, and each partner is, in one sense, a trustee; a trustee for the newly created entity, the partnership, and for each member of the firm, who thus becomes a beneficiary under the trust. He is more ; he is a trus- tee and a cestui que trust. A trustee, so far as his own duties , bind him; a cestui que trust, so far as duties rest on his copart- ners. And it is sometimes said that each partner is both a prin- cipal and an agent; a principal to the extent he represents his own interest, but an agent only so far as he represents his copartners. The first duty devolved by this trust on each of the partners is to apply the partnership effects to the payment of the debts of the partnership, and not to pervert them to individual uses or wants, without the consent of the copartners. Any attempt to so pervert them, whether by private arrangement or under judicial proceedings, can be intercepted by the nonconsent- ing partners. This, on the plain principle that, being beneficiaries under the trust, they have a clear right to prevent its breach. The trust goes farther. After , discharging all the partnership ■27 DEFINITIONS § 28 liabilities, the residuum is still held in trust for partition or distribution among the several partners, according to their sev- eral interests ; and the samie rights and remedies exist to preserve, protect and secure the proper administration of the trust fund to this end, as are given in enforcing the payment of debts." These quotations deal mainly with the extent of partnership liability as between the partners, and do not include all the elements of partnership liability as to third persons. The two most striking elements of such liability, which will be merely men- tioned here, are, the binding of one partner by the act of another, and the fact that not only is the partnership property liable for debts incurred by the partnership, but that the individual prop- erty of each partner is also liable, each partner being individually liable for the acts of the partnership. This is the feature that dis- tinguished it from the liability of a stockholder in a corporation.- CHAPTER III ANALYSIS AND TESTS OF PARTNERSHIP SECTION 35. Tests of partnership in gen- eral. 36. English law — Test of profit sharing — Bloxham v. Pell. 2)1. English test of profit sharing — Young V. Axtell. 38. English test of profit sharing — Grace v. Smith. 39. English test of profit sharing — Waugh V. Carver. 40. Criticism of Waugh v. Carver. 41. Net and gross profits. 42. Test of sharing profits and losses. 43. Test of intention — Cox v. Hickman. 44. No necessity in Cox v. Hick- man for test of intention. 45. Change of English law — Bijl- len V. Sharp. 46. Doctrine of intention — Mollwo V. The Court of Wards. 47. Criticism of test of intention. 48. English partnership act. 49. Test of estoppel. 50. Summary of English law. 51. American law — Test of profit sharing. 52. The early rule. 53. The Pennsylvania rule. 54. The New York rule. 55. The Indiana rule. 56. Other American cases holding the profit sharing test. 57. American cases opposing net profits rule. 28 SECTION 58. The net profit rule criticized — Eastman v. Clark. 59. Creditors do not rely on prof- its — Eastman v. Clark. 60. Right to a preference or to an account should not make a creditor a partner — Eastman V. Clark. 61. The usury argument fallacious — Eastman v. Clark. 62. The net profit rule not needed to prevent fraud — Eastman V. Clark. 63. Argument as to one sharing profits bearing burden falla- cious — Eastman v. Clark. 64. Rule not needed to reach an ostensible partner — Eastman V. Clark. 65. Intention test followed — Beecher v. Bush. 66. Intention test followed — Chaf- fraix V. Lafitte. fil. Common ownership of profits in joint business — Meehan v. Valentine. 68. Other American cases oppos- ing net profit rule. 69. Sharing profits as such. 70. Sharing profits but not losses. 71. Sharing profits and losses. 72. Sharing profits and losses held insufficient to constitute a partnership. 7^. Sharing losses only. 29 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 35 SECTION 74. Exceptions to rule of profit sharing as test of partner- ship^In general. 75. Exceptions — Sharing of prof- its as compensation for serv- ices. 76. Sharing profits as compensa- tion eo nomine. 77. Sharing profits as fee or com- mission. 78. Sharing profits as a royalty. 79. Profit sharing as payment of rental. 80. Profit sharing as interest. 81. Sharing gross receipts. 82. Right to demand accounting. 83. Modified statement of profit- sharing test. 84. Test of profit-sharing — The Uniform Partnership Act. 85. Test of mutual agency. -86. The principal trader test. 87. Intention test in England. 88. Intention test in America — Polk V. Buchanan. 89. Later American "cases on in- tention as test. SECTION 90. Intention test of partnership under civil law. 91. Test of partnership liability arising by estoppel generally. 92. Nature of act and conduct cre- ating estoppel. 93. Reliance on the holding out. 94. Right of subrogation of osten- sible partner. 95. Creditor must be misled by acts or misrepresentations. 96. Time of making representa- tion. 97. Mere belief of creditor. 98. Attempted limited partnership. 99. Estoppel — Former partner- ship. 100. Partnership under agreement to incorporate. 101. Estoppel — Uniform partner- ship act. 102. Summary of tests. 103. Summary — Question of law or fact. 104. Summary — Profit-sharing evi- dence of a partnership — Es- toppel. § 35. Tests of partnership in general. — A definition of partnership has been previously given, and an analysis of the ele- rnents and of the tests of partnership will be considered in this chapter. Different authorities present various tests of partner- ship. Participation in profits, participation in profits and losses, mutual agency, intention of the parties and sharing of gross returns, have all been advocated as the true tests. It would seem that this diversity of opinion grows in part from the different angle from which the subject is viewed by the various authorities. Some look upon the question simply as a relation between the alleged partners and third persons, while others consider it as the relation existing between the members. The latter seems to be the proper conception, as the relation is entered into for the mutual aid and benefit of the partners themselves, and § 36 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 30 the relation of the firm to third parties is merely incidental to this main object, and many of the decisions or writings, giving various tests of the relation, have no real bearing upon the status of the partnership itself, that is, whether an actual partnership exists, but simply hold that the alleged partners have, by their actions, placed themselves in such a position that they have in- curred certain obligations in the same manner and to the same ex- tent as if they had been partners. Under this theory, there would probably be a double test of actual partnership — first, a contract to share the profits and losses of a transaction or business, and, second, an intention to form a partnership. Assuming the above theory to be correct, we come to the other and more difficult ques- tion as to what acts of a party will raise an implied partnership where there is no real one — will throw a partner's obligation upon one not in fact a partner, and will hold property of persons not partners as if it were partnership property, and an inquiry will be made into the various phases of this implied relation. § 36. English law — Test of profit sharing — Bloxham v. Pell. — ^The year 1775 is unique in the history of partnership law, as in this year three cases were decided which held a very important place in English and American law. In the case of Bloxham v. Pell,^ plaintiffs sued Pell, together with others, al- leging that Pell was a secret partner; and it appeared that Pell and one Brooke entered into a contract of partnership ; that after one year, and before the expiration of the partnership agreement, the partners agreed to dissolve the partnership. Brooke desired to continue the business, and Pell wished to retire. Pell left money in the business, for Which Brooke gave him security, and interest at five per cent., and further agreed to pay Pell a certain amount of money each year for six years, in lieu of profits, and to give Pell access to the books of the business. Brooke became bankrupt before he had paid anything to Pell. Lord Mansfield ^leld that Pell was a secret partner, as he was to receive part of the profits, and, as this was perhaps something of an innovation, 12 Wm. Bl. 999 (1775). 31 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 37 he attempted to fortify his position by stating that it must either be partnership or it would be usury, which was then a crime, and stated that Pell could not say that it was usury, and not part- nership. This would appear a very artificial basis for a decision, so far as partnership was made an escape from usury, and has been severely criticized by Justice Lindley.^ "Whilst the laws against usury were in. force, a tendency was sometimes mani- fested to treat what was in truth a loan at usurious interest, and therefore illegal, as a contract of partnership and therefore legal. This view of the transaction had the merit of apparently holding the parties to their bargain, but in truth the bargain to which . they were held was very different f ropi that which they them- selves had contemplated, and by treating such transactions as partnerships and not as loans, an amount of confusion was intro- duced into thi,s branch of the law which even the repeal of the usury laws failed to remove." § 37. English test of profit sharing — Young v. Axtell. — This same year was also decided the case of Young v. Axtell,^ which was an action to recover money for coal sold and delivered by the plaintiff, a coal merchant, and in which an agreement was given in evidence, stating that the defendant Axtell had lately carried on the coal trade, and the other defendant did the same, and Axtell was to bring what customers she could into the business and the other defendant was to pay her an annuity, and also two shilUngs for every chaldron that should be sold to those persons who had been her customers, or were of her recommend- ing, and it was also proved that bills were made out for goods sold to Axtell's customers, in the joint names of defendants. Lord Mansfield said : "He should have rather thought on the agreement only, that Mrs. Axtell would be liable, not on account of the annuity, but the other payment, as that would be increased in proportion as she increased the business. However, as she suffered her name to be used in the business, and held herself out 2 1 Lindley Partnerships (5th Eng. ^ Unreported, but cited in Waugh ed.), p. 16. V. Carver, from a MS. note, 2 H. Bl. 242. § 38 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 32 as a partner, she was certainly liable, though the plaintiff did not, at the time of dealing, know that she was a partner, or that her name was used." § 38. English test of profit sharing — Grace v. Smith. — The same doctrine was adhered to and amplified the same year in the case of Grace v. Smith.* In this case the defendant. Smith, and one Robinson entered into a partnership for seven years, but soon after the partnership was entered into, differences arose, and the partners agreed to dissolve the partnership. The dissolution was made public in proper manner. By the terms of the agreement of dissolution, Robinson was to continue the business, and to retain the assets, while Smith was to receive therefor his» contribution to the firm, and one thousand pounds as his share of the accrued profits of the partnership, and to loan Robinson four thousand pounds for seven years at five per cent, interest, and thre'e hundred pounds per annum in addition, and for this loan Smith took security from Robinson. Later, Robinson paid Smith two years' annuity, cer- tain sums for interest and as a gratuity, and further sums to pay debts due by the partnership. Still later, Robinson assigned all his effects to Smith to secure Smith's claims, and in 1770, Robinson became a bankrupt, and Smith was sued as a secret partner. The court held in favor of Smith, holding him not a partner. The report of the brief opinion in this case, very likely given orally without long consideration, was the foundation of a rule of partnership liability, which continued in England for the greater part of a century, and has not yet been wholly abandoned in other jurisdictions, although long recognized as erroneous. The jury had found for the defendant, and there was a motion by the plaintiff for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was con- trary to the law and the evidence. The question was whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The following is the report of the decision: "De Grey, C. J., reported that this *2 Wm. Bl. 998. 33 Analysis and tests . § 39 was an action brought against Smith alone, as a secret partner with one Robinson." "De Grey, C. J. The only question is, what constitutes a secret partner? Every man who has a share of the profits of a trade ought also to bear his share of the loss. And if any one takes part of the profit, he takes part of that fund on which the creditor of the trader relies for his pa3mient. If any one advances or lends money to a trader, it is only lent on his general personal security. It is no specific lien upon the profits of the trade, and yet the lender is generally interested in those profits; he relies on them for repayment. And there is no dif- ference whether that money be lent de novo, or left behind in trade, by one of the partners who retires. And whether the terms of that loan be kind or harsh makes also no manner of difference. I think the true criterion is, to inquire whether Smith agreed to share the profits of the trade with Robinson, or whether he only relied on these profits as a fund of payment, a distinction not more nice than usually occurs in questions of trade of usury. The jury have said this is not payable out of the profits ; and I think there is no foundation for granting a new trial. Gould, J., same opinion. Blackstone, J., same opinion. I think the true criterion (when money is advanced to a trader) is to consider whether the profit or premium is certain and defined, or casual, indefinite, and depending on the accidents of trade. In the former case it is a loan (whether usurious or not is not material to the present question), in the latter a partnership. The hazard of loss and profit is not equal and reciprocal, if the lender can re- ceive only a limited sum for the profits of his loan, and yet is made liable to all the losses, all the debts contracted in the trade, to any amount. Nares, J., same opinion. Rule discharged." § 39. English test of profit sharing — ^Waugh v. Carver. — The next great case recognizing this rule of profits as a test was the case of Waugh v. Carver.^ s 2 H. Bl. 235. See also Heyhoe v. Blanchard, 4 East 144 ; Ex parte Burge, 9 C. B. 431, 19 L. J. C. P. Digby, 1 Deac. 341; Ex parte Row- 243; Ex parte Geller, 1 Rose 297, 17 landson, 1 Rose 89; In re Colbeck, R. R. 219, 2 Madd. 262; Hesketh v. Buck 48; Ex parte Hamper, 17 Ves. 3 — Row. ON Partn.— Vol. 1 § 39 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 34 In this case two ship agents at diflferent ports, each of whom carried on a separate and distinct business of his own, entered into an agreement to share, in certain proportions, the profits -of their respective commissions, and the discount on tradesmen's bills employed by them in repairing the ships consigned to them, the agreement also providing that neither shall be answerable for the acts and losses of the other, but each for his own. It was held that this agreement made them liable as partners to all per- sons with whom either should contract as agent. This case was decided in 1793, and the principle that sharing in profits makes one a partner was approved by the court. Lord Chief Justice Eyre delivering the opinion, in part, as follows : "The definition of a partnership cited from Puffendorf is good as between the parties themselves, but not with respect to the world at large. If the question were between A and B whether they were partners or not, it would be very well to inquire whether they had con- tributed, and in what proportions stock or labor, and on what agreement they were to divide the profits of that contribution, but in all these cases a very different question arises in which that definition is of little service. The question is generally, not be- tween the parties, as to what shares they shall divide, but respect- ing creditors claiming a satisfaction out of the funds of a par- ticular house, who shall be deemed liable in regard to these funds ? Now a case may be stated, in which it is the clear sense of the parties to the contract that they shall not be partners ; that A is to contribute neither labor nor money, and to go still farther, not to receive any profits. But if he will lend his name as a partner, he becomes, as against all the rest of the world, a partner, not upon the ground of the real transaction between them, but upon principles of general policy to prevent the frauds to which creditors would be liable, if they were to suppose that they lent their money upon the apparent credit of three or four persons, 412, 11 R. R. 115; Ex parte Chuck, 412, 14 R. R, 475; Labouchere v. 8 Bing. 469; Ex parte Garland, 10 Tupper, 11 Moore P. C. 198, 5 W. R. Ves. 110, 1 Smith 220, 7 R. R. 352; 797; Burnell v. Hunt, 5 Jur. 650, Barry v. Neesham, 3 C B. 641 ; Q. B. ; Cheap v. Gramond, 4 B. & Wightman v. Townroe, 1 M. & S. Aid. 663. 35 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 40 when in fact they lent it only to two of them, to whom, without the others, they would have lent nothing. * * * It is plain upon the construction of the agreement, if it be construed only between the Carvers and Giesler, that they were not nor ever meant to be. partners. * * * g^^ ^j^g question is whether they have not, by parts of their agreement, constituted themselves partners with respect to other persons? The case is therefore reduced to the single point, whether the Carvers did not entitle themselves, and did not mean to take a moiety of the profits of Giesler's house, generally and indefinitely as they should arise, at certain times agreed upon for the settlement of their accounts. That they have so done is clear upon the face of the agreement; and upon the authority of Grace v. Smith, he who takes a moiety of all the profits indefinitely, shall, by operation of law, be made liable to losses, if losses arise, upon the principle that by taking a part of the profits, he takes from the creditors a part of that fund which is the proper security to them for the payment of their debts. That was the foundation of the decision in Grace V. Smith, and I think it stands upon the fair ground of reason. I can not agree that this was a mere agency * * * for there was a risk of profit and loss. * * * jf therefore the principle be true, that he who takes the general profits of a partnership must of necessity be made liable to the losses, in order that he may stand in a just situation with regard to the creditors of the house, then this is a case clear of all difficulty." § 40. Criticism of Waugh v. Carver. — Upon the statement in this opinion that, "he who takes a moiety of all the profits in- definitely shall, by operation of law, be made liable to losses, if losses arise, upon the principle that, by taking a part of the profits, he takes from the creditors a part of that fund which is the proper security to them for the payment of iheir debts," was based the partnership law of England for the succeeding sixty- seven years. This principle does not seem sound, and the de- cision in this case and also that in Grace v. Smith have perhaps been more severely criticized than any other decisions of the Eng- lish courts, nor is it likely that another instance can be found § 40 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 36 where a rule of law recognized to be the result of an erroneous decision has so long held sway." The creditoi-s look, or at least should have a right to look, only to the capital and gross receipts for payment, unless the firm holds out that there is a surplus subject to payment of debts. The pajonent of profits can not decrease the capital, hence can not prejudice the creditor, for, as long as the capital is intact, the firm is solvent. And until the creditors are paid from the gross receipts, there are no profits. So, the reason givea is de- fective, unless upon the principle that as a legal proposition, the profits as well as the capital, are liable for the debts of the firm (which, of course, is correct), but, in common practice, there is really no more security, as the larger business arising from the nondi vision of profits would, in general, create a demand for a larger indebtedness. The question resolves itself into this proposition: If the capital is unimpaired, then the assets must be greater than the liabilities by the amount of the capital (unless ' In the case of MollwQ v. the Court of Wards (1872), L. R. 4 P. C. 419, Sir Montague Smith said : "It is certainly difficult to understand the principle on which a man who is neither a real nor ostensible partner can be held liable to a creditor of the firm. The reason given in Grace v. Smith, that by taking part of the profits he takes part of the fund which is the proper security of the creditors, is now admitted to be un- sound and insufficient to support it, for of course the same consequences might follow in a far greater degree from the mortgage of the common property of the firm, which certainly would not of itself make the more- gagee a partner." Moss, J. A., in In re Randolph (1877), 1 Ont. App. 315, said: "The case of Waugh v. Carver, rested upon no solid foundation either of reason- ing or authority. The reasoning was. that he who takes a share of the profits of a business takes part of the fund on which creditors rely for pay- ment, and ought, therefore, to be re- sponsible to. creditors. The utter fallacy of this view was frequently exposed. If was pointed out that upon this principle an annuitant upon a business, or a creditor who charged exorbitant interest upon a loan ought to be responsible to creditors, for he certainly took a portion of the fund to which the creditors look. It was argued, and as is now admitted in- controvertibly, that this decision was not law, but false political economy. It was shewn that its real support from authority was almost as slender as its foundation in reasoning. It was supposed to be supported by a decision of Lord Mansfield, in the case of Bloxham v. Pell, which was never fully reported, but is referred to in a note to Grace v. Smith, the 2>7 ANALYSIS AND TESTS 40 through loss by reason of a forced sale), and the creditor would not lose anything although profits had been drawn. If, on the contrary, there was an impairment of the capital, then there would be no real profits divided, and hence no detriment to the creditor by reason of the profit rule. Thus it can be seen that the rule laid down in the foregoing cases, or at least the reason given only other authority on which Waugh V. Carver was rested. Yet in neither of these cases was it necessary to de- cide that such a principle formed part of the law. Lord Mansfield enun- ciated no such doctrine, and while DeGrey, C. J., in Grace v. Smith stated the rule in the terms just cited, he joined with the court in refusing to disturb a verdict which had been found for the defendant sought to be charged. Upon this slender peg — little, if at all, more than an obiter dictum, was hung a long chain of de- cisions, which Mr. Lindley, writing in 1860, deemed beyond the reach of be- ing overruled by any authority short of that of the legislature." In Chafifraix v. Lafitte (1878), 30 La. Ann. 631, Judge Marr says : "As far as we have been able to discover, the foundation of the decision which has been accepted as authoritative and has controlled the jurisprudence of England and America for nearly a century, seems to be dicta of two of the judges in Grace v. Smith. * * * In Grace v. Smith the simple ques- tion was, whether a retiring partner, lending to the partner who continued in trade a sum of money in considera- tion of a certain annual interest, and an annuity for a term of years, was liable as a partner. * * * The ques- tion would not have been different if no social relation had previously ex- isted between Smith and Robinson; and the court, in refusing a new trial necessarily decided that upon the given state of facts, Smith was not liable as a partner. It is difficult to imagine, what support this case gave to Waugh V. Carver, and we think we are justified in saying either that Chief Justice Eyer misapprehended and misapplied what was actually de- cided, or that the case is not correctly stated in any report to which we have had access. * * * We do not hesi- tate to say that, in our opinion, Waugh V. Carver could never have stood the test of judicial criticism; and that it was accepted and allowed to control subsequent jurisprudence, only because of an exaggerated re- spect for the doctrine of stare de- cisis." Doe, J., in the case of Eastman v. Clark (1873), S3 N. H. 276, 16 Am. Rep. 192, after stating that the profit- sharing test originated in certain dicta in the opinion in Grace v. Smith, "that the decision was probably made, and the dicta thrown out orally, with- out any deliberation before or after the brief argument, and as soon as counsel sat down, and a reporter's memorandum of the unpremeditated and unguarded utterances of even the highest tribunals does not always carry a high degree of authority,'' further states that the remark of De Grey that every man who shares in the profit of a trade should also bear his share of the losses, must be pre- sumicd to be based on the admitted fact of partnership, and that the sen- tence stating that one who takes part 41 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 38 for the rule by the courts, while not wholly without merit, is nevertheless based upon a weak foundation. § 41. Net and gross profits. — Attention should be directed here, however, to the fact that profit, in the above cases, means net profits, and not gross profits. These terms are often pop- ularly confused, but, in fact, no confusion should arise. Net of the profit takes part of the fund on which the creditor relies, refers also, only to one who is a secret partner. He further says, "the whole argu- ment, so often reiterated from 1775 to the present time in favor of such a test, has been a mere repetition of the supposed meaning of the reported remark of De Grey, and if any one takes part of the profit, he takes part of that fund on which the creditor of the trader relies for his payment. Who is 'any one,' and what is 'the profit'? A creditor is 'any one,' and the balance left, over and above the capital, losses, expenses and debts of every kind, is 'the profit,' in a cer- tain sense. If it is urged that De Grey meant that creditor A should be liable to other creditors because he is paid or is to be paid out of what may be left after he is paid; that this doctrine was approved by the English authorities from 1775 to 1860, and by the American decisions to the present time; and that it is a settled rule of law which nobody but the legislature can change — it is an- swer enough to say that neither De Grey nor any one else could have meant any such thing; that if De Grey and everybody else have inad- vertently used a formula which, upon investigation, is found to be capable of no other meaning than that it is cer- tain they did not use it in that sense, and, therefore, we have their au- thority for not usin^ it in that sense; that, if they di,d not use it in any other sense, we can not, upon their authority, either use it in any other sense, or use it at all ; and that, if they did use it in some other sense, we are not called upon to accept or reject that other sense before it is discov- ered. To use the formula in a sense in which we know the authorities could not have intended to use it, would be an irreverent and revolu- tionary perversion and overthrow of precedent. If it could be shown that De Grey and all the venerated author- ities of the last hundred years meant that creditors rely for payment on what is left after they are paid, it would require no great courage in this age to say that we do not propose to assert our belief in a dogma that is either preposterous or unintelligible. * * * In whatever sense De Grey used the word 'profit,' he did not mean that a creditor, relj^ng upon and paid out of the 'profit' or any other fund, is by such reliance and payment, transformed into a copartner with his debtor, and made liable to all the other creditors. Twice in his brief opinion he distinctly recognizes the right of a creditor to rely on 'profits' for payment (including, of course, the right to be paid out of the 'profits' relied on), without thereby becoming liable as a partner. By 'any one' he did not mean a creditor. Whom else could he mean but a partner? If by 'profit' he meant gross 'profit,' that 39 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 42 profits are, in reality, the only real profits, as the term gross profits applies to more than real profits, and usually includes gross income, which name should be used as a designation, for there might be no real profits at all in a transaction even where the gross income was large, as the expenses might be even larger. However, the term "gross profits" has been used, even by judges and law writers, and the above statement as to gross profits not being a test of partnership was made, in order to clear any mis- understa«ding, but the term profits, as hereinafter used, will refer to net profits alone. The above provision excepting gross profits from the operation of the rule has been repeatedly recognized by the English courts. Lord Ellenborough so held as early as 1808 in the case of Dry v. Boswell,'^ in which the agreement with Russell appeared to be this, that the defendant, in consideration of working a certain lighter, should receive half her gross earn- , ings, and that Russell, as owner, should receive the other half, and Lord Ellenborough said that this was only a mode of paying the defendant wages for his labor, and was different from a sharing of profits and losses, so that under these circumstances no partnership could be considered as .existing between him and the owner of the lighter. That was then, and still is, the un- questioned law in England. § 42. Test of sharing profits and losses. — The test of shar- ing profits and losses is really brought into the cases of Grace v. is not the fund generally referred to overwhelming preponderence of the when partners agree 'to share the subsequent authorities, English and profits.' If by 'profit' he meant 'net American, to be now questioned." 3 profit'— a balance of gross 'profit' Kent's Com. 25-33 ; CoUyer on Part- left after all creditors are paid— who nership, §§ 39-44; Story on Partner- but a sole principal or a partner can ship, §§ 32-49; Parsons on Partner- take a part of that fund? If, by ship, §§ 81-8Sn; Berthold v. Gold- 'profit,' he meant a balance of gross smith, 24 How. (U. S.) 536, 16 L. ed. profit left after the payment of all 762 ; In re Francis, Pacific Law, Rep., creditors except those deferred ones Dec. 17, 1872 (U. S. Dist. Ct. of who are to be paid out of that bal- Ore.). ance; and if he meant that such de- '^1 Camp. 329. See also Wilkin- f erred creditors are liable to those son v. Frasier, 4 Esp. 182 (1803) ; not thus postponed, the contrary doc- Cheap v. Gramond, 4 B. & Aid. 663 trine is too firmly established by an (1821). § 43 ' LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 40 Smith and Waugh v. Carver, and although the chief point con- sidered in determining the existence of a partnership is the shar- ing of profits, yet the sharing of losses is the cause of the suit, and the rule is clearly recognized in these cases that if there is a partnership by reason of the sharing of profits, then, necessarily, there is a sharing of losses. Again quoting Chief Justice De Gray in the case of Grace v. Smith, "every man v\?ho has a share of the profits of a trade ought also to bear his share of the loss," and re- ferring to the quotation from Lord Chief Justice Eyre in the case of Waugh V. Carver, the real test of partnership under these cases, was the sharing of profits and losses, but, inasmuch as the sharing of losses was the point in issue, the effect of the decision was simply that sharing of profits was a conclusive presumption that there >vas a sharing of losses and that there was a partner- ship. Thus, it is clearly seen that there could be no partnership under the cases above discussed unless there was a sharing both of profit and loss; that sharing of profit was a test of a sharing of loss, and, in a final analysis, that a sharing of both was the test of partnership. § 43. Test of intention — Cox v. Hickman. — The rule of the test of sharing profits, or of sharing profits and losses, was the well established rule of English law for almost a century, when it was practically overruled in 1860 in the case of Cox v. Hickman.* The rule was changed only after a prolonged fight, in which the leading authorities differed almost equally. The trial in the court of common pleas was held in 1856 before Lord Chief Jus- tin Jervis, and verdict was entered for the plaintiffs. On appeal to the exchequer chamber, the court was equally divided, and was then taken to the House of Lords, the judges were called and the case heard. Again there was an equal division of the judges, and after an extended discussion by Lord Campbell (the Lord Chan- cellor), Lord Brougham, Lord Wensleydale, Lord Cranworth and others, advising the House to reverse the judgment, and hold 8 H. of L. Cas. 268. 41 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 43 that there was no partnership, the lords so decided. The facts of the case, briefly, were as follows : B. Smith and J. T. Smith, carrying on an iron business under the name of B. Smith & Son, became financially embarrassed in 1849, and assigned their prop- erty to trustees, who were empowered to conduct the business, subject to directions by the creditors, for the assignees, but to pay the creditors ratably from the net income. Hickman, the plaintiff in the original suit, furnished certain goods to the com- pany, and drew bills of exchange therefor, which were accepted by the trustees, for the company. Later, upon nonpayment of the bills, this suit was brought against creditors, upon the ground that they were partners in the business, as they shared in the profits of the business, and that, consequently, they must bear the losses.- The lords' decision, as above stated, was against this view, and much was made of the question of intention as the test of partnership, especially in Lord Cranworth's argument, and the test of intention was then installed in English partnership law. Lord Cranworth's opinion was, in part, as follows : "The hability of one partner for the acts of his copartner is in truth the liability of a principal for the acts of his agent. Where two or more persons are engaged as partners in an ordinary trade, each of them has an implied authority from the others to bind all by contracts entered into according to the usual course of business in that trade. Every partner in trade is, for the ordi- nary purposes of the trade, the agent of his copartners, and all are therefore liable for the ordinary trade contracts of the others. Partners may stipulate among themselves that some one of them only shall enter into particular contracts, or into any contracts, or that as to certain of their contracts none shall be liable except those by whom they are actually made; but with such private arrangements third persons, dealing with the firm without notice, have no concern. The public have a right to assume that every partner has authority from his copartner to bind the whole firm in contracts made according to the ordinary usages of trade. This principle applies not only to persons acting openly and avowedly as partners, but to others who though not so acting, § 43 LAV/ OF PARTNERSHIP 42 are by secret or private agreement, partners with those who ap- pear ostensibly to the world as the persons carrying on the busi- ness. * * * It was argued that, as they would be interested in the profits, therefore they would be partners, but this is a fallacy. It is often said that the test, or one of the tests, whether a person not ostensibly a partner, is nevertheless, in contemplation of law, a partner, is whether he is entitled to participate in the profits. This, no doubt, is in general a sufficiently accurate test; for a right to participate in profits affords cogent, often conclusive, evidence, that the trade in which the profits have been made was carried on in part for or on behalf of the person set- ting such a claim. But the real ground of the liability is, that the trade has been carried on by persons acting on his behalf. When that, is the case, he is liable to the trade obliga- tions, and entitled to its profits, or to a share of them. It is not strictly correct to say that his right to share in the profits makes him liable to the debts of the trade. The correct mode of stating the proposition is to say that the same thing which en- titles him to the one makes him liable to the other, namely, the fact that the trade has been carried on in his behalf, i. e., that he stood in the relation of principal toward the persons acting ostensibly as the traders, by whom the liabilities have been in- curred, and under whose management the profits have been' made. * * * I can find no case in which a person has been made liable as a dormant or sleeping partner, where the trade might not fairly be said to have been carried on for him, together with those ostensibly conducting it, and when therefore, he would stand in the position of principal toward the ostensible members of the firm as his agents. This was certainly the case in Waugh v. Carver." Lord Wensleydale, who agreed with Lord Cranworth, gave as the reason of his decision, that in the particular case,, there was not, "such a participation of the profits as to constitute the rela- tion of principal and agent between the creditors (the defendants") and the trustees, who actually made the contract sued on." 43 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 45 § 44. No necessity in Cox v. Hickman for test of inten- tion. — However, although this test was thereafter recognized upon the strength of this decision, the same result could have been obtained without injecting this test, and by proceeding un- der the old rule as laid down in Grace v. Smith and Waugh v. Carver. In those cases, the rule as to sharing of profits being the test of partnership was qualified by the further rule that ,the profits must be profits as such, and not as a fund simply for pay- ment. In this case (Cox v. Hickman) there was no sharing of profits as such, but simply the creation of a fund out of which to pay fixed amounts to the creditors, and no more. Every cent of the profits went to the Smith's credit, either to pay, the cred- itors therefrom and thus save the business and capital, or, if the profits exceeded the debts, to the Smiths personally, thus bringing the case squarely within this provision of the early cases, showing no partnership, entirely agide from the test of inten- tion injected into the case. § 45. Change of English law — BuUen v. Sharp. — That the English law was entirely changed in this respect, however, is clearly shown by later cases, among which is Bullen v. Sharp," decided about five years after Cox v. Hickman. Blackburn, J., says : "I think that the ratio decidendi is, that the proposition laid down in Waugh v. Carver, viz., that a par- ticipation in the profits of a business does of itself, by operation of law, constitute a partnership, is not a correct statement of the law of England; but that the true question is, as stated by Lord Cranworth, whether the trade is carried on on behalf of the person sought to be charged as a partner, the participation in the profits being a most important element in determining that ques- tioUi but not being in itself decisive; the test being, in the lan- guage of Lord Wensleydale, whether it is such a participation in profits as to constitute the relation of principal and agent between the person taking- the profits and those actually carrying on the business. * * * But even if we assume that the law supposed to ex- 9 L. R. 1 C. P. 86. § 45 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 44 ist before Cox v. Hickman remains untouched, that is to say, the supposed law of Waugh v. Carver, I think the same conclusion ought to be come to. Lord Wensleydale does not notice that case. Lord Cranworth does, and with submission, gives a better reason for the decision than is to be found in the case itself. The chief justice there says the question is whether they have not constituted themselves partners in respect to other persons, and puts his decision on the ground that he who takes a moiety of all the profits indefinitely, shall by operation of law be liable to losses. Let us hope that this motion is overruled — one which I believe has caused more injustice and mischief than any bad law in our books. * * * It seems to me then, there is here no partner- ship, no taking of profits which could have brought the case within what was supposed to be law before Cox v. Hickman, that on reason and principle that supposed law was wrong ; that it is now condemned by the authority of Cox v. Hickman ; that any- how Cox v. Hickman is the governing case." Bramwell, B., in a very emphatic opinion, repudiates the old test of profits, and adheres to the principle set out in Cox v. Hickman, in the following language : "I proceed to examine the authorities. The labor formerly needful is now rendered un- necessary by Cox V. Hickman. That case has settled the law, I may be permitted to say, in a perfectly satisfactory manner. * * * I hope I shall not be charged with arrogance for the way in which I have spoken of bygone opinions. The law had drifted into the condition from which it was rescued by Cox v. Hickman. No one in particular was responsible for, and prob- ably no one person could have put it at once in the position it was in. But the true line had been departed from, at first but a little, and for a good reason ; and every subsequent move took it further away in a wrong direction, till it was happily brought back by Cox V. Hickman." These words show the universal acceptance of the authority of Cox v. Hickman, which decision appears to have been welcomed, probably on account of the unsatisfactory- condition of the law prior thereto. 45 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 47 In the case of Holme v. Hammond^" the doctrines of Cox v. Hickman and Bullen v. Sharp were reaffirmed, and Kelly, C. B., stated that, even considering the older cases, "It is enough to say that, whenever the plaintiff has failed to establish a contract of copartnership, the action has failed and the decision has been that the -defendant was not liable." § 46. Doctrine of intention — MoUwo v. The Court of Wards. — Sir Montague Smith said, in the case of Mollwo v. The Court of Wards :^^ "The judgment in Cox- v. Hickman had certainly the effect of dissolving the rule of law which had been supposed to exist, and laid down principles of decision by which the determination of cases of this kind is made to depend, not on arbitrary presumptions of law, but on the real contracts and relations of the parties. It appears to be now established that although a right to participate in the profits of trade is a strong test of partnership, and that there may be cases where from such perception alone, it may, as a presumption, not of law, but of fact, be inferred; yet that whether that relation does or does not exist must depend on the real intention and contract of the parties." § 47. Criticism of test of intention. — The test of inten- tion, however, while it is probably conclusive as to partnership inter sese, which is in fact the only true partnership, is, neverthe- less, not, when standing alone, a true test of partnership liability as to third persons; as a perusal of the cases, even those above cited in favor of the test, will show that there are many condi- tions under which a person who never actually contemplated partnership, may be held by partnership creditors as if he were a partner. Even in the English cases cited above, when they are read as a whole, it appears that both tests (profit and intention) are necessary, or, at least, are both considered, and that sharing profits alone does not create partnership relations, neither does intention alone govern, unless coupled with other matters. lOL. R. 7 Ex. 218, 20 W, R. 747. ii (1872) L. R. 4 P. C. 419, 435. § 48 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 46 § 48. English Partnership Act. — During the same year in which was decided the case of Bullen v. Sharp (1865) the act of 28 and 29 Vict., ch. 86, became a law, and embodied in stat- ute law many of the principles of the case of Cox v. Hickman, thus further recognizing and perpetuating this principle. This act defined partnership as the relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit, and makes sharing of profits prima facie, but not conclusive, evidence of partnership. § 49. Test of estoppel.— Some writers use the term part- nership by estoppel. This is a misnomer, as from the very mean- ing of the term estoppel, it would be impossible. All that can possibly be meant by this term is, that, while there is no real ' partnership, yet, by the words or acts of the party sought to be held, he is precluded from using this defense of no partnership, and he is under the same obligations therein to the party injured, as if he were a partner. The term, in its present discussion will only be used in the last sense, and not as any real partnership. The early English reports do not touch upon the subject of partnership liability by estoppel to the same extent as in other branches, and yet the doctrine is recognized in the early cases as fully established. The case of Waugh v. Carver, above cited," is an authority in point, and Chief Justice Eyre, in his opinion, , recognizes the rule, in the following language : "Now a case may be stated in which it is the clear sense of the parties to the contract that they shall not be partners, that A is to contribute neither labor nor money, and, to go still further, not to receive any profits, but if he will lend his name as a partner, he becomes as against all the rest of the world, a partner, not upon the ground of the real transaction between them, but upon principles of general policy, to prevent the frauds to which creditors would be liable if they were to suppose that they lent their money upon the apparent credit of three or four persons, when, in fact, they lent it only to two of them, to whom, without the others, they would 12 See ante, § 39. 47 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 49 have lent nothing." Thus, as early as 1793, and probably long before, this principle was considered as established beyond ques- tion. Almost a century later we find the principle again recog- nized, in another noted English case.^* The firm of W. H. Rogers & Company was a partnership composed of Scarf and Rogers. Scarf retired from the firm, and one Beech entered the firm, and he and Rogers continued the business under the name W. H. Rogers & Company. Jardine, who had dealt with the old firm, and who had.no notice of the change, sold goods to the new firm, and later, after bankruptcy of the new firm, sued Scarf. Lord Watson, in his opinion, used the following language : "The appellant (Scarf) had, in point of fact, ceased to be a partner of the firm of W. H. Rogers & Company, before the goods were ordered or supplied to the new firm. Notwithstanding that fact, he was estopped from asserting as against the respondent, who had been one of his customers, that the contract was not made with the old firm, because notice had not been given to the respondent of its dissolution by his ceasing to be a partner." Several years before the above decision, Lord Cranworth, who was then lord chancellor, in the case of In re Rowland and Crankshaw, said:^* "These two gentlemen traded under the name of 'Rowland & Co.' and tradesmen sup- plied them with large quantities of goods, and then they became bankrupts; and it is now said tha,t they were not partners, and that the real agreement between them was that everything be- longed to Crankshaw. That is no reason; and as Crankshaw suffered Rowland to trade in the name of the firm, any persons trading with him are entitled to say that Rowland and Crank- shaw are the persons with whom they dealt, and that the goods are joint goods." The estoppel in the above cases, as will be seen on reading the entire reports of them, only governs when the party setting it up was not aware of the actual facts, and relied upon the facts upon which he bases the estoppel. 13 Scarf e v. Jardine, 51 L. J., Q. B. "L. R. 1 Ch. App. 421 (1866). 612, 7 App. Cas. 345, 47 L. T. 258, 30 W. R. 893. § 50 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 48 § 50. Summary of English law. — Inasmuch as this work is primarily an American work upon the subject, an exhaustive study of the English cases has not been attempted, but only the great landmarks in the subject have been discussed, those cases which have made law or have been the leading English authori- ties upon the subject, and which have materially aided in shaping the American law applying thereto, and attention is now turned to the American law, leaving the English law, for the time being, as follows : From an analysis and comparison of the cases herein discussed, and other cases adopting the rules therein established, the following is submitted by the author as his understanding as to the status of the English law under the above decisions. First, partnership inter sese, the only real partnership, had, under all the above decisions, its true test in the intention of the parties, and growing out of this, the sharing of profits and losses and mutual agency. Second, partnership inter alios or quasi part- nership, had as its test, under the early decisions, the sharing of profits and losses, and, later, under Cox v. Hickman, the intention of the parties, which, in turn, necessarily implied the sharing of profits and losses and mutual agency. Third, partnership lia- bility by estoppel, by its terms, was no partnership at all, but a status of the party sought to be held liable as a partner, growing out of his holding himself, or permitting himself to be held out as a partner, and the consequent refusal of the law to permit him to deny the relation. The only test of this relation possible would be his active or passive acts or representations. § 51. American law — Test of profiit sharing. — The case of Waugh V. Carver,^® although an English case, was recognized by American courts as authority, and its test of profit sharing was early incorporated into American law. Inasmuch as each state in the United States has its separate laws, and the laws, through statutory enactment or through judicial decisions, often differ materially, a rather general discussion of the subject is here given. 15 2 H. Bl. 235. 49 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 52 § 52. The early rule. — The early American law is perhaps nowhere better stated than in 1854 in the case of Smith v. Wright," where Edwards, J., thus laid down the rule as he found it in American law : "The well-established rule is, that if a per- son partakes of the profits of any branch of trade or business, he is answerable as a partner for its losses. The reason of this is, that if he takes a part of the profits, he takes from the creditors a part of the fund which is the proper security for the payment of their debts. The only qualification of this rule which has ever been acknowledged is, that when a person stipulates to receive a sum of money in proportion to a given quantity of the profits, as a reward for his services, he is not chargeable as a partner." The exception will be dismissed until a later full discussion, and the main proposition of the rule of test of profits will be here considered. The same general rule as to the test of profits was adhered to in many earlier decisions, particularly in New York, As early as 1819, in Walden v. Sherburne,^' the court said: "No principle is better established than that every person is to be deemed in partnership if he is interested in the profits of a trade, and if the advantages which he derives from the trade are casual and indefinite, depending on the accidents of trade."^* Following the old English decisions, our early courts very gen- erally recognized that sharing profits (and, in some cases, losses) constituted a partnership, or at least partnership liabilities, sub- ject to exceptions hereinafter noticed. The case of Cox v. Hick- man, although it completely revolutionized the English partner- ship law, was not to the same extent embodied in American part- nership law, yet it undoubtedly had a considerable influence in most jurisdictions, and upon American partnership law in general. "4 Abb. App. (N. Y.) 274, 1 Abb. man v. Bailey, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 526 Prac. 243. (1841) ; Everett v. Coe, 5 Denio (N. " 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 409. Y.) 180 (1848) ; Oakley v. Aspinwall, 18 Dob V. Halsey, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 2 Sandf. 7-21, 3 Code Rep. 209, 4 34 (1819), 8 Am. Dec. 293; Cham- N. Y. Super. Ct. 7 (revd. 4 N. Y. pion V. Bostwick, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 513). 175 (1837), 31 Am. Dec. 376; Cush- 4 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 53 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 50 § 53. The Pennsylvania rule. — In some states, particularly in New Vork and Pennsylvania, Cox v. Hickman apparently had no influence whatsoever. In 1869, the learned Judge Shars- wood, in a leading case^* upon this subject, pointed out the new English rule of Cox v. Hickman, but followed the rule of Waugh V. Carver, saying : "It is entirely too late now to question either the rule or the exception. We are bound to stand super antiquas vias by our own decided cases." This opinion clearly demon- strated two things. First, that the rule of Waugh v. Carver was the accepted rule of Pennsylvania, and, second, that the law of that state was in no wise affected by Cox v. Hickman. In the same year, in the case of Lord v. Proctor,"" Edwards- v. Tracy was followed and cited, the court saying that the rule in Waugh v. Carver was too ancient a landmark in our law to be now disturbed. The next year, 1870, certain changes in this old rule were made in Pennsylvania by statute, but there has been no other change recognized by the courts of that state prior to the adoption in 1915 of the Uniform Partnership Act. The legislation of 1870 provided that a loan of money to an in- dividual or a firm upon an agreement to receive a share of the profits of the business as compensation for the use of the money and in lieu of interest should not make the party loaning the money liable as a partner, except as to the money loaned, pro- vided that the agreement for the loan be in writing, and that the party should not hold himself out as a general partner. The case of Wessels v. Weiss^^ recognizes the change only so- far as provided by statute, and the following observation is made by Judge Fell, in his opinion : "This legislation distinctly recog- nized the rule as it had existed in this state ( Pennsylvania ) for fifty years, and in England from 1775 to 1860, and modified it to conform more nearly to the modern English rule of Cox v. Hickman." He further says : "The well-settled rule of Waugh V. Carver was overruled in England in 1860 by the case of Cox 19 Ed-wards v. Tracy, 62 Pa. St. 374. 21 166 Pa. St. 490, 31 Atl. 247 =''7 Phila. (Pa.) 630. (1895). 51 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 55 V. Hickman, but there has been no departure from it in this state (Pennsylvania) except by legislation in 1870." Pennsylvania in 1915 was the first American state to adopt the Uniform Partnership Act.^^ Under this act the sharing of profits is prima facie evidence of .partnership, which may be rebutted by showing that the profits were received in payment of a debt, as wages or rent, as an annuity to a representative of a deceased partner, as interest on a loan or as consideration for the sale of the business.''^ § 54. The New York rule. — New York courts have also refused to recognize the authority of Cox v. Hickman. In the leading case of Leggett v. Hyde,^* Judge Folger says : "Without discussing those decisions (Cox v. Hickman and others), and determining just how far they reach, it is sufficient to say that they are not controlling here ; that the rule remains in this state — as it has long been — and that we should be governed by it until here, as in England, the legislature shall see fit to abrogate it. The references upon the appellant's points do not show that the courts of this state (New York) have yet exploded the rule I have stated. I have consulted all the authorities cited (save a few of which I had not the books, or as to which there was a mis- citation) and I do not find that the rule is questioned, further than to apply to the facts of the particular case some one or more of the exceptions to the rule which I have stated to exist."^^ § 55. The Indiana rule. — The rule in Indiana is : "The ultimate and conclusive test of a partnership is the co-ownership of the profits of the business. If there is community of profits, 22 Laws of Pa. 1915, ch. 15, p. 18. Hill (N. Y.) 526; Wood v. Vallette, 23 Laws Pa. 1915, ch. IV, § 7, p. 19; 7 Ohio St. 172; Messinger v. Second Uniform Partnership Act, § 7, p. 19. Nat. Bank of Toledo, 6 Ohio C. D. 2*S8N. Y. 272 (1874), 47 How. Pr. 197, 13 Ohio C. C. 561; First Nat. 524, 17 Am. Rep. 244. Bank v. Ballard, 10 Ohio C. D. 298, 25 See also Parker v. Canfield, Zl 10 Ohio C. C. 63 ; Pierson v. Stein- Conn. 250, 9 Am. Rep. 317; Bailey v. meyer, 4 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 309; Clark, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 372; Man- Stratton v. O'Conner (Tex. Civ. App. hattan Co. v. Sears, 45 N. Y. 797, 6 1896), 34 S. W. 158. Am. Rep. 177; Cushman v. Bailey, 1 § 56 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 52 a partnership follows. Community of profits means a proprietor- ship in them;, as distinguished from a personal claim upon the other associate. In other words, a property right in them from the start is in one associate as much as in the other."^® This statement has been somewhat modified in a later case, and other tests recognized, the court saying : "It is apparent that to estab- lish the partnership relation, as between the parties, there must be (1) a voluntary contract of association for the purpose of sharing the profits and losses, as such, which may arise from the use of capital, labor or skill in a common enterprise; and (2) an intention on the part of the principals to form a partnership for that purpose. But it must be borne in mind, however, that the intent, the existence of which is deemed essential is an intent to do those things which constitute a partnership. Hence, if such an intent exists, the parties will be partners notwithstanding that they purposed to avoid the liability attaching to partners, of even expressly stipulated in their agreement that they were not to be- come partners. * * * It is the substance, and not the name of the arrangement between them which determines their legal relation toward each other, and if from a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, it appears that the parties intended, be- tween themselves, that there should be a community of interest of both the property and profits of a common business or venture, the law treats, it as their intention to become partners, in the absence of other controlling factors."^^* § 56. Other American cases holding the profit-sharing test. — As late as 1907, it was held in Illinois that a partner- ship may exist, although there is no agreement as to the sharing of losses ; that, in fact, the sharing of profits is the test of part- nership.^'^ 28 Steele v. Mich. Buggy Co., SO 2' Leeds v. Townsend, 228 111. 451, Ind. App. 644, 95 N. E. 435 ; Breinig 81 N. E. 1069, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) V. Sparrow, 39 Ind. App. 455, 80 N. 191 (1807). It was held that an in- E. il. struction thai if defendants entered 263 Bacon v. Christian (Ind.), Ill into business, and after expenses were N. E. 628 (decided Feb. 25, 1916). paid the net profits were to be divided 53 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 59 In a Virginia case,^^ the court said: "In order that persons may be partners in the legal acceptation of the word, it is requisite that they shall share something by virtue of an agreement to that efifect, and that that which they have agreed to share shall be the profit arising from some predetermined business, engaged in for their common benefit. An agreement that something shall be attempted with a view to gain and that the gain shall be shared by the parties to the agreement, is the grand characteristic of every 'partnership' and is the leading feature of nearly every definition of the term." The court further held that an agreement to share losses was unnecessary, since such is implied by law, and that, "if a trader makes an arrangement in regard to a commer- cial business with another, by reason of which that other becomes interested as owner in the resulting profits while they are un- divided and remain as profits, the two are partners." § 57. American cases opposing net profits rule. — While some of the American courts followed, and still follow, the doc- trine of Waugh V. Carver, many of them soon broke away from it, after the rule was changed in England by Cox v. Hickman. § 58. The net profit rule criticised — Eastman v. Clark. — In one of the leading American cases, Eastman v. Clark,^' from New Hampshire, the arguments in favor of the strict "net- profit" rule are most convincingly disposed of in the opinion of Jeremiah Smith, J., and because of the importance of this case in American law, a rather full quotation from his opinion follows in succeeding sections. § 59. Creditors do not rely on profits — Eastman v. Clark. — "One of the principal reasons urged in favor of the supposed doctrine is that already adverted to, viz. : That the man who takes part of the net profits, takes part of that fund on which the cred- between them, it would constitute a ^s Miller v. Simpson (1907), 107 Va. partnership, and both parties would 476, 59 S. E. 378, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) be liable for the firm debts, was 962 and note. proper. Walls v. Atlanta Newspaper =9 (1873) S3 N. H. 276, 16 Am. Rep. Union, 141 Ga. 594, 81 S. E. 866. 192. § 60 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 54 itor of the trader relies for his payment. The short answer to this reason is, that it is founded on a false assumption. Creditors neither can, nor do, rely on net profits for payment. Net profits *do not exist until creditors are paid.'*" The very fact that net profits are realized 'presupposes that the creditors of the firm are satisfied, or that the partnership assets are sufficient to satisfy their claims.'*^ And if it were possible in the nature of things for creditors to rely on the net profits as a fund for the payment of their claims, it is not probable that they would do so; for they must know that the amount of the net profits would gen- erally be insufficient for that purpose." § 60. Right to a preference or to an account should not make a creditor a partner — Eastman v. Clark. — "Another reason given for this rule is, that if one stipulates for an interest in the profits of a business which would entitle him to an ac- count, and give him a specific lien or a preference in payment over other creditors, giving him the full benefit of the increased profits without any corresponding risk in case of loss, it would operate unjustly as to other creditors. This reasoning is effectually disposed of by Mr. Story^^ as follows : 'The creditors to whom he is preferred are only the separate creditors of the actual partners ; he has no preference over the partnership cred- itors, for there are no profits till they are paid, and it is only out of the profits that his remuneration is to come. Why should the fact that he has a priority over one set of creditors make him liable to his last shilling to another set of creditors? A second mortgagee has a priority over the mortgagor's general creditors; but has it ever been argued that therefore his whole property, of every kind, should be liable for the first mortgage debt? Yet the cases would seem very analogous. And though a partner is entitled to an account, yet a person may well be en- titled to an account and yet not be a partner. If he is to receive a sum equal to a share of the profits, he is, by the great weight 30 Testimony of Commr. Fane, si 2 Am. L. Rev. 195. quoted in Story Partnership (6th ed.), ^^ Story Partnership (6th ed.), § 49, § 36, n. 3. n. 2. 55 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 62 of authority, clearly no partner ; yet how can he secure the pay- ment of the compensation agreed upon unless he has an ac- count' ?"'* § 61. The usury argument fallacious — Eastman v. Clark. — "The argument, that the sharer of the net profits will otherwise receive usurious interest without risk, does not seem very forci- ble. Usury is punished by the refusal of the law to enforce usurious contracts, or by the imposition of penalties; but it is not customary to punish usury by compelling parties to perform contracts which they never made." § 62. The net-profit rule not needed to prevent fraud — Eastman v. Clark. — "The only other alleged reason deserving special consideration at this time is, that the net-profit rule is necessary to 'protect third persons against the frauds which might.be practiced, if secret agreements were allowed to be bind- ing on third persons.'^* It is conceded on all hands that, so far as the agreement is known, it must be binding on all who have knowledge of it,^^ but it is urged that to allow force and validity to a secret agreement would often work a fraud on third per- sons. I^ this view, the liability of the sharer of net profits de- pends solely upon the secrecy of the agreement. "What are the probable frauds which can not be remedied save by holding the secret stipulator for a share of the net profits liable to pay the entire debts of the concern, in direct contravention of an agreement that he shall not be so liable? If his failure to disclose the agreement has caused persons dealing with the firm to entertain a reasonable belief in the existence of a certain state of facts, and to act on that belief, he can not now be permitted to controvert, to the prejudice of such persons, the existence of such facts. If, for instance, A allows B to hold him- self out as the sole owner of a stock in trade and to gain credit thereby, an attachment of that stock in trade by a creditor of B S3 2 Am. L. Rev. 199. ^^ Bromley v. Elliot, 38 N. H. 287, 3* Bromley v. Elliot, 38 N. H. 287, 303, 75 Am. Dec. 182. See also 2 Am. 303, 75 Am. Dec. 182. L. Rev. 7, 8, 202. § 62 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 56 will not be defeated by proof that the stock was furnished by A, under a secret agreement between A and B that it should remain A's property. Having knowingly allowed B to gain credit on the faith of his ownership of the stock, A can not now, as against those who have given B credit, deny that B is the owner.^" The receipt of net profits, while any debts of the concern re- main unpaid, seem almost or quite an impossibility; but if a per- son, entitled only to share in net profits, gets hold, by accident or design, of part of the gross returns, he must of course refund them if needed to pay debts; for his own agreement does not au- thorize him to receive any dividend until all the debts are paid. A secret stipulator for a share of the gross returns would not be thus cut oif by. his own agreement from retaining such funds; but, as already intimated, he would be quite as effectually barred by the application of the principles of estoppel. If A allows B to hold himself out to the world as the sole owner of the gross returns of a business, A can not withhold a portion of those gross returns from the creditors who were thus led to trust B. He is estopped from showing a different state of facts from that in which his silence induced the creditors to believe. But the doc- trine of equitable estoppel is remedial, not vindictive. The estop- pel will not be carried further in any case than is necessary to prevent one party from being injured by his reliance upon the conduct of the other.^^ It is enough to put the party misled in the position he would have been in if the representations actively or passively made by the other party had been true in fact. If B has never allowed himself to be held out as personally liable for debts contracted by A and the creditors of A have had no reason to rely and have not relied on B's security, why should B be estopped from showing that he is not liable ? 'A is not the agent of B ; B has never held him out as such, yet C is entitled, as between himself and B, to say that A is the agent of B ! Why is he so entitled, if the fact is not so, and B has not so repre- sented?' If C knowing of an agreement between A and B that 3« Elliot V. Stevens, 38 N. H. 311 ; S7 2 Smith's Lead. Cas. (5th Am. Kelly V. Scott, 49 N. Y. 595. ed.), p. 644. 57 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 63 B shall not be liable for debts contracted by A deals with A he has no claim on B. 'Why should he, if he does not know of it? Why, upon finding out something between A and B which has in no way affected or influenced him, should he who has dealt with A have a claim on B' contrary to the intention of both A and B?^® If the only objection to these agreements .is the secrecy, is it not enough to compel the reparation of all damage caused by the secrecy? Because B has caused C to believe in the existence of a certain fact, shall B therefore be estopped to deny the exist- ence of an entirely distinct fact, in the existence of which C never believed? Why should the law impose upon B the perform- ance of a duty which he never undertook, and which C never supposed he had undertaken? A strong argument against the supposed net-profit rule is afforded by. the claim to which it le- gitimately gave rise in Kilshaw v. Jukes.^^ Kilshaw supplied timber to Till & Wynn for houses which they were building. Till & Wynn offered Jukes as a guarantor for the price of the timber, but his security was rejected by Kilshaw. Kilshaw subsequently, having, as he thought, discovered that Jukes was a participator in the net profits of the house-building, sued him as a copartner, thus, in effect, attempting to enforce payment from a man on whom he never relied, and whose guaranty he had expressly refused ! Yet, if Jukes had in fact participated in the net profits under an agreement that he should not be liable for debts, we think Kilshaw's claim might well have been sup- ported under the supposed net-profit rule." § 63. Argument as to one sharing profits bearing burden fallacious — Eastman v. Clark. — "The maxim, 'qui sentit com- modum sentire debet et onus,' is not decisive in favor of the sup- posed rule. It must be presumed that the secret stipulator for a share of the net profits gives something for the right. (If he does not, there is no consideration, and hence no valid agree- ssBullen v. Sharp, L. R. 1 C. P. ^9 3 Best & Smith 847, 32 L. J., 86,. 1 H. & R. 117, 35 L. J., C. P. 105, Q. B. 217, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 1231. 12 Jur. (N. S.) 247, 14 L. T. 72, 14 W. R. 338. § 64 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 58 ment.) If he does pay anything to the ostensible manager, or puts any capital into the concern, he does 'bear a burden;' he runs the risk of losing what he thus pays or puts in. His claim is not enforcible until after all the creditors of the concern are satisfied. Furthermore, notwithstanding this maxim, an agree- ment to share profits without being liable for debts is not in its nature against the policy of the law. This, as has already been said, is evident from the fact that such agreements, so far as they are known to persons dealing with the concern, are allowed full scope and effect.*"* It may be said that if this reasoning is right, a man might bargain to receive all the profits of a business and not be liable. The answer is, the thing is impossible. There never was and never will be a bona fide agreement by one man to carry on a business, bear all its losses, and pay over all its profits. Should such an agreement appear, it would obviously be colorable.*^ In other words, it would be almost impossible to satisfy a jury that even the form of such an agreement was ever entered into; and, if that fact should be established, the mere making of such an agreement, would under ordinary circumstances, afford cogent evidence of an actual intent to defraud creditors. And partici- pators in that intent would in some form of action (whether in contract or tort is not now material) be held answerable to make good the loss of all who suffered by the conspiracy. We are here dealing only with bona fide agreements. Colorable arrange- ments will be attempted under any rule or test. § 64. Rule not needed to reach an ostensible partner — Eastman v. Clark. — "The supposed 'net-profit rule' is not needed to reach the case of an ostensible partner. He is liable on the elementary principles of the law of estoppel, because he held himself out as a partner. Nor is it needed to reach the case of a dormant partner who was to participate in the profits and 40 2 Am. L. Rev. 7, 8, 202; Bailey v. *i Bullen v. Sharp, L. R. 1 C. P. 86, Clark, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 372; Bromley 1 H. & R. 117, 35 L. J., C. P. 105, 12 V. Elliott, 38 N. H. 287, 303, 75 Am. Jur. (N. S.) 247, 14 L. T. 72, 14 W. Dec. 182. R. 338. 59 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 64 the losses. He is liable just as any other undisclosed principal is, under the ordinary doctrines of the law of agency. In such a case 'the dormant partner knows he is liable, and means to be.'" "Nor does the repudiation of the supposed rule annihilate the ordinary presumptions of fact. If it appears that B stipulated for a share in the profits of a concern, a jury fairly may, and always will, presume, in the absence of any evidence tp the con- trary, that he also agreed to be liable for the losses. That is the prima facie inference, justified by common experience. But the supposed 'net-profit rule' goes further, and conclusively presumes that he contracted to pay the debts, in the face of satisfactory evi- dence that it was expressly stipulated to the contrary. It does not allow him to rebut the presumption. In every case where there is an agreement to participate in the net profits, there is incidentally and to a limited extent a participation in the losses as well as in the profits; for before it can be ascertained that there are any profits, the losses must first be deducted, and the residue only shared as profits.*^ But because a man has sub- jected himself to this incidental sharing of the losses, why should the law conclusively presume him personally liable to respond for all losses out of his general property? "It is not the least of the objections to the supposed rule that the hardship of its application to individual cases will lead to the introduction of subtle exceptions to the rule, exceptions 'which aggravate the bulk of the corpus juris, and (what is an evil of still greater magnitude) which reduce the body of the law to a chaos of incoherent details'."** The opinion of Doe, J., in Eastman v. Clark*^ is devoted to a consideration of the English and American cases decided pre- viously, and shows that in many of those decided on the profit- sharing test the same result would have been reached by the ap- plication of the test of intention, and also brings out the fact that 42 Bramwell, B. in L. R. 1 C. P. 126. ** 1 Austin Jurisprudence (3 ed.) *8 Story Partnership, § 600. 483. *i>53 N. H. 276, 16 Am. Rep. 192, § 65 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 60 the earlier English and American authorities were not so closely wedded to the "net-profit" test as has often been asserted. § 65. Intention test followed — Beecher v. Bush. — In the case of Beecher v. Bush/° the court held that where one merely hired the use of another's hotel from day to day, paying daily a sum equal to one-third of the gross receipts and gross earnings, there was no partnership. The opinion was delivered by Cooley, J., who approved the decision of Cox v. Hickman, and also that of Eastman v. Clark. He said : "Except when one allows the public or individual dealers to be deceived by the appearances of partnership when none exists, he is never to be charged as a part- ner unless by contract and with intent he has formed a relation in which the elements of partnership are to be found. And what are these? At the very least the following : Community of inter- est in some lawful contmerce or business, for the conduct of which the parties are mutually principals of and agents for each other, with general powers within the scope of the business, which powers however by agreement between the parties themselves may be restricted at option to the extent even of making one the sole agent of the others and of the business. "If therefore we shall say that agency of each to act for the the other, or agency of one to act for both in the common busi- ness, is to be the test of partnership, or to be one of the tests, but that the law may imply the agency irrespective of the intent, and then imply the partnership from the agency, we see at once that the test disappears from all our calculations. To imply , something in order that that something may be the foundation whereupon to erect an implication of something else, is a mere absurdity. The test of partnership must be found in the intent is 45 Mich. 188, 7 N. W. 78S, 40 Am. exists if there is a "community of Rep. 465. This case was followed in property, community of interest and Brotherton v. Gilchrist, 144 Mich. 274, community of profits." In Brotherton 107 N. W. 890, lis Am. St. 397 and v. Gilchrist, 144 Mich. 274, 107 N. W. note. In the case of Dutcher v. Buck, 96 890, this holding was limited to the Mich. 160, 55 N. W. 676, 20 L. R. A. effect that there is no partnership if lid, it was held that a partnership any of these elements is missing. 61 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 66 of the parties themselves. They may say they intend none when their contract plainly shows the contrary, and in that case the intent shall control the contradictory assertion." * * * "Our conclusion is that Beecher and Williams, having never in- tended to constitute a partnership, are not as between themselves partners. There was to be no common property, no agency of either to act for the other or for both, no participation in profits, no sharing of losses. If either had failed to perform his part of the agreement, the remedy of the other would have been a suit at law, and not a bill for an accounting in equity. If either had died, the obligations he had assumed would have continued against his representatives. We also think there can be no such thing as a partnership as to third persons when as between the parties themselves there is no partnership, and the third persons have not been misled by concealment of facts or by deceptive appearances." § 66. Intention test followed — Chaffraix v. Lafitte. — In the case of Chaffraix v. Lafitte,*'^ it was held that where a non- resident commercial firm made an agreement with two resident firms, by which one of the resident firms was to purchase cer- tain merchandise, and ship it in the name of the other, and the other resident firm, with the money of the nonresident firm, was to pay for the merchandise, and each of the resident firms agreed to receive, instead of fixed sums in pa)mient of their services, certain proportions of the profits to arise from the subsequent sales of the merchandise, and also agreed to share in any losses resulting from said sales, such an agreement did not make the firms commercial partners, even as to third persons, when it appeared that they did not intend to form a partnership, and that they did not hold themselves out as partners. In the opinion by Marr, J., the court said : "Waugh v. Carver is no longer the rule ; and other tests must be resorted to in addi- tion to participation in the profits, in order to determine the question of partnership vel non. Participation in the profits is 47 (1878) 30 La. Ann. 631. § 66 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 62 one circumstance; participation in the losses is another. It is denijonstrated that participation in the profits alone is not suffi- cient. The parties may stipulate for a participation in the profits, and that there shall be no partnership ; and they may also agree to share profits and losses, and exclude partnership, since there is nothing in liability for losses, an incident of the contract of partnership, which gives it greater significance as a test of that relation than participation in profits, which is also an incident of that contract. Such agreements serve to fix the rights and rela- tions of the parties with respect to each other, and the public, or third persons are not interested in or prejudiced by them, whether they are publicly avowed, or known only to the parties. The true, final, satisfactory, conclusive test is in the answer to the question : What was the real meaning and intention of the par- ties, as- expressed in their contract, whether verbal or written ? If they intended to create a partnership, they will be treated as partners inter sese and with respect to third persons; if they did not intend to create that relation, but merely todivide the profits, or to share profits and losses, in a speculation or adventure, they will not be partners inter sese, nor will they be liable as such. Those who hold themselves out to the public as partners, or knowingly permit themselves to be so held out, may not, indeed, be actually partners, if they have not so intended and agreed; but they will be subject to the same liabilities as partners to those who have dealt and given credit on the faith and in consequence of such acts. The secret partner, and the publicly avowed part- ner, are equally liable, are equally partners, because, in the one case and the other, it is the real intention and the contract which bind them ; and the secret partner can escape liability only by the failure of the creditors to discover his true relation to the busi- es In this same case, Chaffraix v. the profits and losses, is a partner, Lafitte, 30 La. Ann. 631, the court said, have simply followed Waugh v. in reference to preceding authorities : Carver, and the subsequent decisions "We shall not attempt to analyze the which rest upon it, which were so American cases, such of them as hold long regarded as authoritative and that he who shares in the profits, or in controlling ; while such as hold that 63 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 67 § 67. Common ownership of profits in joint business — Meehan v. Valentine.— In the case of Meehan v. Valentine," the Supreme Court of the United States held that one who loaned money to a partnership secured by promissory notes, bearing in- terest, with the agreement that he was to be paid one-tenth of the net profits each year of the partnership business, if those profits exceeded the sum loaned, as additional compensation for the loan, was not a partner liable for the debts of the firm. The court, in an opinion by Gray, J., stated that "the rule formerly laid down, and long acted on as established, was that a man who received a certain share of the profits as profits, with a lien on the whole profits as security for his share, was liable as a partner for the debts of the partnership, even if it had been stipulated be- tween him and his copartners that he should not be so liable ; but that merely receiving compensation for labor or services, esti- mated by a certain proportion of the profits, did not render one liable as a partner. The test was often stated to be whether the person sought to be charged as a partner took part of the profits as a principal, or only as an agent." The court reviewed the English cases following Cox v. Hickman, and with reference to these said, "the reference to agency as a test of partnership was one or both of these tests can not be but to look into Gow, Collyer, Lindley, accepted as conclusive proof of part- Story, Parsons, Troubat, any work on nership rest upon distinctions equally partnership, and read the cases cited as arbitrary as the rule in Waugh v. in support of the harsh rule which Carver, and are supported by authori- ignored intention and contract, and ties of no less weight. It is to be the equally numerous cases by which hoped that the jurisprudence of the it was palliated, by ingenious distinc- United States, like that of Great tions, until finally it was declared not Britain under the recent decisions, to be the law of England, and the will no longer depend upon arbitrary plain, natural, . just, common-sense rules or arbitrary distinctions, but will rule recognized, by which the real in- accept the real intention and contract tentions and the contracts of parties of the parties as the only safe and are restored to that supremacy which conclusive proof of their actual rela- they have always maintained in the tions, whether inter sese, or as to third civil law and in the kindred systems persons. Those who have the leisure which have sprung from that noble and the curiosity to trace the conflict parentage." in the English and American courts *» (1891) 145 U. S. 611, 36 L. ed. from Waugh v. Carver down, have 835, 12 Sup. Ct. 972. § 68 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 64 unfortunate and inconclusive, inasmuch as agency results from partnership, rather than partnership from agency. Such a test seems to give a synonym, rather than a definition ; another name for the conclusion, rather than a statement of the premises from which the conclusion is to be drawn. To say that a person is liable as a partner, who stands in the relation of principal to those by whom the business is actually carried on, adds nothing by way of precision, for the very idea of partnership includes the relation of principal and agent. * * * j^ ^-j^g present state of the law upon this subject, it may perhaps be doubted whether any more precise general rule can be laid down than as indicated at the be- ginning of this opinion, that those persons are partners, who con- tribute either property or money to carry on a joint business for their common benefit, and who own and share the profits thereof in certain proportions. If they do this, the incidents or conse- quences follow, that the acts of one in conducting the partner- ship business are the acts of all ; that each is agent for the firm and for the other partners ; that each receives part of the profits as profits, and takes part of the fund to which the creditors of the partnership have a right to look for the payment of their debts ; that all are liable as partners upon contracts made by any of them with third persons within the scope of the partnership business; and that even an express stipulation between them that one shall not be so liable, though good between themselves, is ineffectual as against third persons. And participating in profits is presumptive, but not conclusive evidence of partnership." The court then said that the evidence did not show either "actual participation in the profits as principal" within the rule as laid down by the court in Berthold v. Goldsraith,^" or that he author- ized the business to be carried on in part for him or on his be- half, within the rule as stated in Cox v. Hickman and the later English cases. § 68. Other American cases opposing net-profit rule. — It was held in Mississippi,®^ that there is not a partnership where 50 24 How. (U. S.) 536, 16 L. ed. (1908), 92 Miss. 234, 46 So. 73, 18 762, 764, 765. L. R. A. (N. S.) 975. 51 Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hibou 65 ANALYSIS AND TE3TS § 69 there is an agreement between a debtor and creditor for payment of the debt out of the net profits of the business, and for a divi- sion of the profits share and share alike, after the debt is paid, and that profit sharing is not a conclusive test of partnership, but that there must be an intention to carry on a business and share profits as common owners or joint proprietors. It was held in a Kansas case that participation in profits is only a circumstance to be considered in determining whether a part- nership contract has been created.^^ § 69. Sharing profits as such. — When the test of partner- ship by sharing of profits is applied, the test is usually qualified by stating that there must be a sharing of profits as such, and it is recognized that there may be a sharing of profits merely as compensation ■ for labor, or in other manners to be later treated as exceptions to the rule.^* ' ■ This is variously interpreted by the courts to mean a pro- prietary interest in the profits while they remain a part of the un- . divided stock,^* a property in or control over the profits while still undivided, that is, an ownership in the profits before and as they accrue, as distinguished from the right to have a certain or un- certain amount paid from the profits, after they have been ascer- tained and divided,^^ sharing of the profits as common owners,^" owning profits before they are ascertained and divided. ^^ The indefinite sense of the words "profits as such," and the ambi- guities and uncertainty occasioned by their use, has been severely criticized in some cases.^' B2 Wade V. Hornaday, 92 Kans. 293, Wagner v. Buttles, 151 Wis. 668, 139 140 Pac. 870. N. W. 425. «3 3 Kent's Com., p. 25, n. b. ; Mee- =* Tyler v. Waddingham, 58 Conn, han V. Valentine, 145 U. S. 611, 36 L. 375, 20 Atl. 335, 8 L. R. A. 657; Gib- ed. 835, 12 Sup. Ct. 972; Pratt v. son v. Smith, 31 Nebr. 354, 47 N. W. Langdon, 12 Allen (Mass.) 544; War- 1052. ner v. Myrich, 16 Minn. (Gil. 81) 91 ; ^^ Chapline v. Conant, 3 W. Va. 507, McDonald v. Campbell, 96 Minn. 87, 100 Am. Dec. 766. 104 N. W. 760 (repudiated) ; Hodg- ^^ Baum v. Stephenson, 133 Mo. man v. Smith, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 302; App. 187, 113 S. W. 225. Caldwell v. Miller, 127 Pa. St. 442, 17 " Kelly v. Gaines, 24 Mo. App. 506. Atl. 983 ; Miller v. Marx, 65 Tex. 131 ; ss Denny v. Cabot, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 5 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 70 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP ()^ § 70. Sharing profits but not losses. — Many decisions hold that the parties need not agree to share losses, in order to create a partnership, and that it is sufficient if they enter a rela- tion with an idea of profit under an agreement that there is to be a community of interest in profits as such,"* that an agreement providing merely for a division of profits and not of losses is a partnership agreement, °° and that where one party furnishes the capital and the other the services in a business, and they agree to share the profits, but without any reference to losses, it consti- tutes a partnership."^ Some cases positively hold that the shar- ing of losses is not essential to a partnership.®^ It is usually held that an agreement to share profits implies an agreement to bear losses in the absence of a stipulation to the contrary.®' Participa- tion in the profits of a business raises a presumption of partner- ship, but this presumption may be rebutted.®* It has been held that an agreement for traffic in leaseholds and a division of the pro- ceeds thereof, constitutes partnership,®^ and where three persons engaged in a theatrical venture, two to contribute money, all three tO' share equally in profits, they were held partners.®® But where a bank agreed to finance a purchase of cotton by a broker, advanced money on bills of lading, drew drafts on the buyers, and then credited the profit to the broker, the broker and the bank were held not to be partners.®^ 82; Bradley v. White, 10 Mete. 215, 84 N. E. 884 ; Cothran v. Marma- (Mass.) 303, 43 Am. Dec. 435; East- duke, 60 Tex. 370; Miller v. Simpson, man v. Clark, 53 N. H. 276, 16 Am. 107 Va. 476, 59 S. E. 378, 18 L. R. A. Rep. 192. (N. S.) 962n. 69 Miller v. Simpson, 107 Va. 476, es Whitley v. Bradley, 13 Cal. App. 59 S. E. 378 (1907), 18 L. R. A. (N. 720, 110 Pac. 596 (1910). S.) 962 and note. 64 Sawyer v. Burris, 141 Mo. App. eoDoudell v. Shoo, 20 Cal. App. 108, 121 S. W. 321 (1909). 424, 129 Pac. 478. ss Mitchell v. Tonkin, 109 App. Div. siNorment v. Wittmann, 157 App. 165 (1905), 95 N. Y. S. 669; Simpson Div. 708, 142 N. Y. S. 717; Miller v. v. Summerville, 30 Pa. Super. Ct. 17 Simpson, 107 Va. 476, 59 S. E. 378 (1909). (1907), 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 962 and «« Danforth v. Levin (Tex. Civ. note; Yost v. Critcher, 112 Va. 870, 72 App.), 156 S. W. 569. S. E. 594. 67 McLean v. City State Bank, 210 62 Oppenheimer v. Clemmons, 18 Fed. 21, 126 C. C. A. 601. Fed. 888; Clemens v. Crane, 234 111. 67 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 71 § 71. Sharing profits and losses. — It is often considered, in American as well as in English partnership law, whether profit sharing alone is a test of partnership, or whether there must also be a provision for sharing of losses, but as is often the case, owing to the different state laws, the American decisions are more divergent than those in England, and decisions upon the subject, consequently, not of so uniform operation. It has been held"^ that a contract between two parties, whereby A agreed to furnish money to B to finance a contract held by B, and to receive a fixed interest on the money, with a further consideration of a portion of the profits, made them partners, and although there was no stipulation as to A sharing any Ibss, yet he was liable for any loss. This case, while in a way making profit sharing a test, never- theless recognized the fact that loss is an essential ingredient, and in fact made the profit sharing raise a conclusive presumption of sharing of loss. In Iowa it is held that an agreement to share losses is essential to the partnership relation, that a sharing of profits is insuffi- cient.®" The same rule holds in Alabama.'^" A very concise state- ment of the rule of sharing profit and loss is given in a Ken- tucky case,^^ in the syllabus : "Profit sharing is not always a con- clusive test of partnership, but an agreement to share both profits and losses always creates a partnership, and it is immaterial if the person furnishing the capital calls the other party to the agreement an agent, as his opinion of their relations will not con- trol as against the fact that they were to share the profits and losses of the business." The same rule was adhered to where there was a contract to buy and sell tobacco and divide net profits or losses,^^ and where one furnished labor and the other capital 68 Kelley Island Lime &c. T. Co. v. '"' Watson v. Hamilton, 180 Ala. 3, Masterson, 100 Tex. 38, 93 S. W. 427 60 So. 63. (1906). 'i^i Bowman v. Blanton, 141 Ky. 407, «9 Haswell v. Standring, 152 Iowa 132 S. W. 1041. 291 (1911), 132 N. W. 417, Ann. Cas. '^Dycus v. Brown, 135 Ky. 140, 121 1912B 1236n; Miller v. Baker, 161 S. W. 1010 (1909), 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) Iowa 136, 140 N. W. 407. 190; Bloom v. Farmers' Bank, 30 Ky. L. 159, 97 S. W. 756. § 72 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 68 in a timber deal, and agreed to divide both profits and loss;^' where one was to furnish pine timber and the other labor to manufacture and market turpentine and resin therefrom, each to share in the profits or losses;^* where there was a joint ven- ture in the purchase and sale of horses ;'° in a business, with an agreement, either express or implied, to share profits or losses ;''° where cranberry producers formed an association, and each agreed to bear his proportionate share of expenses and to share in profits in like proportion ;^' so in a contract between two parties to publish a newspaper and share in profits and losses f^ in the purchase and sale of live stock,^° and in the buying, selling and improving of real estate, by parties sharing in the profits and losses,*" it is usually held that an agreement to share losses may be inferred from an agreement to share profits,®^ or that the law ■\^ill presume such agreement.*^ § 72. Sharing profits and losses held insufficient to con- stitute a partnership. — -Even a participation in both losses and profits of a given business has been held, not of necessity to make the participants partners.'^ The Missouri rule is that mere ■^^Doncourt v. Denton, 131 App. ^2 jjic^ardson v. Keely (Colo.), Div. 90S (1909), 115 N. Y. S. 1118. 142 Pac. 167. ^* Dawson v. Blitch, 11 Ga. App. ^^ Lee v. Cravens, 9 Colo. App. 272, 840, 76 S. E. 596. 48 Pac. 159; Dwinel v. Stone,' 30 75 Steckman v. Gait State Bank, 126 Maine 384 ; Musser v. Brink, 68 Mo. Mo. App. 664 (1907), 105 S. W. 674. 242; McDonald v. Matney, 82 Mo. 78 Jones V. Purnell, 5 Pennew. 358 ; A. N. Kellogg Newspaper Co. v. (Del.) 444, 62 Atl. 149 (1905) ; Min- Farrell, 88 Mo. 594; Clifton v. Row- ers' Co-op. Assn. V. The Monarch, 2 ard, 89 Mo. 192, 1 S. W. 26, 58 Am. Alaska 383 (1905). Rep. 97; Mackie v: Mott, 146 Mo. " Briere v. Searls, 126 Wis. 347, 105 230, 47 S. W. 897; State v. Finn, 11 N. W. 817. Mo. App. 546; Newberger v. Friede, 78 Brooke v. Tucker, 149 Ala. 96, 43 23 Mo. App. 631 ; Rankin v. Fairley, So. 141. 29 Mo. App. 587; Roper v. Schaefer, 79McNeaIy v. Bartlett, 123 Mo. 35 Mo. App. 30; Bank of Osceola v. App. 58 (1902), 99 S. W. 767. Outhwaite, 50 Mo. App. 124; Martin 80 Ball V. Danton, 64 Ore. 184, 129 v. Cropp, 61 Mo. App. 607; Gille Pac. 1032. Hardw. &c. Co. v. Harrison, 89 Mo. 8iHaswell v. Standring, 152 Iowa App. 154; Sain v. Rooney, 125 Mo. 291. 132 N. W. 417, Ann. Cas. 1912B App. 176, 101 S. W. 1127; Miller v. 1326n. Simpson, 107 Va. 476, 59 S. E. 378, 18 69 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 74 parJ;icipation in profits and losses does not of itself constitute a partnership.^* It was held in a Kansas case/^ that a sharing of profits is not conclusive evidence of partnership, and may be overborne by other controlling facts, and likewise it has also been held'" that where one party advanced money to another with which to buy corporate stock, providing for a sharing of profits, but that the purchaser should stand all loss, there was no part- nership, virtually holding that profit sharing is not conclusive evidence of, or a test of, partnership. A partnership does not of necessity, result from an agreement to divide commissions upon a transactiqn, where no losses or expenses are contemplated or incurred.^^ An agreement between different steamship com- panies to pool their earnings and share the net profits, does not constitute a partnership.®^ § 73. Sharing losses only. — An agreement between sev- eral parties under which one shares in the profits but not. in the losses, is not a partnership;*' therefore an agreement between persons having similar causes of action against a village, that they will each bear an equal share of the costs of a test case, does not make them partners.'" § 74. Exceptions to rule of profit sharing as test of part- nership — In general. — ^The general rule as to profit sharing L. R. A. (N. S.) 962n. In the above »« Rosenblatt v. Weinman, 225 Pa. case it was held that an agreement to 200 (1909), 74 Atl. 54. share the losses was not necessary to *'' Sain v. Rooney, 125 Mo. App. constitute a partnership. But see 176 (1907), 101 S. W. 1127; Mont- Haswell V. Standring, 152 Iowa 291, gomery y. Amsler, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 132 N. W. 417, Ann. Cas. 1912 B 216, 122 S. W. 307 (1909). 1326n, holding that in Iowa an es- ^^ White Star Line v. Star Line of ?ential element of a partnership rela- Steamers, 141 Mich. 604, 105 N. W. tion is the obligation to share losses 135, 113 Am. St. 551. also. { *° Alabama Fertilizer Co. v. Rey- 8* A. Graf Distilling Co. v. Wilson, nolds, 79 Ala. 497; Bailey v. Clark, 172 Mo. App. 612, 156 S. W. 23 ; El- 6 Pick. (Mass.) 372; Lowry v. lis v. Brand, 176 Mo. App. 383, 158 Brooks, 2 McCord (S. Car.) 42. S. W. 705. "« Carter v. Carter, 28 III. App. 340. ssWeiland v. Sell, 83 Kans. 229' (1910), 109 Pac. 771. § 74 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 70 being a test of partnership, even in the jurisdictions which hold most strongly to it, is subject to certain exceptions. In the noted New York case of Leggett v- Hyde, one of the leading cases upholding the above general rule as to participation in profits (and losses) being the test, certain exceptions are expressly mentioned. "There have been," said the court, "from time to time certain exceptions established to this rule (profit sharing) in a broad statement of it. But the decisions by which these ex- ceptions have been set up still recognize the rule, that where one is interested in profits, as such, he is a partner as to third per- sons. These exceptions deal with the case of an agent, servant, factor, broker, or, employer, who, with no interest in the capital or business, is to be remunerated for his services by a compensa- tion from the profits, or by a compensation measured by the profits ;°^ or with seamen 'on whaling or other like voyages, whose reimbursement for their time and labor is to finally de- pend upon the result of the whole voyage. There are other ex- ceptions, as in case of tenants of land, or a ferry or an inn, who are to share with the owners in results, as a means of compensa- tion for their services. The decisions which establish these excep- tions do not profess to abrogate the rule — only to limit it. Wes- sels V. Weiss"^ not only recognizes that there are certain excep- tions, but styles these exceptions as "almost as ancient as the rule itself, which was made to avoid the injustice of its universal en- forcement.""^ Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries,"* says that, "the test of partnership is a community of profit ; a specific inter- est in the profits, as profits, in contradistinction to a stipulated portion of the profits as a compensation for services," and this statement should be kept in mind, as it is a correct and concise statement of the law where this principle is established. It fur- thermore, in a few words, covers the field of exceptions above given. It might here be said that, although they are often spoken 91 Leggett V. Hyde, 58 N. Y. 272 as See also Hackett v. Stanley, 115 (1874), 47 How. Pr. 524, 17 Am. N. Y. 625, 22 N. E. 745 (1889) Rep. 244. 9* Vol. 3, p. 25, n. v. 02 166 Pa. St. 490, 31 Atl. 247 (1895). 71 ANALYSIS AND TESTS 75 of as exceptions to the general rule, as a matter of fact it would be more correct to speak of them as apparent exceptions, as they simply explain the meaning of the word "profits" as used in this connection. Keeping this in mind, some American cases are cited, which touch upon these apparent exceptions. § 75. Exceptions — Sharing of profits as compensation for services. — It is well settled that the receipt by one of a share of the profits of a business or venture as compensation for his services in such business or enterprise does not ipso facto consti- tute him a partner therein."® In New York, which has adhered to the profit sharing test, it is recognized that when one is inter- ssHambly v. Bancroft, 83 Fed. 444; Gentry v. Singleton, 128 Fed. 679, 63 C. C. A. 231 ; Moore v. Smith, 19 Ala. 774; Zuber v. Roberts, 147 Ala. 512, 40 So. 319; Olmstead v. Hill, 2 Ark. 346; Gardenhire v. Smith, 39 Ark. 280; Dawson Nat. Bank v. Ward, 120 Ga. 861, 48 S. E. 313; Falk v. La Grange Cigar Co. (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 93; Mayfield v. Turner, 180 111. 332, 54 N. E. 418; Smythe's Estate v. Evans, 209 111. 376, 70 N. E, 906; Price v. Alexan- der, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 427, 52 Am. Dec. 526; Johnson v. Carter, 120 Iowa 355, 94 N. W. 850; Fuqua v. Massie, 95 Ky. 387, IS Ky. L. 849, 25 S. W. 875; Graham v. Swann, 148 Ky. 608, 147 S. W. 11 ; Cline v. Cald- well, 4 La. 137; McWilliams v. Elder, 52 La. 995, 27 So. 352; Holden v. French, 68 Maine 241; Sangston v. Hack, 52 Md. 173; Phipps v. Little, 213 Mass. 414, 100 N. E. 615; Blan- chard v. Coolidge, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 151; Harris v. Threefoot (Miss.), 12 So. 335; ^tna Ins. Co. v. Bank of Wilcox, 48-Nebr. 544, 67 N. W. 449; Whitney v. Gretna State Bank, SO Nebr. 438, 69 N. W. 933; Agnew v. Montgomery, 72 Nebr. 9, 99 N. W. 820; Atherton v. Tilton, 44 N. H. 452 ; Hargrave v. Conroy, 19 N. J. Eq. 281; Lewis v. Greider, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 606; Grapel v. Hodges, 112 N. Y. 419, 20 N. E. 542; Smith v. Dunn, 44 Misc. (N. Y.) 288, 89 N. Y. S. 881 ; American Seeding Mach. Co. V. John Conklin's Sons Co., 64 Misc. 652, 120 N. Y. S. 592 (judgment affd. (Sup. 1911), 145 App. Div. 950, 130 N. Y. S. 1104) ; Lance v. Butler, 135 N. Car. 419, 47 S. E. 488; Ryder v. Jacobs, 182 Pa. St. 624, 38 Atl. 471; Potter V. Moses, 1 R. I. 430 ; State v. Hunt, 25 R. I. 69, 54 Atl. 773 ; Mann V. Taylor, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 267; Southworth v. Thompson, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 10; Altgelt v. Alamo Nat. Bank, 98 Tex. 252, 83 S. W. 6; Heidenheimer's Exrs. v. Walthew, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 501, 21 S. W. 981; Morgan v. Stearns, 41 Vt. 398 ; Wil- kinson V. Jett, 7 Leigh (Va.) 115, 30 Am. Dec. 493; Sodiker v. Applegate, 24 W. Va. 411, 49 Am. Rep. 252; Tylen V. Teter (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 906; -La Flex v. Burss, 77 Wis. 538, 46 N. W. 801 ; Sohns v. Sloteman, 85 Wis. 113, 55 N. W. 158; Wagner v. Buttles, 151 Wis. 668, 139 N. W. 425. 75 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 72 ested in the profits only as compensation for services rendered or money^ advanced, he is not a partner."® An agreement whereby a ship captain is to be compensated for his services by a share in the profits of the voyage does not make him a partner."' Nor does an agreement to accept, for services rendered, part pay- ment from the profits of the business constitute the employe a partner."* A person employed to take charge of a mill, with a percentage of the profits for his services, does not thereby be- come liable as a partner with the owner for losses which may occur.^ An acrobat entered into a contract to act under the di- rection of the other party to the contract. The other party had an exclusive option upon the acrobat's services, to meet expenses of production, and to give the acrobat one-half the profits. It was held not to be a contract of partnership, but of employment.^ The same rule has been adhered to when a party had simply an 96 Larzelere v. Taber, 119 App. Div. 81, 103 N. Y. S. 970. In this case it was said : "It is quite true that our courts have adhered to the rule of Waugh V. Carver, 2 H. Bl. 235, refus- ing to follow the English departure therefrom in Cox v. Hickman, 8 H. L. Cas. 268, 9 C. B. (N. 5.) 47, (Leggett V. Hyde, 58 N. Y. 272, 17 Am. Rep. 244) ; and hence the divi- sion of profits is regarded as the 'most important element' in consid- eration of the contracts between the parties (Hackett v. Stanley, 115 N. Y. 625, 22 N. E. 745), but that ele- ment is not exclusive and controlling. I think that this case may be brought within the principle of Cassidy v. Hall, 97 N. Y. 159, that, when one is interested in the profits only as com- pensation for services rendered or money advanced, he is not a partner." Johnson v. Alexander, 46 App. Div. 6, 61 N. Y. S. 351 (affd. on opinion be- low in 167 N. Y. 605, 60 N. E. 1113). 9^ Coffin V. Jenkins, Fed. Cas. No. 2948, 3 Story (U. S.) 108; Brown v. Hicks, 24 Fed. 811; Baxter v. Rod- man, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 435; Grozier v. Atwood, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 234; Rice v. Austin, 17 Mass. 197; Mair v. Glen- nie, 4 M. & S. 240. As' to when a partnership may exist in such case, see Bulfinch v. WInchenbach, 3 Allen (Mass.) 161 ; Chapline v. Conant, 3 W. Va. 507, 100 Am. Dec. 1(&. s8 Porter v. Curtis, 96 Iowa 539, 65 N. W. 824; St. Victor v. Daubert, 9 La. 314, 29 Am. Dec. 447; Stockman V. Mitchell, 109 Mich. 348, 67 N. W. 336; Morrow v.' Murphy, 120 Mich. 204, 79 N. W. 193, 80 N. W. 255; Breman Sav. Bank v. Branch-Crookes Saw Co., 104 Mo. 425, 16 S. W. 209; Glore V. Dawson, 106 Mo. App. 107, 80 S. W. 55 ; Nutting v. Colt, 7 N. J. Eq. 539; Cornell v. Redrow, 60 N. J. Eq. 251, 47 Atl. 56; Miller v. Bartlet, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 137. 1 Jackson v. Haynies Admr., 106 Va. 365 (1907), 56 S. E. 148. 2 Keith V. Kellerman, 169 Fed. 196 (1909). 73 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 75 interest in profits as compensation for services, without title to any property or liability for debts,* where a party received an interest in net profits, in addition to a weekly salary f where one party furnished sheep, and the other gave his services in tending and managing them;® where one party placed his lands in the hands of the other for sale, the latter to have a certain per- centage of the selling price to a certain sum, and after the certain sum was reached, then a larger percentage on profits;" where there was an agreement for managing a lumber business upon a salary and percentage of net profits -^ where one party furnished money to build houses and renders legal services, with an agree- ment for payment of loan with interest and a further participa- tion in profits, if any;* where a person was employed for a cer- tain amount per diem by a corporation to manage the business of the corporation, and as additional compensation, half of the net profits of the business;® where one party furnishes cows and the other party milks and cares for them, and has therefore one- half the proceeds of the cream, calves and skimmed milk;^" where one party took a lease of a quarry, and engaged the other party to manage the quarry and commissary, agreeing to give the second party one-half the profits of the quarry and commissary, and one- half the rents of houses on the property ;^^ when there is an agree- ment by one person to give another one-half the profits arising from the purchase and sale of stock, as compensation for the second party's services in buying the stock ;^^ where an individual got out rock asphalt and shipped it to a company which used it in ^Lyden v. Spohn-Patrick Co., ISS ^Larzelere v. Taber, 119 App. Div. Cal. 177 (1909), 100 Pac. 236. 81 (1907), 103 N. Y. S. 970. * Street v. Thompson, 229 111. 613 » Belch v. Big Store Co., 46 Wash. (1907), 82 N. E. 367. 1, 89 Pac. 174 (1907). 5 Johnston v. Steele, 48 Tex. Civ. lo Phillips v. Mires, 2 Cal. App. App. 335, 107 S. W. 631 (1908). 274, 83 Pac. 300 (1905). ,«Corbin v. Holmes, 154 Fed. 593, "Zuler v. Roberts, 147 Ala. 512, 83 C. C. A. 367 (1907). 40 So. 319 (1906). 'Van Duzer v. W. F. Zimmerman i^Mirigus v. Bank of Ethel, 136 Lumber Co. (Miss.), 43 So. 177 Mo. App. 407 (1909), 117 S. W. 683. (1907). § 75 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 74 street paving, upon an equal division of profits;** where a build- ing contractor paid his superintendent a salary and as a bonus a share of the profits of the contract;** and in many other cases where a contractor has agreed with employes or those furnishing services to him that they shall have a share in the profits.*" Where an agent is paid by a share in the profits ;*® where the superintend- ent of a manufacturing plant received half the profits;*^ where a storekeeper gave another twenty per cent, of the profits to attend to the business and do the buying;** where a contract provided for a salary of one hundred twenty-five dollars per month and half the profits over three thousand dollars per year f where an employe of a piano dealer, owning no stock and bearing no ex- penses, received part of the profits of a special sale;^" where one procured a contract in the name of, and for the exclusive benefit of, another, he to share equally in the profits of the contract as consideration for his services.^* An excellent statement of the principle is made in a Massachusetts case^^ — as given in the fol- lowing syllabus : "Where there is an arrangement between two persons that one of them shall receive a part of the profits of the business conducted by the other, whether they are partners is to be determined by whether he has a share or interest in the profits as profits, or whether his interest in the profits is merely as a measure of his compensation for something that he does or furnishes under a contract." A similar rule is advanced in the case of Langley v. Sanborn.^* As a general rule, it is held that 13 Municipal Paving Co. v. Her- is O'Marrow v. State (Tex. Cr. ring (Okla.), 150 Pac. 1067. App.), 147 S. W. 252. 1* Bankers' Surety Co. v. Maxwell, is Goodin v. Pitt, 36 Nev. 156, 134 222 Fed. 797. Pac. 459. 15 Carpenter v. Lennane, 166 Mich. ^o McBrayer v. Smith (Tex. Civ. 610, 132 N. W. 477; In re Whitlow's App.), 145 S. W. 1053. Estate, 184 Mo. 229, 167 S. W. 463; 21 Tyler v. Teter (W. Va.), 83 S. Burns v. Niagara &c. Power Co., E. 906. 145 App. Div. 280, 130 N. Y. S. 54. " Estabrook v. Woods, 192 Mass. "Sludebaker Corp. v. Dodds, 161 499, 78 N. E. 538 (1906). Ky. 542, 171 S. W. 167. 23 135 wis. 178, 114 N. W. 787 "Hartwell v. Becker, 181 Mo. App. (1908). 408, 168 S. W. 837. 75 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 75 a partnership exists when persons share in the profits of an enter- prise as profits, and not as a measure of compensation for services, property, or opportunity in aid of the business.^* These principles -apply to third persons, as well as the parties to the agreement, when the employe has not been held out as a partner and is not estopped to deny a partnership liability.^" It must be borne in mind, however, that one who accepts a part of the profits in lieu of a salary may be a partner, and in many cases it is diffi- cult to determine whether such a person is in fact an employe or partner. Each case must be determined by the facts and cir- cumstances peculiar to it. Thus where an owner of timber and another made an agreement for the owner to furnish timber for manufacture, sell the product and collect the proceeds, while the other was to cut, log, and manufacture and receive two-thirds of the proceeds, it was held a partnership.^" Courts have also held there were partnerships, where a broker, the agent for the sale of timber, entered into an arrangement with another to purchase the timber, and build a sawmill, and the profits to be divided ;^^ where there was an agreement to con- duct a grocery business, one to furnish the money, buy mer- chandise and equipment, lease the premises in his name and take title, each to receive eighty-five dollars a month salary, the profits to go three-fourths to the one who furnished the money, one- fourth to the other f^ and where a construction company toade 2* Lacotts V. Pike's Est., 91 Ark. v. Edson, 40 Mich. 651 ; Carpenter v. 26, 120 S. W. 144; Morgart v. Leunave, 166 Mich. 610, 132 N. W. Smouse, 112 Md. 615 (1910), 77 Atl. 477; Wiggins v. Graham, 51 Mo. 17 137; Wagner v. Buttles, 151 Wis. Voorhees v. Jones, 29 N. J. L. 270 668, 139 N. W. 425. Fitch v. Hall, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 13 25 Hodges V. Dawes, 6 Ala. 215; Edwards v. Tracy, 62 Pa. St. 374 Loomis V. Marshall, 12 Conn. 69, 30 Polk v. Buchanan, 5 Sneed. (Tenn.) Am. Dec. 596; Burton v. Goodspeed, 721; Goode v. McCartney, 10 Tex. 69 IlL 237; Macy v. Combs, IS Ind. 193; Bowman v. Bailey, 10 Vt. 170. 469, 77 Am. Dec. 103 ; Bradley v. Ely, 2s Murphy v. Fairweather, 72 W. 24 Ind. App. 2, 56 N. E. 44, 79 Am. Va. 14, 77 S. E. 321. St;. 251; Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kans. 2^ Smith v. Padrosa, 139 Ga. 484, 209; Chaffraix v. Lafitte, 30 La. Ann. 77 S. E. 639. 631; Bradley v. White, 10 Mete. 28 Donleavey v. Johnston, 24 Cal. (Mass.) 303, 43 Am. Dec. 435 ; Hall App. 319, 141 Pac. 229. § 76 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP T(i a contract with one that he should manage the work of construc- tion of a building then under contract, should make advances not to exceed eight hundred dollars to pay labor, receive an equal allowance with the contractors for personal services, should have net profits, and be repaid his advances if the contract was a success.^' § 76. Sharing profits as compensation eo nomine. — It was formerly held that if one shared in the profits of a business eo nomine as compensation for services, he was liable as a partner, and to escape being held as a partner it must be expressly stip- ulated that he was to receive, not a share of profits, but a sum equal to a certain share.^" It is still held in Pennsylvania that while a share in the profits of a transaction may constitute the person thus sharing a partner, the receipt of a commission equal to such share as compensation for services does not.'^ In a Con- necticut case, Parker v. Canfield,^^ where an agreement in ex- press terms gave a sum of money equal to a share of the profits, not as profits, but as a compensation for procuring capital, said, "It can make no difference with creditors, whether a sum equal to the * * * profits is taken, or the same share of the profits is taken eo nomine. The fund on which the creditors rely is affected to the same extent and in the same manner under the one form of expression as under the other." And it was held that where a share of profits was paid to a person as compensa- tion for service, it is the nature of the contract, and the nature of the consideration on which the prdmise to pay a part of profits 23Styers v. Stirrat, 65 Wash. 676, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 259; Miller v. 118 Pac. 896. Bartlett, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 137; 30 In re Pierson, 10 Nat. Banks Ex parte Rowlandson, 2 Ves. & B. Reg. 107, Fed. Cas. No. 11, 153; 172, 1 Rose 89, 13 R. R. 52 ; Ex parte Omaha Smelting &c. Co. v. Rucker, Hamper, 17 Ves. 412, 11 R. R. 115; 6 Colo. App. 334, 40 Pac. 853 ; Loomis Pott v. Eyton, 3 C. B. 32, 15 L. J., V. Marshall, 12 Conn. 70, 30 Am. Dec. C. P. 257. 596; Emmons v. Newman, 38 Ind. ^iin re De Haven's Est, 248 Pa. 372; Whiting v. Leakin, 66 Md. 255, 271, 93 Atl. 1013. 7 Atl. 688 ; Turner v. Bissell, 14 Pick. 3? Parker v. Canfield, 37 Conn. 250, (Mass.) 192; Purviance v. McClintee, 9 Am. Rep. 320. 77 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 77 is founded, that prevents his being a partner, and not the use of a particular phrase in his agreement. So in nearly all the later cases in which the question has arisen, the courts have virtually held to the rule announced in the case of Parker v. Canfteld, and have looked to the real nature of the transaction, and the real consideration for the share of profits.^^ § 77. Sharing -profits as fee or commission. — A further exception to the rule that profit sharing constitutes a partner- ship is found where parties agree to a division of fees and com- missions. Thus an agreement whereby a real estate agent or broker contracts to divide his commission with another person who finds a purchaser for the property does not constitute a partnership, but only an agency.^* Nor does an agreement whereby lawyers contract to divide their fees with certain per- sons, who bring them business constitute them partners in the general practice of law.'^ Nor does the mere fact that two or more parties undertake the joint performance of a contract with a division of the contract price necessarily constitute them part- ners,^® nor that a commission equal to the share of a partner was paid for services.^^ 33 Stafford v. Sibley, 106 Ala. 189, See also Alabama Fertilizer Co. v. 17 So. 324; Rector v. Robins, 74 Ark. Reynolds, 79 Ala. 497; Wheeler v. 437, 86 S. W. 667; Morgan v. Farrel, Lack, 37 Ore. 238, 61 Pac. 849; South- 58 Conn. 413, 20 Atl. 614, 18 Am. St. worth v. Thompson, 10 Heisk. 282; Macy v. Combs, 15 Ind. 469, 17 (Tenn.) 10; Logic v. Black, 24 W. Am. Dec. 103 ; Donley v. Hall, 5 Bush Va. 1. (Ky.) 549; Beecher v. Bush, 45 Mich. se Matthews v. J. H. Luers Drug 188, 7 N. W. 785, 40 Am. Rep. 465; Co., 110 Iowa 231, 81 N. W. 464; Buzard v. First Nat. Bank, 67 Tex. Herbert v. Callahan, 35 Mo. App. 83, 2 S. W. 54, 60 Am. Rep. 7. 498; Hawkins v. Mclntyre, 45 Vt. 3*Allenv. Hudson, 78111. App. 376; 496. But see Brandon v. Connor, 117 Wass V. Atwater, ZZ Minn. 82, 22 N. Ga. 759, 45 S. E. 371, dZ L. R. A. W. 8; Sain v. Rooney, 125 Mo. App. 260; Voorhees v. Jones, 29 N. J. L. 176, 101 S. W. 1127; Brackenridge v. 270. See also Burns v. Niagara &c. Claridge (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. Power Co., 145 App. Div. (N. Y.) 1005 ; Jones v. Murphy, 93 Va. 214, 280, 130 N. Y. S. 54. 24 S. E. 825. 37 In re De Haven's Estate, 248 Pa. 35 Heshion v. Julian, 82 Ind. 576. 271, 93 Atl. 1013. § 78 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 78 § 78. Sharing profits as a royalty. — It has been held that where inventions and business are sold upon a royalty of a cer- tain per cent, of the net profits of the business that there is no partnership between the parties, as the percentage of the profits is simply a method of computing the royalty, and not an agree- ment to share profits as such.^' § 79. Profit sharing as payment of rental. — The mere fact that one receives a part of the profits of a business or enter- prise as compensation for property, real or personal, furnished for use in a profit-producing business does not as a general rule make such party a partner or create a partnership liability.^" Thus, if a landlord rents his real estate, his buildings or ap- purtenances to another, and in lieu of a cash rent agrees to ac- cept a per cent, of the tenant's profit, a partnership is not thereby formed unless the landlord has some direct interest as principal in the business conducted by the tenant.*" The same principle 3^ Thomson v. Batcheller, 134 App. Div. 506 (1909), 119 N. Y. S. 577. ssNelms v. McGraw, 93 Ala. 245, 9 So. 719; Gulf City Shingle Mfg. Co. V. Boyles, 129 Ala. 192, 29 So. 800; Vanderhurst v. De Witt, 95 Cal. S7, 30 Pac. 94, 20 L. R. A. 595 ; Fougner v. First Nat. Bank, 141 111. 124, 30 N. E. 442; Pierpont v. Lan- phere, 104 111. App. 232; Robbins v. McKnight, 5 Hals. (N. J. Eq.) 642, 45 Am. Dec. 406; American Seeding M^ch. Co. V. John Conklin's Sons Co., 64 Misc. (N. Y.) 652, 120 N. Y. S. 592 ; affd. 145 App. Div. (N. Y.) 950, 130 N. Y. S. 1104 (money advanced) ; England v. England, 1 Baxt. (Tenn.) 108. ^oRandle v. Barnard, 81 Fed. 682, 26 C. C. A. 568, S3 U. S. App. 377; May V. International Loan &c. Co., 92 Fed. 445, 34 C. C. A. 448, 63 U. S. App. 773 ; McDonnell v. Battle House Co., 67 Ala. 90, 42 Am. Rep. 99; Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. 637, 16 So. 601, 27 L. R. A. 126, 43 Am. St. 217n; Keiser v. State, 58 Ind. 379; Reed v. Murphy, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 574; Randall v. Ditch, 123 Iowa 582, 99 N. W. 190; Russell v. Gray, 4 Ky., L. 619; Fuqua v. Massie,-95 Ky. 387, iS Ky. L. 849, 25 S. W. 875 ; Holmes v. Old Colony R. Corp., 5 Gray (Mass.) 58 ; Beecher v. Bush, 45 Mich. 188, 7 N. W. 785, 40 Am. Rep. 465; Thayer v. Augustine, 55 Mich. 187, 20 N. W. 898, 54 Am. Rep. 361; Perrine v. Hankinson, 11 N. J. L. 181 ; Austin V. Neil, 62 N. J. L. 462, 41 Atl. 834, which follows Wild v. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 129, 7 Atl. 295, 57 Am. Rep. 552, and disapproves Sheridan v. Me- dara, 10 N. J. Eq. 469, 64 Am. Dec. 464; Meehan v. Valentine, 145 U. S. 611, 36 L. ed. 835, 12 Sup. Ct. 972; Bigelow V. Elliot, 1 Clifif. (U. S.) 28, Fed. Cas. No. 1399; Catskill Bank V. Gray, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 471 ; Dake V. Butler, 7 Misc. (N. Y.) 302, 58 N. Y. St. 550, 28 N. Y. S. 134; Dunham 79 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 79 applies*^ where a ship, franchise," Hve stock" or other property, is hired or leased to another, payment to be niiade in profits. The lessor and lessee, or bailor and bailee, are not for that reason alone considered as partners. Rentals are often paid by basing the rental upon the income, either gross or net. In one case,** a hotel was leased by the owner to a tenant, the rental agreed upon being a percentage of the total gross receipts, the lessee to pay all operating ex- penses from his portion. There was no partnership, as there was no sharing of profits as such, but only a payment of rent, based upon profits. The same rule has been recognized where the rental was based upon net profits, and no partnership held.*^ Where the owner of a ginhouse turned its management over to another, the owner not to share losses, but to be paid for its use half the net profits, it was held there was no partnership, even as to third persons;*" a similar rule was applied where one leased V. Rogers, 1 Pa. St. 255 ; Ambler v. Bradley, 6 Vt. 119; Boyer v. Ander- son, 2 Leigh (Va.) 550; Z. C. Miles Co. V. Gordon, 8 Wash. 442, Zd Pac. 265 ; Chapline v. Conant, 3 W. Va. 507, 100 Am. Dec. 766. *i Thompson v. Snow, 4 Greenl. (Maine) 264, 16 Am. Dec. 263; Bridges v. Sprague &c. Iron Co., ^1 Maine 543, 99 Am. Dec. 788; Holden V. French, 68 Maine 241 ; Reynolds v. Toppan, 15 Mass. 370, 8 Am. Dec. 110; Cutler v. Winsor, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 335, 17 Am. Dec. 385 ; Bow- man V. Bailey, 10 Vt. 170; Tobias v. Blin, 21 Vt. 544. *2 Heimstreet v. Howland, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 68; Hanthorn v. Quinn, 42 Ore. 1, 69 Pac. 817; Bowyer v. Ander- son, 2 Leigh (Va.) 550. *3 Nofsinger v. Goldman, 122 Cal. 609, 55 Pac. 425; Rider v. Hammell, 63 Kans. 733, 66 Pac. 1026; A. N. Kellogg &c. Co. V. Farrell, 88 Mo. 594; W. D. Wilson I'rinting &c. Co. v. Bowker, 27 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 153, 39 N. Y. St. 690, 15 N. Y. S. 293; Murray Ginning System Co. V. Exchange Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 508; Emberson v. McKenna, 4 Wills. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.) § 94, 16 S.W. 419. See, how- ever, Green v. Beesby, 2 Scott 164, 2 Bing. N. Cas. 108, 1 Hodges 199, 4 L. J., C. P. 299; Dalton City Co. v. Dalton Mfg. Co., ZZ Ga. 243 ; Dalton City Co. V. Hawes, Zl Ga. 115 ; Bran- don V. Conner, 117 Ga. 759, 45 S. E. 371, 63 L. R. A. 260 ; Buckner v. Lee, 8 Ga. 285 ; Wells v. Babcock, 56 Mich. 276, 22 N. W. 809, 27 N. W. 575; Clinton Bridge &c. Works v. First Nat. Bank, 103 Wis. 117, 79 N. W. 47. ** Drilling v. Armstrong, 94 Ark. SOS, .127 S. W. 725 (1910). *sWeiland v. Sell, 83 Kans. 229 (1910), 109 Pac. 771. «6Hall v. Stone (Ga. App.), 75 S. E. 140. § 80 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 80 well-drilling machinery agreeing to pay the lessor ninety per cent, of the profits.''^ § 80. Profit sharing as interest. — It will be remembered that the rule established in England by the case of Grace v. Sm'ith/^ making profit sharing the test of partnership, was ar- rived at in some of the early cases, very largely to eliminate the question of usury, and yet at the present time many jurisdictions bring the sharing of profits as interest within the exceptions to the general rule, thus making the cause of a legal principle an exception to it. The argument that one loaning money who takes part of the profits should be held a partner to escape holding him a usurer, is severely attacked in some cases.*° The rule is that if one merely loans money to the proprietor of a business he is not a partner, although he may have received a share of the profits as compensation, there being no distinction between com- pensation for the use of money, and compensation for services,°° but if one really invested capital in the business for a share of profits, he is held a partner, at least as to third persons.^^ This *7McKallip V. Geese, 30 Okla. 33, Nat. Bank, 141 111. 124, 30 I^. E. 118 Pac. 586. 442; Johnson v. Carter, 120 Iowa «8 2. W. Bl. 999. 355, 94 N. W. 850; Darling v. Potts, *9 Smith, J., in Eastman v. Clark, 118 Mo. 506, 24 S. W. 461 ; Hunter v. S3 N. H. 276, 16 Am. Rep. 192, quoted Conrad, 18 Mont. 177, 44 Pac. 523 ; in § 81 post. Richardson v. Hughitt, Id N. Y. 55, In Richardson v. Hughitt, 76 N. Y. 32 Am. Rep. 267; American Seeding 55, 32 Am. Rep. 267, Miller, J., said: Mach. Co. v. John Conklin's Sons "If the contract was usurious, theft it Co., 64 Misc. (N. Y.) 652 (1909), 120 was a loan of money, and it is not N. Y. S. 592 (affd. 145 App. Div. 950, manifest how the plaintiif can avail 130 N. Y. S. 1104); Keogh v. Min- himself of the usury to recover in rath, 56 Hun 640, 30 N. Y. St. 129, this action." 8 N. Y. S. 816 (affd. 130 N. Y. 677, so Wilson V. Edmonds, 130 U. S. 29 N. E. 1035); Palliser v. Erhardt, •472, 32 L. ed. 1025, 9 Sup. Ct. 563; 46 App. Div. 222, 61 N. Y. S. 191; Meehan v. Valentine, 145 U. S. 611, Lord v. Proctor; 7 Phila. (Pa.) 630; 36 L. ed. 835, 12 Sup. Ct. 972; Ste- Hart v. Kelley, 83 Pa. St. 286. ' vens v. McKibbin, 68 Fed. 406, IS C. " Buford v. Lewis, 87 Ark. 412, 112 C. A. 498, 30 U. S. App. 363; Buford S. W. 963; Plunkett v. Dillon, 4 v. Lewis, 87 Ark. 412, 112 S. W. 963; Houst. (Del.) 338; Clemens v. Ellison V. Stuart, 2 Pennew. (Del.) Crane, 234 111. 215, 84 N. E. 884; 179, 43 Atl. 836; Fougner v. First Reynolds v. Hicks, 19 Ind. 113; IIU- 81 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 80 rule calls for a distinction often difficult to make, i. e., between a loan and an investment in capital. A New York case holds that one interested only in the profits of a business as a means of compensation for money advanced is not a partner. Another case in the same state°^ held, that where a capitalist furnished a lumber owner money to enable him to carry on his business, and was to receive back the money advanced, and also one-third of the net profits of the enterprise, it did not constitute these parties partners.^^ In that state the courts have made close dis- tinctions, in two cases holding persons partners, who received profits because of moneys advanced,®* while several cases de- cided in the interim between these two held to the opposite rule, which seems to have been also followed in the more recent cases.®^ If there is really an investment of capital in a business, the mere fact that the parties called it a loan, does not change its legal effect.'" In a Minnesota case, where one needing financial assistance to complete a contract, applied to another, and they agreed that the other should advance twenty thousand dollars to the con- tractor to carry on the business then in operation partly under the contract, and the lender was to manage the finances of the busi- ness, his advances to be repaid out of the first proceeds of the business after taking care of expenses and contracts, and he was to receive half the net profits of the business, the contractor to give his time to the general management, the agreement to last nois Malleable Iron Co. v. Reed, 102 s* Hackett v. Stanley, 115 N. Y. 625, Iowa 538, 71 N. W. 423; Wood v. 22 N. E. 745; Leggett v. Hyde, 58 N. Vallette, 7 Ohio St. 172; note 18 L. Y. 272, 47 How. Pr. 524, 17 Am. Rep. R. A. (N. S.) 1047; Purvis v. Butler, 244. 87 Mich. 248, 49 N. W. 564; Fouke =5Rechardson v. Hughitt, 76 N. Y. V. Brengle (Tex. Civ. App.), 51 S. 55, 32 Am. Rep. 267; Eager v. Craw- W. 519. ford, 76 N. Y. 97; Burnett v. Snyder, s^Wisotzkey v. Niagara Fire Ins. 1(> N. Y. 344; Curry. v. Fowler, 87' N. Co., 112 App. Div. 599 (1906), 98 N. Y. ZZ, 41 Am. Rep. 343; Cassidy v. Y. S. 766. Hall, 97 N. Y. 159. =3 Contra: Kirkwood v. Smith, 47 =sWood v. Vallette, 7 Ohio St. Misc. (N. Y.) 301 (1905), 95 N. Y. S. 172; Poundstone v. Hamburger, 139 926. Pa. St. 319, 20 Atl. 1054. 6 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 81 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 82 during the logging season of two years, and the ■ lender's ad- vances to draw six per cent, interest, and no inventory was taken of the business nor nothing said about a partnership nor lend- ing money, nor terms of payment, nor giving of notes, except an assignment of the contract to the lender as security, and the business continued to be conducted by the contractor in his own name, except part of the bank accounts were in the lender's name, who did not hold himself out as a partner, it was held there was no partnership.^^ § 81. Sharing gross receipts. — It has sometimes been held that the sharing of gross returns makes the participants part-' ners.^* It has been said that participation in gross returns is not a participation in profits as profits, but Smith, J., in Eastman V. Clark,^° says that the reason of the net-profit rule applies with greater force to the sharer of gross returns, that if the one who shares in net profits takes from creditors part of the fund on which they rely for payment, much more does he who shares in gross returns, that if the net-profit rule is founded in reason, it is inconsistent not to hold liable the sharer of gross returns. This, reasoning seems conclusive, but the general rule is, and has been, that agreements to divide products or to share in gross returns do not create a partnership.®" This rule especially holds good where the owner of raw material agrees with the manufacturer who makes it into a finished product to pay him a share of such product.®^ However, such cases as these could easily be dis- 57T.R. Foley Co. V. McKinley, 114 N. Y. 186; Cogswell v. Wilson, 11 Minn. 271, 131 N. W. 316; O'Brien Ore. 371, 4 Pac. 1130; Butterfield v. Mercantile Co. v. McKinley, 114 Lathrop, 71 Pa. St. 225; Houston &c. Minn. 521, 131 N. W. 319. R. Co. v. McFadden, 91 Tex. 194, 40 =8 Everitt v. Chapman, 6 Conn. S. W. 216, 42 S. W. 593. 347 ; Wadsworth v. Manning, 4 Md. "i Nelms v. McGraw, 93 Ala. 245, 9 59 ; Musier v. Trumpbour, 5 Wend. So. 719 ; Loomis v. Marshall, 12 Conn. (N. Y.) 275; Griffith v. Buffum, 22 70, 30 Am. Dec. 596; Hodges v. Vt. 181, 54 Am. Dec. 64. Rogers, 115 Ga. 951, 42 S. E. 251 ; 59 53 N. H. 276, 16 Am. Rep. 192, Fawcett v. Osborn, 32 111. 411, 83 Am. quoted in § 58 ante. Dec. 278; Lafon v. Chinn, 6 B. Mon. 60 Clark V. Barnes, 72 Iowa 563, 34 (Ky.) 306; Edwards v. Fairbanks, 27 N. W. 419; Pattison v. Blanchard, 5 La. Ann. 452; Turner v. Bissell, 14 83 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 83 posed of as coming under the exception of compensation for serv- ices. It is also said that an agreement to share the gross returns of a joint venture creates merely a debt, not a joint ownership of the profits, and does not constitute a partnership.*'^ It has been held, regardless of the question as to whether or not there is a common interest in the property bringing the returns, the shar- ing of gross returns does not of itself create a partnership."^ The Uniform Partnership Act provides : "The receipt of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or inter- est in any property from which the returns are derived.""* § 82. Right to demand accounting. — It has sometimes been said that a sharer in profits ought to be held liable as a part- ner for the reason that he may bring an action in equity for an account of the profits in order to fix the amount which comes to him. But it is not only a partner who has a right to ask for an accounting."^ § 83. Modified statement of profit-sharing test. — Up until the year 1860 there was one test almost universally applied by which to determine the existence of a partnership. That test was: if the' parties share in the profits of a business or transac- tion they are partners, at least as to third persons."" It is now well recognized that although one shares in the profits of a busi- Pick. (Mass.) 192; Michener v. ante; Story Partnership, § 50n; Coll- Fransham, 33 Mont. 108, 81 Pac. 953; yer Partnership, § 45n; 2 Lindley Walker v. Tupper, 152 Pa. St. 1, 25 Partnership, § 946. Atl. 172 ; Clement v. Hadlock, 13 N. ^e Waugh v. Carver, 2 H. Bl. 235 ; H. 186; Clark v. Smith, 52 Vt. 529. Grace v. Smith, 2 W. Bl. 1000; Hey- 62Buie V. Kennedy, 164 N. Car. hoe v. Burge, 9 C. B. 431, 19 L. J., 290, 80 S. E. 445. C. P. 243 ; Hesketh v. Blanchard, 4 63 Tyson v. Bryan, 120 N. W. 940, East 143 ; Hawley v. Dixon, 7 U. C. 84 Nebr. 202 (1909). Q. B. 218; Bank of Nova Scotia v. 6* Uniform Partnership Act, § 7, Haliburton, 2 N. S. 350; Winship v. cl. 3. Bank of United States, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 65 Eastman v. Clark, S3 N. H. 276, 529, 8 L. ed. 216 ; In re Neasmith, 147 16 Am. Rep. 192-249, quoted in § 58 Fed. 160, 77 C. C. A. 402 ; Oppen- 83 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 84 ness he is not necessarily a partner for that reason alone.*'' A general realization of the many exceptions which exist to the profit-sharing test and its consequent untrustworthiness has led to its modification. In its modified form the rule is usually stated thus: "Two or more persons who contract together to carry on a business and share in the profits as common owners thereof are partners."*^ In other words, in order to constitute one a partner his right to share in the profits must result from heimer v. Clemmons, 18 Fed. 886; Emanuel v. Draughn, 14 Ala. 303; Pitkin V. Pitkin, 7 Conn. 307, 18 Am. Dec. Ill ; Parker v. Canfield, 37 Conn. 250, 9 Am. Rep. 320; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Hine, 49 Conn. 236; Plunkett V. Dillon, 4 Houst. (Del.) 338; Bran- don V. Connor, 117 Ga. 759, 45 S. E. 371, 63 L. R. A. 260; Buckner v. Lee, 8 Ga. 285 ; NiehofiP v. Dudley, 40 111. 406; Hubbell v. Woolf, 15 Ind. 204; Price V. Alexander, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 427, 52 Am. Dec. 526; Miller V. Hughes, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 181, 10 Am. Dec. 719; Craig v. Alverson, 6 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 609; Bank of Tennessee v. McKeage, 11 Rob. (La.) 130; Robertson v. DeLizardi, 4 Rob. (La.) 300; New Orleans v. Gau- threaux, 32 La. Ann. 1126; Pratt v. Langdon, 97 Mass. 97, 93 Am. Dec. 61; Sager v. Tupper, 38 Mich. 258; Connolly v. Davidson, 15 Gil. (Minn.) 428, 2 Am. Rep. 154; Tamblyn v. Scott, 111 Mo. App. 46, 85 S. W. 918; Mason v. Hackett, 4 Nev. 420; Brom- ley V. Elliot, 38 N. H. 287, 75 Am. Dec. 182 ; Jernee v. Simonson, 58 N. J. Eq. 282, 43 Atl. 370; Sheridan v. Medara, 10 N. J. Eq. 469, 64 Am. Dec. 464 ; Dob v. Halsey, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 34, 8 Am. Dec. 293 ; Walden v. Sher- burne, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 409; Heim- street v. Howland, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 68; Hodgman v. Smith, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 302; Leggett v. Hyde, 58 N. Y. 272, 47 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 524, 17 Am. Rep. 244; Hackett v. Stanley, 1-15 N. Y. 625, 22 N. E. 745 ; Southern Fer- tilizer Co. V. Reames, 105 N. Car. 283, 11 S. E. 467 and note; Cossack v. Burgwyn, 112 N. Car. 304, 16 S. E. 900; Aspinwall v. Williams, 1 Ohio 84 ; Second Nat. Bank v. Second Nat. Bank, 13 Ohio C. C. 561; Wood v. Valletta, 7 Ohio St. 172; Harvey v. Childs, 28 Ohio St. 319, 22 Am. Rep. 387; Edwards v. Tracy, 62 Pa. St. 374; Bartlett v. Jones, 2 Strob. (S. Car.) 471, 49 Am. Dec. 606; Cothran V. Marmaduke, 60 Tex. 370; Chap- man V. Devereux, 32 Vt. 616; Brig- ham V. Dana, 29 Vt. 1; Kellogg v. Griswold, 12 Vt. 291 ; Brown's Exr. v. Higginbotham, 5 Leigh (Va.) 583, 27 Am. Dec. 618. See also Cox v. Hick- man, 8 H. L. Cas. 268, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 47; BuUen v. Sharp, L. R. 1 C. P. 86, 1 H. & R. 117, 35 L. J., C. P. 105, 12 Jur. (N. S.) 247, 14 L. T. 72, 14 W. R. 338; Cox v. Delano, 14 N. Car. 89. e^Lacotts V. Pike, 91 Ark. 26, 120 S. W. 144, 134 Am. St. 48; T. R. Foley Co. v. McKinley, 114 Minn. 271, 131 N. W. 316; Cudahy Packing Co. V. Hibou, 92 Miss. 234, 46 So. 73, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 975. See also cases cited, ante, note 11. 68 Meehan v. Valentine, 145 U. S. 611, 36 L. ed. 835, 12 Sup. Ct. 972. 85 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 84 the fact that he is a part owner of them. If the per cent, of the profits due him is a mere personal obligation owed him by his associate such person is not a partner."® § 84. Test of profit sharing — The Uniform Partnership Act. — The Uniform Partnership Act provides : "The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such infer- ence shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment: (a) as a debt by instalments or otherwise, (b) as wages of an See McCrary v. Slaughter, 58 Ala. 230; McGill v. Dowdle, 33 Ark. 311; Wheeler v. Farmer, 38 Cal. 203; Hodgson V. Fowler, 24 Colo. 278, SO Pac. 1034; Norwalk v, Ireland, 68 Conn. 1, 35 Atl. 804; Ellison v. Stuart, 2 Pennew. (Del.) 179, 43 Atl. 836; Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. 637, 16 So. 601, 27 L. R. A. 126, 43 Am. St. 217n ; Stubbs V. Fleming, 92 Ga. 354, 17 S. E. 935 ; State Nat. Bank v. Butler, 149 111. 575, 36 N. E. 1000; Bradley v. Ely, 24 Ind. App. 2, 56 N. E. 44, 79 Am. St. 251; Steele v. Michigan Buggy Co., 50 Ind. App. 635, 95 N. E. 435; Price V. Alexander, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 427, 52 Am. Dec. 526; Heard V. Wilder, 81 Iowa 421, 46 N. W. 1075; Jones v. Davies, 60 Kans. 309, 56 Pac. 484, 72 Am. St. 354 (revd. 61 Kans. 602, 60 Pac. 314) ; Tanner v. Hughes, 21 Ky. L. 17, 50 S. W. 1099; Woodward v. Cowing, 41 Maine 9, 66 Am. Dec. 211 ; Staples v. Sprague, 75 Maine 458; Thillman v. Benton, 82 Md. 64, ZZ Atl. 485 ; Dwight v. Brew- ster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 50, 11 Am. Dec. 133; Dutcher v. Buck, 96 Mich. 160, 55 N. W. 676, 20 L. R. A. 776; Bohrer V. Drake, 33 Minn. 408, 23 N. W. 840; Herbert v. Callahan, 35 Mo. App. 498; Morrison v. Bennett, 20 Mont. 560, 52 Pac. 553, 40 L. R. A. 158; Gates v. Johnson, 56 Nebr. 808, n N. W. 407; Eastman v. Clark, 53 N. H. 276, 16 Am. Rep. 192; Robbins v. McKnight, 5 N. J. Eq. 642, 45 Am. Dec. 406; Willey V. Renner, 8 N. Mex. 641, 45 Pac. 1132; Magovern v. Robertson, 116 N.'y. 61, 22 N. E. 398, 5 L. R. A. 589 (see McGovern v. Mattison) ; Southern Fertilizer Co. v. Reames, 105 N. Car. 283, 11 S. E. 467; Braith- waite V. Aiken, 1 N. Dak. 475, 48 N. W. 361 ; Flower v. Barnekoff, 20 Ore. 132, 25 Pac. 370, 11 L. R. A. 149; Walker v. Tupper, 152 Pa. St. 1, 25 Atl. 172; Jones v. McMichael, 12 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 176; Spencer v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 47 S. W. 29 (revd. 92 Tex. 516, 50 S. W. 118, 71 Am. St. 870) ; Owen v. Oviatt, 4 Utah 95, 6 Pac. 527; Cook v. Carpenter, 34 Vt. 121, 80 Am. Dec. 670; Commercial Bank V. Miller, 96 Va. 357, 31 S. E. 812; Chapline v. Conant, 3 W. Va. 507, 100 Am. Dec. 766; Lathrop v. Knapp, 27 Wis. 214; Bartelt v. Smith, 145 Wis. 31, 129 N. W. 782, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 1195n. 69 Ellsworth V. Tartt, 26 Ala. 733, 62 Am. Dec. 749; Vanderhurst v. De Witt, 95 Cal. 57, 30 Pac. 94, 20 L. R. A. 595; Mason v. Sieglitz, 22 Colo. 320, 44 Pac. 588; Allen v. Hudson, 78 111. App. 116; Hallett v. Desban, 14 La. Ann. 529 ; Thillman v. Benton, 82 Md. 64, 33 Atl. 485 ; Marsh v. Mueller, 84 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 86 employe or rent to a landlord, (c) as an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner, (d) as interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business, (e) as the consideration for the sale of the good- 96 Mich. 488, 56 NI W. 71; Fay v. Davidson, 13 Gil. (Minn.) 491; Bruen V. Kansas City &c. Fair Assn., 40 Mo. App. 425; Mason v. Hackett, 4 Nev. 420; Robbins v. McKnight, S N. J. Eq. 642, 45 Am. Dec. 406; Wormser V. Lindauer, 9 N. Mex. 23, 49 Pac. 896; Walker v. Tupper, 152 Pa. St. 1, 25 Atl. 172; Stevens v. Gainesville Nat Bank, 62 Tex. 499; Fish v, Thompson, 68 Vt. 273, 35 Atl. 174; Bowyer v. Anderson, 2 Leigh (Va.) 550; Sodiker v. Applegate, 24 W. Va. 411, 49 Am. Rep. 252n; Cooper v. Tappan, 9 Wis. 361. In a very thor- ough and exhaustive note in 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) beginning on page 963, on "the effect of an agreement to share profits to create a partnership," the author sums up his conclusions on p. 1105 as follows : "In spite of the dis- cordant decisions, it is reasonably safe, whenever the profit sharing ele- ment is involved in a legal contro- versy relating to partnership or part- nership liability, to accept as sound law certain propositions, which may be grouped in two classes according as the litigation is between or among the profit sharers alone, or between them and third persons. In the first class are the following statements: 1. Whether profit sharers between or among themselves are partners is to be determined by their intention to form or not to form a partnership. 2. That intention is determined by their contract if it is in writing. 3. The ordinary legal rules for the con- struction and interpretation of written instruments apply to partnership and profit sharing contracts. 4. If the profit sharing contract is unwritten and oral, the speech and conduct of the parties in relation to its subject- matter prove their intention to be or not to be partners. In the second class, when there is a controversy be- tween profit sharers and third persons, the following statements: 1. That actual partners, whatever their private agreement, and however secret they have kept their relation, are liable for partnership debts. 2. That a profit sharer who is not a real partner is liable for partnership debts if he has held himself out, or knowingly per- mitted others to hold him out, as a partner to creditors who have given credit to the partnership in ignorance of his actual relation to it. 3. That profit sharing is evidence of the part- nership relation; but that it is not conclusive evidence of it, but at the most prima facie or presumptive evi- dence of the partnership relation. 4. That this presumption of partnership may be overcome by countervailing proof. 5. That when the profit sharer is simply an agent or servant, one who furnishes property, a lender of money or a mere creditor, who receives the profits as compensation for his serv- ices, or the use of his property or money, or in order to collect his debt, without more, he is not liable as a partner, and the presumption is over- thrown. A part of the confusion in the law of partnership is due to a lack of precision in the language of jurists. To say in one breath, as judges have said on numerous occasions anent a 87 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 85 will of a business or other property by instalments or other- wise. § 85. Test of mutual agency. — The formation of a part- nership makes the members thereof mutual agents in the conduct of the partnership business, and in many cases this mutual agency is made the test whereby to determine the existence of a part- nership." Cox V. Hickman" seems to hold that one should not be held liable, "as a doi'mant or sleeping partner, where the trade might not fairly be said to have been carried on for himi, and when, therefore, he would stand in the position of principal to- ward the ostensible members of the firm as his agents," as Lord Cranworth says, and Lord Wensleydale says,''^ "A man who al- lows another to carry on trade, whether in his own name or not, to buy and sell, and to pay over all the profits to him, is un- doubtedly the principal, and the person so employed is the agent, profit sharing agreement between business associates/ that it both does and does not make them partners — that it makes them partners as to third persons, but not partners as to each other — is bewildering. It is, moreover, untrue. The associates either are or are not partners. If they are not partners between or among themselves, they are not partners to . anybody. All that is really meant when a court says that persons not actually partners are partners as to third persons is that they have made themselves liable as if they were part- ners. Another source of confusion is the obscure, if not unintelligible lan- guage used in many cases." 69a Uniform Partnership Act, § 7, cl. 4. ™Culley V. Edwards, 44 Ark. 423, 51 Am. Rep. 614; Lee v. Cravens, 9 Colo. App. 272, 48 Pac. 159; Smith v. Knight, 71 111. 148, 22 Am. Rep. 94; Hallet V. Desban, 14 La. Ann. 529; Butcher v. Buck, 96 Mich. 160, 55 N. W. SI 6, 20 L. R. A. 116; Parchen v. Anderson, 5 Mont. 438, 5 Pac. 588, 51 Am. Rep. 65 ; Gibson v. Smith, 31 Nebr. 354, 47 N. W. 1052; Eastman v. Clark, 53 N. H. 276, 16 Am. Rep. 192; Hallenback v. Rogers, 57 N. J. Eq. 199, 40 Atl. 576 (affd. 58 N. J. pq. 580, 43 Atl. 1098) ; Jernee v. Simon- son, 58 N. J. Eq. 282, 43 Atl. 370; National Union Bank v. Landon, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 189 (afifd. 45 N. Y. 410) ; Harvey vi Childs, 28 Ohio St. 319, 22 Am. Rep. 387 ; Hart v. Kelley, 83 Pa. St. 286; Boston &c. Smelting Co. V. Smith, 13 R. I. 27, 43 Am. Rep. 3; Robinson v. Allen, 85 Va. 721, 8 S. E. 835 ; Morgan v. Parrel, 58 Conn. 413, 20 Atl. 614, 18 Am. St. 282; Brotherton v. Gilchrist, 144 Mich. 274, 107 N. W. 890, lis Am. St. 397; Cox V. Hickman, 8 H. L. Cas. 268, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 47. '18 H. L. Cas. 268, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 47. «8 H. L. Cas. 312. § 85 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 88 and the principal is liable for the agent's contracts in the course of his employment. So if two or more agree that they should carry on a trade, and share the profits of it, each is a principal, and each is an agent for the other, and each is bound by the other's contract in carrying on the trade, as much as a single principal would be by the act of an agent, who was to give the whole of the profits to his employer. * * * j think it is im- possible to say that the agreement to receive this debt, so se- cured, partly out of the existing assets, partly out of the trade, is such a participation of profits as to constitute the relation of prin- cipal and agent between the creditors, and trustees. The trustees are certainly liable, because they actually contract by their un- doubted agent, but the creditors are not, because the trustees are not their agents." In the case of Harvey v. Childs,''^ Judge Day, following Eastman v. Clark,^* and the more recent English cases at that time, said : "Therefore, on principle, the true test of a partnership, at last, is left to be that of the relation of the par- ties as principal and agent, to be proved by any competent evi- dence; for when they sustained that relation, a joint liability miay be said to have been incurred by the authority, or on behalf of each of the parties so related." But, while mutual agency may be a useful test in many instances, it is not strictly logical nor entirely satisfactory, and it has been pointed out by some of the courts, both of this country and England, that the agency results from the partnership and not the partnership from the' agency.''^ In other words, agency is one of the attributes of the T3 28 Ohio St. 319, 22 Am. Rep. 387. agency, but a very perculiar one. You' 7*53 N. H. 276, 16 Am. Rep. 192, can not grasp the notion of agency quoted in § 58 ante. properly speaking, unless you grasp 75 Pooley V. Driver, 5 Ch. Div. 458, the notion of the existence of the 46 L. J., Ch. 466, 36 L. T. 79, 25 W. R. firm as a separate entity from the 162. In this case, Jessel, M. R., said, existence of the partners ; a notion referring to Cox v. Hickman, 8 H. L. which was well grasped by the old Cas. 268, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 47: "I am Roman lawyers, and which was partly almost sorry that the word 'agency* understood in the Court of Equity has been introduced into this judg- before it was part of the whole' ment, because of course everybody law of the land as it is now. But knows that partnership is a sort of when you get that idea clearly you 89 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 85 partnership and is not the partnership itself. In the case of Boreing v. Wilson'^ it was said : "Likewise mutual agency has been abandoned as a conclusive test of partnership; the great weight of authority being to the effect that agency as a test of partnership was unfortunate and inconclusive, inasmuch as agency results from partnership, and not partnership from agency. Persons who are mutual agents in the conduct of a busi- ness and share the profits as partners are undoubtedly partners, and liable as such, and liability as a partner undoubtedly rests upon the principles of agency, and one is not a partner unless he shares the profits as a principal. But mutual agency is not a test of partnership, because the existence of such a relation is the very question in issue. The absence of power and authority on the part of one to bind his associates by his acts in the con- duct of the business — that is, the absence of mutual agency — has been deemed to be conclusive that such person is not a partner. But this is incorrect. Although the absence of such power is a circumstance to be considered, it is not conclusive ; for as between will see at once what sort of agency stating that he must be an agent for it is. It is the one person acting on the others. It is only stating in other behalf of the firm. He does not act as words that he must be a partner; agent in the ordinary sense of the inasmuch as every partnership in- word, for the others so as to bind the volves this kind of agency, or if you others; he acts on behalf of the firm state that he is agent for the others, of which they are members ; and as he you state that he is a partner." Mee- binds the firm and acts on the part of han v. Valentine, 145 U. S. 611, 36 L. the firm, he is properly treated as the ed. 835, 12 Sup. Ct. 972, quoted in § 67 agent of the firm. If you can not ante ; Stone v. Turfmen's Supjjly Co., grasp the notion of a separate entity 103 Ky. 318, 19 Ky. L. 20, 25, 45 S. W. for the firm then you are reduced to 78; Beecher v. Bush, 45 Mich. 188, 7 this, that inasmuch as he acts partly N. W. 785, 40 Am. Rep. 465, quoted in for himself and partly for the others, § 65 ante ; Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. to the extent that he acts for the 637, 16 So. 601, 27 L. R. A. 26, 43 Am. others he must be an agent, and in St. 217. In this case it was said : "A that way you get him to be an agent reference to agency as a test of part- for the other partners, but only in nership has not, it seems, proved a that way, because you insist upon correct guide in many cases, as agency ignoring the existence of the firm as results from partnership rather than a separate entity. That being so, you partnership from agency." do^not help yourself in the slightest ^e Boreing v. Wilson, 33 Ky. L. 14, degree in arriving at a conclusion by 108 S. W. 914. § 86 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 90 themselves the power of any partner to bind the firm may be limited to any desired extent." § 86. The principal trader test. — One writer has thus ex- pressed and explained the principal trader test :^^ "The ultimate inquiry in all cases is whether the party claimed to be a partner has become by agreement a principal trader in the business with another. In other words, has he a right to participate as prin- cipal trader in the management of the business? If he has, he is a partner. If he has not, he is not a partner, with a single ex- ception, which however, is rather apparent than real. The ex- ception is this : A person may be a partner, even though he has by express agreement intrusted the control of the business ex- clusively to his associates in the business. The question, strictly speaking, is not whether the party has a right to control the business as principal trader in the particular case, but whether he would have such right in that case by virtue of the agreement between himself and another, in the absence of any express pro- vision conferring that right upon his associate in the business. If it appears that he would have had such right had it not been for his agreement to the contrary, then he is a partner, and his agreement merely operates as a surrender to his associate of a right which he would otherwise have enjoyed. We submit that upon principle the question of partnership is to be deter- mined by the three following rules: 1. When the recipient of profits has, by virtue of an agreeraent with another, a right to participate as principal trader in the management of the business out of which the profits are to arise, then he is a partner, and liable as such; and no secret intent not to become a partner, and no provision in the contract restricting his liability, or ex- empting him from all liability will afford him immunity from the responsibilities of a partner. 2. When the recipient of profits would in the absence of any express provisions in the agreement to the contrary, have by virtue of such agreement a right to par- ticipate as principal trader in the management of the business, "Judge Guy C. H. Corliss, in 30 Alb. Law J. 26, 30. 91 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 87 then he is a partner, even though he has expressly agreed that his associate in the business shall have the right to exercise exclusive control in conducting the business. 3. In all other cases the re- cipient of profits is not a partner, and can not be held liable to creditors unless he has estopped himself from denying that he is a partner." This test, though apparently not followed by the courts to any great extent, seems, in the main at least, to be very satisfac- tory." § 87. Intention test in England. — The rule that intention is the test of partnership, is usually said to have originated in Cox V. Hickman f^ for although that case prominently mentions mutual agency as a test it also brings in the test of intention, and was a turning point in English partnership law. In certain cases succeeding Cox v. Hickman, namely BuUen v. Sharp,®" Mollwo V. Court of Wards'^ and Pooley v. Driver,*^ all based upon Cox V. Hickman, the test of intention was firmly established. In the case of Mollwo v. Court of Wards,®^ it was said : "It appears to be now established that, although a right to participate in the profits of trade is a strong test of partnership, and that there may be cases where from such perception alone, it may, as a presumption, not of law, but of fact, be inferred; yet that 78 In the case of Clark v. Emery, 58 &c. Co. v. Rucker, 6 Colo. App. 334, 40 W. Va. 637, 52 S. E. 770, 5 L. R. A. Pac. 853 ; Fougner v. First Nat. Bank, (N. S.) 503n, quoting from Sodiker 141 111. 124, 30 N. E. 442; Emmons v. V. Applegate, 24 W. Va. 411, 49 Am. Newman, 38 Ind. 372; Johnson v. Rep. 252, it is said : "To constitute Carter, 120 Iowa 355, 94 N. W. 850 ; a partnership between parties who Wild v. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 129, share in the profits, the interest in the 7 Atl. 295, 57 Am. Rep. 552 ; Grigsby profits must be mutual,— each person v. Day, 9 S. Dak. 585, 70 N. W. 881; must have a specific interest in them Robinson v. Allen, 85 Va. 721, 8 S. E. as a principal trader ; he is not a part- 835. ner merely because he receives a part ''^ 8 H. L. Cas. 268. of the profits as compensation for his so l. R. 1 C. P. 86. services." Compare Loomis v. Mar- si L. R. 4 P. C. 419. shall, 12 Conn. 70, 30 Am. Dec. 596; szL. R. 5 Ch. Div. 458, 46 L. J., Ch. Johnson v. Rothschilds, 63 Ark. 518, 466, 36 L. T. 79, 25 W. R. 162. 41 S. W. 996; Omaha &c. Smelting ^sl. R. 4 P. C. 419. § 88 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 92 whether that relation does or does not exist m'ust depend on the real intention and contract of the parties." § 88. Intention test in America — Polk v. Buchanan. — In some American jurisdictions this principle had previously been judicially recognized. The case of Polk v. Buchanan,** a Ten- nessee case decided in 1857, three years before the celebrated Cox V. Hickman, is probably the leading American case upon the subject. Judge McKinney, in a very comprehensive opinion, thus discusses this question : "The rule of common law relied on by the complainants' counsel in support of the bill is, that a spe- cific interest in profits, as profits, or in other words, as participa- tion in the net profits of a business, will, by construction of law, create a partnership'between the parties, in favor of third persons. ' Whether, on a careful review of the English authorities, the con- clusion is warranted, that any such universal rule exists, is an inquiry we need not stop to make. If it were admitted to be so, that rule has been essentially modified by the decisions of several of the American courts, and upon principles of reason and nat- ural justice that can not fail to command general assent and approval. * * * The American authorities referred to, do not admit the doctrine that the mere fact of participation of profits of a business, whether gross or net profits, is to be taken as con- clusive of a partnership, even in favor of creditors, irrespective of the truth of the case. They seem to proceed upon the more just and sensible view, that participation in the profits affords merely a presumption which is to prevail only in the absence of proof to the contrary; and that it is a question of fact, upon inquiry and proof, whether the circumstances under which the participation in the profits exists, clearly demonstrate that the profits are taken, not in the character of partner, but in a totally different character, and merely as compensation for services or benefits rendered by the person by whom they are received. In the latter case, while it is true that, in a certain sense, the party has a community of interest in the profits, yet it is no less true 8*5 Sneed. (Tenn.) 721. 93 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 89 that he does not participate therein as an owner or partner. * * * The doctrine, thus qualified and understood, makes the rule consistent with the great and leading principle of construc- tion, that all agreements are to be expounded, and to have efifect given to them, according to the manifest intention of the parties as apparent from the whole instrument or agreement, if not in- compatible with established principles of law or policy." The above decision gives perhaps the most lucid explanation of the theory of intention as a test, of any adhering to, this principle.**^ § 89. Later American cases on intention as test. — In Beecher v. Bush,*® Judge Cooley says : "Except when one allows the public or individual dealers to be deceived by the appearance of partnership when none exists, he is never to be charged as a partner unless by contract and with intent he has formed a rela- tion in which the elements of partnership are to be found. * * * It is nevertheless possible for parties to intend no partnership and yet form one. If they agree upon an arrangement which is a partnership in fact, it is of no importance that they call it something else, or that they even expressly declare that they are not to be partners. The law must declare what is the legal import of their agreements, and names go for nothing when the sub- stance of the arrangement shows them to be inapplicable. But every doubtful case must be solved in favor of their intent." In Boreing v. Wilson,*^ it was said : "A'fter all, the intention of the parties is the controlling element. When the parties intend a co- ownership of the profit^ of a business, a partnership necessarily follows. But, however great the diversity of opinion among the courts, the law is well settled that where the parties by their acts, conduct and writings, show that they intended a partnership, and did in fact agree to share the profits of the business as joint 85 See in accord cited: Lootnis v. Vanderburgh v. Hull, 20 Wend. (N. Marshall, 12 Conn. 69; Denny v. Y.) 70 ; Story Partnership, § 36. Cabot, 6 Met. (Mass.) 82; Bradley v. 864S Mich. 188, 7 N. W. 785, 40 White, 10 Met. (Mass.) 303; Blanch- Am. Rep. 465. ard V. CooHdge, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 151; 8^ (1908) 33 Ky. L. 14, |08 S. W. Chase v. Barrett, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 148 ; 914. § 89 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 94 owners, such parties are partners." In 1910, a Washington case,'* held that: "The essential test in determining the existence of a partnership is whether the parties intended to establish such a relation, and as between themselves the intention must be deter- mined by their express agreement or inferred from their acts." It has also been held that participation in the profits of a business is a mere circumstance to show the relation between persons taking the profits and those carrying on the business; the test of partnership as between the parties being a question of actual intent, either expressed in the contract or implied from the acts of the parties and the circumstances surrounding their relation- ship.'® It is held that only where there is no proof of actual agree- ment, is the rule that sharing of profits raises a prima facie pre- sumption of partnership applicable, that where there is an actual agreement, the question of partnership must be determined from it.^" The court will look to the entire transaction in order to find the intention of the parties, and this intention, when dis- covered, will determine the existence or nonexistence of the al- leged partnership.*^ As between the parties themselves, a part- nership results from their agreement evidencing an intent to create one, and there must be an intention to create the relation. It can not be created by implication or by operation of law,'^ though sometimes it is held that the agreement to create a part- nership may be either express or implied.®^ It makes no differ- ence what arrangements have been made between parties for conducting their busines§, for as between themselves, if no part- 88 Yatsuyanagi v. Shimamura, 59 123 S. W. 1029 ; A. Graf Distilling Co. Wash. 24, 109 Pac. 282. v. Wilson, 172 Mo. App. 612, 156 S. 89 Roach V. Rector, 93 Ark. 521 W. 23. (1909), 123 S. W. 399; In re Whit- 92 Reed v. Engel, 237 III. 628, 86 N. low's Estate, 184 Mo. App. 229, 167 E. 1110; Crawford v. Wiedemann, 159 S. W. 463. Ky. 18, 166 S. W. 595 ; In re Whit- 90 In re Whitlow's Estate, 184 Mo. low's Estate, 184 Mo. App. 229, 167 App. 229, 167 S. W. 463. S. W. 463. 91 In re Hirth, 189 Fed. 926; Beller 93 Watson v. Hamilton (Ala.), 60 V. Murphy, 139 Mo. App. 663 (1910), So. 63. 95 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 89 nership were intended, then there is none as between themselves.'* The particular facts of each case are controlling.'^ So it is held that whether a party who furnishes money to another under an agreement that he shall receive in lieu of interest 'half the profits of a business which the other conducts, is a partner in the busi- ness, or whether he merely loaned the money, depends on the intention of the parties.'" It is perhaps needless to say that in those jurisdictions where intention is the test, a partnership as between the parties does not necessarily result from an agree- ment to enter into a joint enterprise and share the profits.'^ Proof of participation in profits and losses is but prima facie evidence of a partnership, which may be rebutted, while the in- tention of the parties is the real test.*' It will be remembered that intention, as sometimes used, does not necessarily refer to the conscious working of the mind, but to a legal intention which the law deduces from the acts of the parties, and, if they intend to do a thing which in law constitutes a partnership, they are partners, though their purpose was to avoid the creation of such a relation." It has likewise been held that where a contract in writing expressly creates a partnership between defendants and third persons, making plaintiff the agent of the defendants to conduct a business so far as their interests are concerned, a part- nership is formed, though the intention of the parties thereto was simply that the contract was for security for the defend- ants for money loaned plaintiff to buy into the partnership.^ It has also been held that where two dealers contracted mutually to pay each other half the net profits of their businesses, but stip- ulated that the agreement should not be construed as creating a 9* Sawyer v. Burris, 141 Mo. App. s^Rged v. Engel, 237 111. 628, 86 108; 121 S. W. 321; Municipal Pav- N. E. 1110. ing Co. V. Herring (Okla.), 150 Pac. "^ Nugent v. Armour Packing Co., 1067. 208 Mo. 480, 106 S. W. 648. 85 Willoughby v. Hildreth, 182 Mo. "" Breitiig v. Sparrow, 39 Ind. App. App. 80, 167 S. W. 639. 4S5, 80 N. E. 37. "" Bass V. Clements, 6 Ala. App. ^ Monson v. Ray, 123 Mo. App. 1 167, 60 So. 443. (1907), 99 S. W. 475. § 89 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 96 partnership, they are not partners as between themselves.^ The same case holds that the court in determining whether a part- nership was created, will consider what the parties did, not what they intended to do, unless there is a doubt.* All the facts surrounding the transaction must be taken into consideration. Among the facts which are to be taken into con- sideration in determining the intention is whether or not the alleged partner acquired by the contract any property in or con- trol over, or specific lien to, the profits before division thereof, in preference to other creditors.* As to the partnership liability toward third persons, this rule of intention is relaxed somewhat, but even as to third persons, in order to ignore the rule of inten- tion the party must show that he was deceived as to the relation- ship, and that he did not know there was no partnership re- lation. ° As said in a Missouri case: "Except in cases in which parties have held themselves out as copartners, and credit has been extended to them as such, when in fact they were not part- ners between themselves, a partnership is a relation between two or more competent persons resulting from a contract, and accord- ingly only exists where the parties intend to enter into a contract of partnership ;. for this, like other contracts, must be construed according to the manifest intention of the parties, and must be de- termined by the contract itself and the surrounding circum- stances."° Existence of a partnership liability as to third per- sons is determined by the contract as a whole, considered to- gether with the conduct of the parties to the contract and their dealings as to the world.' 2 Sample v. Farson, 174 111. App. « Diamond Creek &c. Mining Co. v. 334. Swope, 204 Mo. 48, 102 S. W. 561, 3 Sample v. Farson, 174 111. App. 120 Am. St. 681. Unless persons are 334. in fact partners inter se or have held * Municipal Paving Co. v. Herring themselves out as partners under cir- (Okla.), ISO Pac. 1067; Clark v. cumstances such as to estop them Emery, 58 W. Va. 637 (1906), 52 S. from denying the relation, they are E. 770, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 503n. not liable as partners to third parties. sAgeloff v. Lakin, 115 N. Y. S. Hudleson v. Boston, 169 111. App. 300. 1082 (1909) ; Spurlock V. Wilson, 160 '^Wescott v. Oilman (Cal.), 150 Mo. App. 14, 142 S. W. 363. Pac. 111. 97 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 90 It will be noticed that some of the later cases cited above, which hold that intention is a legal conclusion, really depart from the rule of Cox v. Hickman and similar American cases and perhaps more nearly approach other tests than those of intention, as these other tests may be looked to, or at least considered, to find the real legal, as distinguished from the actual intent. The text writers contended 'for the test of intention, and exposed the fallacies in the profit-sharing test, and even deduced other rules from the authorities long before the courts adopted the intention test. Judgfe Story says:^ "In short, the true rule, ex aequo et bono, would seem to be, that, the agreement and intention of the parties thernselves should govern all cases. If they intended a partnership in the capital stock or in the profits, or in both, then that the same rule should apply in favor of third persons, even if the agreement were unknown to them. And on the other hand, if no such partnership were intended between the parties, then that there should be none as to third persons, unless where the parties had held themselves out as partners to the public, or their conduct operated as a fraud or deceit upon third persons." And Collyer says,^ after considering Waugh v. Carver,^" and other English cases, "Upon the whole, notwithstanding the doctrine laid down in Hesketh v. Blanchard^^ and some other cases, the general result of the authorities seems to be, that persons who share the profits of the concern are prima facie liable as partners to third persons, but that they may repel the presumption of, part- nership by showing that the legal relation of partnership inter se does not exist." § 90. Intention test of partnership under the Civil Law. — The status of partnership under the civil law, and its derivatives, is well expressed in a Louisiana case :^^ "It is elementary in our 8 Story Partnership (5th ed.) 1859, io2 H. Bl. 235. § 49; quoted in Webster v. Clark, 34 "4 East 144. Fla. 637, 16 So. 601, 27 L. R. A. 126, " Marr, J., in Chaffraix v. Lafitte, 43 Am. St. 217. 30 La. Ann. 631. ^ Collyer Partnership (3 Amer. i ed.) 1848, § 85, p. 75. 7 — ^Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 91 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 98 law, that there can exist no partnership without the consent of the parties, that is without a contract establishing that relation. This was the rule of the Roman law. Papinian calls partnership vol- untarium consortium. Dig. 17, tit. 2, 1. 52, § 8; and Ulpian says, id. 1. 44. 'Si margarita tibi vendanda dedero, ut si ea decem vendidisses, redderes mihi decern; si pluris quod excedit, tu haberes ; mihi videtursianimo contrahendae societatis id actum sit, pro socio esse actionem; si minus prsescriptis verbis.' There was no inquiry as to whether a compensation was to be given, in proportion to the profits, equal to a certain share, or a specific interest in the profits themselves as profits. The sturdy Juris- consult did not dally with artificial distinctions, resting on imag- inary differences, but came squarely up to the question submitted to him ; and he solved it by a rule too plain to be misunderstood, an unerring guide, a perfect test, under all systems, in all ages, in all cases. If the parties intended to contract a partnership, 'si animo contrahendae societatis,' then that will be their relation with respect to themselves, and to all persons whomsoever, even to the extent of controlling the form of the actions to which it may give rise. If that was not their intention, si minus, their agreement will not constitute a partnership, whether inter sese, or with respect to others. It may fall into that mass of contracts styled innominate, because not susceptible of distinctive classi- fication, but not less obligatory on that account; and the litiga- tions which may grow out of it must be in form actiones in factum, actions on the case, so-called 'quia nomen non possumus invenire,' which were as well known and as useful in the Roman tribunals as they are now in Westminster Hall. Dig. 19, title 5, 1. 1. In France, 'La societe procede toujours d'un contrat. Sans convention, point de societe. Troplong, Societe, 1, p. 9, No. 3." § 91. Test of partnership liability arising by estoppel gen- erally — It is perhaps improper to speak of estoppel as a test of partnership, as the very meaning of the word estoppel raises an implication that there is no relation to which it can be ap- plied, but simply that the acts of the party estopped prevent him 99 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 92 from setting up the real facts of no such relation. However, as it is chiefly partnership liability rather than actual relation which is here discussed, it is perhaps not amiss to include it in this discussion as a test of partnership liability. It is based upon the principle that if a person holds himself out, either actively or passively, or permits himself to be held out as a member of a part- nership, and so, perhaps, induces third parties to deal with the firm and extend credit upon the belief that the party estopped was a member thereof, and upon the credit of this party, when otherwise they would not have so dealt, he should not then be allowed to deny his apparent connection with the partnership, and so escape liability, to the detriment of the creditors who re- lied upon his acts or representations.^^ It is said that when a holding out as partners has once been established, the parties are liable to one induced thereby to give credit, the ground of such liability not being upon direct repre- sentations between the parties, but upon the principles of general policy to prevent fraud.^* The only means by which persons be- tween whom there is no actual partnership can be held liable as partners is by making out a case of estoppel against them," and all the elements of estoppel must exist.^* § 92. Nature of acts and conduct creating estoppel. — A party who is named as a partner in articles of partnership, whd has control of the management of the business, and shows a third person the articles of partnership who loans money to the 13 Morris v. Brown, 177 Ala. 389, Schissler, 149 Wis. 449, 135 N. W. 58 So. 910; Letson v. Hall, 1 Ala. 1008. App. 619, 55 So. 944-; United States i* Folks v. Burletson, 177 Mich. 6, Wood Preserving Co. v. Lawrence 142 N. W. 1120. (Conn.), 95 Atl. 8; American Cotton i^ Hudleson v. Boston, 169 111. App. College V. Atlanta Newspaper Union, 300; Studebaker Corp. of America 138 Ga. 147, 74 S. E. 1084; In re Mc- v. Dodds, 161 Ky. 542, 171 S. W. 167; Donald's Estate (Iowa), 149 N. W. McKallip v. Geese, 30 Okla. 33, 118 897; Oil Well Supply Co. v. Metcalf, Pac. 586; Hamner v. Barker (Tex. 174 Mo. App. 555, 160 S. W. 897; Civ. App.), 144 S. W. 1180. Cobb V. Martin, 32 Okla. 588, 123 Pac. " Steele v. Michigan Buggy Co., 422 ; Downie v. Savage, 72 Wash. 50 Ind. App. 635, 95 N. E. 435. 164, 129 Pac. 1096; Loosen v. § 92 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 100 concern, believing it to be a partnership, thereby becomes estopped from denying his partnership liability, even though there was, in fact, no actual partnership/^ If one so deals with another that he leads others to believe that there is, in fact, a partner- ship, he will be held to partnership liability if the third parties act upon this belief.^' Intentional representations by the parties or by others with their consent, which would tend to lead the general public to believe they were partners in fact, is sufficient to create partnership liability by estoppel/^ So false representa- tions by persons engaging in business, made in order to induce a third person to purchase it, are held to estop them from denying partnership liability.^" If a contract purports to be entered into by a partnership under a firm name, the fact of the partnership can not be denied, by those making the contract, ^^ nor can they claim they were merely agents of the firm.^^ The use of a partnership name in advertising may estop the parties using it from denying partnership liability to third per- sons relying upon such advertising, but as between the parties, the contract and circumstances govern, and one of the parties who alleges the existence of a partnership, has the burden of proving it.^* So where one publishes a pamphlet referring to a person who ordered goods as the managing partner of the business for which the goods were sold, and the seller of the goods had read the pamphlet and gave credit on the strength of the partnership, the publisher of the pamphlet is estopped to deny the partnership liability for the goods.^* One who procures an extension of credit " Campbell v.Huffines, 151 N. Car. 20 Schwier v. Hurlburt (Mich.), 262 (1909), 65 S. E. 1000, 134 Am. St. 151 N. W. 603. 987. 21 Richards v. Hellen, 153 Iowa 66, w Michael Bros. Co. v. Davidson, 133 N. W. 393. 3 Ga. App. 752 (1908), 60 S. E. 362; 22 Bourgeois v. Bustanoby, 78 Misc. Jansen v. Jacobson, 112 Minn. 520 404, 138 N. Y. S. 366. (1910), 128 N. W. 824; Coons v. 23 Smith v. Lancaster, 37 App. D. Coons, 106 Va. 572 (1907), 56 S. E. C. 25. 576. 24 Flock V. Williams, 175 111. App. 19 Folks V. Burletson, 177 Mich. 6, 319. 142 N. W. 1120. 101 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 93 to a partnership of which he holds himself out as a member, is estopped to deny liability for the debt.^° And one who receives another as partner, and allows him to conduct the business, is estopped from denying liability as a partner for his acts in the management of the business. °° The denial by one partner of the existence of a partnership can not affect the rights of one who purchases from another member of the firm.^^ After the death of one who held himself out as one member of a partnership and contracted notes in the firm name, the survivor who took over the property managed by the deceased, and con- tinued the business, and paid one of such notes after his death, was held estopped to deny his partnership liability on other notes executed by deceased in the firm ' name for property used in the business. ^^ § 93. Reliance on the holding out. — It should be kept in mind, however, that the third person must rely upon the alleged estopping acts when entering into dealings with the firm, if he would rely upon these acts in enforcing partnership liability,^® and must have suffered a detriment because of such reliance.^" Merely the fact that one knew that letters came to the saw-mill where he and his brother worked addressed to them as "S. Bros.", did not estop him from denying partnership liability with his brother in the saw-mill business.^ ^ Moreover, the fact that a party stands by and advises another to buy goods, in the presence of the third person or his agent, even if the party buying directed the party selling to send the goods to the firm, will not of itself constitute an estoppel against the said person so standing by,^^ 25 Mitchell V. Craig, 11 Ga. App. Davis (Ala.), 66 So. 576; Swygert v. 79,. 74 S. E. 716. Bank of Haralson, 13 Ga. App. 640, 28Carsey v. Swan, 150 Ky. 473, 150 79 S. E. 759; In re McDonald's Es- S. W. 534. tate (Iowa), 149 N. W. 897. "Payne v. Dexter, 211 Mass. 1, so Downie v. Savage, 72 Wash. 164, 97 N. E. 77. . 129 Pac. 1096. 28 Letson v. Hall, 1 Ala. App. 6l9, si Downie v. Savage, 72 Wash. 164, 55 So. 944. 129 Pac. 1096. 29 Mock V. Stoddard, 177 Fed. 611 32 Mayer Bros. Co. v. Bricca, 122 (1910) ; L. S. Meharg Liquor Co. v. N. Y. S. 197 (1910). § 94 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 102 although it would undoubtedly be strong evidence supporting a claim of partnership) liability. In this case the name of the firm would also have a strong bearing upon the question. A mere statement by a person that he has authority to buy goods for another does not estop him from setting up that there is no part- nership or liability;'* although agency is an essential element of partnership, yet the converse is not necessarily true, and partner- ship is not necessarily implied when agency is shown. It should also be remembered that a declaration of a third person as to a party being in a partnership, in order to estop the party charged from denying the relation, must have been made in the hearing and presence of such party to be charged, or under such circum- stances as make it reasonably certain that he heard the statement alleging his membership in the partnership.** § 94. Right of subrogation of ostensible partner, — Al- though, as has been shown, one who holds himself out as a part- ner, thus obtaining credit for a firm, becomes liable therefor to creditors granting credit on the strength thereof, the party thus loaning the use of his name to the firm has a right of action against the real debtor for whatever he may be obliged to pay to the creditors by reason of his assumed partnership liability.* ° § 95. Creditor must be misled by acts or misrepresenta- tions. — The reason for the rule of estoppel above given is simply to protect the creditor against acts or representations of the ostensible partner, in credit given the concern on the belief that he is dealing with the ostensible partner as well as with the other member or members of the supposed partnership, and, con- sequently, the rule is only applied when the creditor relies on the acts or representations, believing them to be true. If, therefore, the defendant is sought to be charged, by estoppel, with certain debts of an ostensible partnership, the creditor must show, in ad- •33 Armstrong v. King (Tex. 1910), 3= Johnson v. Williams, 111 Va. 95 130 S. W. 629. (1910), 68 S. E. 410, 31 L. R. A. (N. 3* Sax V. Doughty, 76 N. J. L. 225 S.) 406n, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 47n. (1908), 68 Atl. 912. 103 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 97 dition to the fact that defendant held himself out as a partner, that he, the creditor, was misled thereby, and that he acted thereon.^® Thus, one who knows the actual relation of principal and agent exists between the parties he is seeking to charge as partners and has not been misled by them, can not hold them liable as partners by estoppel.^^ Nor will payment to a person held out as a partner, made with express notice that he is not a partner, discharge a debt owing to a partnership.^* The person alleging partnership liability by reason of estoppel may, moreover, be re- quired to show that he exercised due diligence to ascertain the true facts. The doctrine as above laid down, is, however, inap- plicable where defendant directly and affirmatively holds himself out to plaintiff as a partner, and induces the plaintiff to extend credit on the faith of such representation.^' § 96. Time of making representation. — ^The representa- tions of partnership must have been made before the belief was formed and acted upon by the creditor, and not subsequently,*" in order that the partnership liability by estoppel be created. § 97. Mere belief of creditor. — If the defendant is not in fact a partner, the mere belief of the person extending credit that the defendant was a partner is not sufficient to establish partner- ship liability, in the absence of evidence that defendant held him- self out to plaintiff as a partner when the credit was extended. The liability by estoppel can only be established by the facts of the case, and in the face of contrary facts, such a belief of the party extending the credit is of no avail." Even if one has 36 Herman Kahn Co. v. Bowden, 80 ^s Silverblatt v. Rosenberger, 133 Ark. 23 (1906), 96 S. W. 126; Mims N. Y. S. 990. V. Brook, 3 Ga. App. 247 (1907), 59 39 Gershner v. Scott-Mayer Com- S. E. 711; Breinig v. Sparrow, 39 Ind. mission Co., 93 Ark. 301 (1910), 124 App. 702 (1907), 80 N. E. 40; Mor- S. W. 772. back V. Young, 51 Ore. 128 (1908), *» Steele v. Michigan Buggy Co., 50 94 Pac. 35; Morris v. Moon (Tex. Ind. App. 635, 95 N. E. 435; Bowen v. Civ. App. 1909), 120 S. W. 1063. Epperson, 136 Mo. App. 571 (1909), 3T National Lumber &c. Co. v. 118 S. W. 528; Downie v. Savage, 72 Grays Harbor Commercial Co., 71 Wash. 164, 129 Pac. 1096. Wash. 31, 127 Pac. 577. *i Manlove v. Metzger, 124 111. App. § 98 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 104 held himself out to the general public as a partner, but is not one in fact, he is not estopped to deny existence of the partnership, when the one seeking to charge him as partner knew he was not one, or had no reasonable ground to believe him one.*^ But where there has been a holding out to the public,. a creditor who relied on mere rumor or hearsay is not prevented by that fact from recovering.*^ § 98. Attempted limited partnership. — In case an attempt is made by several parties to form a limited partnership, which attempt fails through nonobservance of legal formalities and stat- utory regulations, all the parties interested therein as members are liable as common partners to third persons, and are estopped from denying such liability.** Although the parties to an attempt to form a limited partnership have been held liable as general partners to third persons as between themselves it is undoubtedly true that they may still adjust their respective liabilities in pro- portions or amounts as provided for in their original agreement, insofar as it does not interfere with the rights of the creditors. § 99. Estoppel — Former partnership. — The mere fact that defendant was a former partner in the debtor firm is not, of itself, sufficient to estop the defendant from denying partner- ship, and a Michigan case*^ has held that where a carrier has delivered goods to an unauthorized person, who was a former partner of the shipper, but where the shipper did not know of the former relation at the time of delivery, there is no estoppel on the part of the shipper to deny a partnership relation and conse- quent agency. § 100. Partnership under agreement to incorporate. — Al- though several parties, who are transacting business as partners, 383 (1906) ; In re McDonald's Estate ** Chatham Nat. Bank v. Gardner, (Iowa), 149 N. W. 897. 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 135 (1906). *2 In re McDonald's Estate (Iowa), *5 Adrian Knitting Co. v. Wabash 149 N. W. 897. R. Co., 145 Mich. 323, 108 N. W. 706. 43 Folks V. Burletson, 177 Mich 6, 142 N. W. 1120. 105 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 101. have agreed to incorporate, they are nevertheless liable as part- ners to third persons with whom they deal as partners.*^ It has been held that subscribers to the stock of a proposed corporation were partners in the business which they intended to follow before incorporation.*'' The contrary has also been held.*^ The general rule is that the promoters of a corporation are not, be- cause of their association, liable as partners before the incorpora- tion of the company, for the reason that there is no agreement of partnership, and also there is no agreement to share the profits.*^ An express or implied agency existing on the part of all toward each other, may cause them, however, to be held liable as partners in some transactions. ^^ The subject of the liability of those who have promoted a defective corporation, or attempted to form one, or have pretended to carry on business as one, or are stockholders in a defectively organized corporation, will be treated later.^^ § 101. Estoppel — Uniform Partnership Act. — Under the Uni form Partnership Act : "Except as provided by section six- teen, persons who are not partners as to each other are not part- ners as to third persons."°^ Section sixteen provides : "When a person, by words spoken or written or by conduct, represents him- self, or consents to another representing him to any one, as a partner is an existing partnership or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is liable to any such person to whom such representation has been made, who has on the faith of such rep- resentation, given credit to the actual or apparent partnership; and if he has made such representation or consented to its being *8 Michael Bros. Co. v. Davidson, 3 2 Kans. App. 269, 41 Pac. 1063 ; Ga. App. 752 (1908), 60 S. E. 362. Sproat v. Porter, 9 Mass. 300; Dole " Mt. Carmel Tel. Co. v. Mt. Car- v. Wooldredge, 135 Mass. 140 ; John- mel &c. Tel. Co., 119 Ky. 461, 27 Ky. son y- Corser, 34 Minn. 355, 25 N. W. •L. 30, 84 S. W. 515. 799; Mosicr v. Parry, 60 Ohio St. <8 Hudson V. Spaulding, 53 Hun 388, 54 N. E. 364. 638, 6 N. Y. S. 877, 25 N. Y. St. 256. ^o McFall v. McKeesport &c. Ice 49 Hersey v. Tully, 8 Colo. App. 110, Co., 123 Pa. 253, 16 Atl. 478. 44 Pac. 854; Arnold v. Conklin, 96 si See post ch. 9. 111. App. 373; McLennan v.Anspaugh, =2 Uniform Partnership Act, § 7. § 102 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 106 made in a public manner he is liable to such person, whether the representation has or has not been made or communicated to such person so giving credit by or with the knowledge of the apparent ' partner making the representation or consenting to its being made, (a) When a partnership liability results, he is liable as though he were an actual member of the partnership, (b) When no partnership liability results, he is liable jointly with the other persons, if any, so consenting to the contract or representation as to incur liability, otherwise separately, (c) When a person has been thus represented to be a partner in an existing partnership, or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is an agent of the persons consenting to such representations to bind them to the same extent and in the same manner as though he were a partner in fact, with respect to persons who rely upon the repre- sentation, where all the members of the existing partnership con- sent to the representation, a partnership act or obligation results ; but in all other cases it is the joint act or obligation of the person acting and the persons consenting to the representation."^^ § 102. Summary of tests. — Summing up the various and conflicting decisions upon the test of partnership, it is safe to say that, insofar as any actual partnership is concerned, intention is the usual test, that is, as between the partners themselves. As regards partnership liability to third persons, there is considerable diversity of opinion. The test usually applied is the sharing of profits and losses. There is, however, a growing tendency on the part of the American courts to look at the so-called te^ts more as presumptive than as conclusive tests, and to take all the mat- ters of the transaction into consideration in arriving at a de- cision. § 103. Summary — Question of law or fact — Intention. — Under the modern theory the existence of a partnership is treated largely as a question of fact.°* But when the terms of the agree- 53 Uniform Partnership Act, § 16. 5 Har. (Del.) 115; Adamson v. 5* Ruggles V. Buckley, 158 Fed. 950, Guild, 177 Mass. 331, 58 N. E. 1081 ; 86 C. C. A. 154; Robinson v. Green, Densmore v. Mathews, 58 Mich. 616, 107 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § loa merit and the facts are all admitted the question as to whether or not a partnership exists is a question of la\y/^ In determining the existence of a partnership it is well settled that the true con- tract and intention of the parties is looked to at least as between themselves, in order to establish the existence of such relation.'^" This has led to a general statement that, as laetween the immedi- ate parties, a partnership is formed and exists only by their in- tention to form such a relationship,^^^ but the law looks to the substance and not the form. It is not what the parties call their 26 N. W. 146; McDonald v. Matney, 82 Mo. 358 (proved by the best attain- able evidence) ; Seabury v. BoUes, 51 N. J. L. 103, 16 Atl. 54, 11 L. R. A. 136 (modified 52 N. J. L. 413, 21 Atl. 952, 11 L. R. A. 136) ; Spencer v. Jones, 92 Tex. 516, 50 S. W. 118, 71 Am. St. 870. See also Meagher v. Reed, 14 Colo. 335, 24 Pac. 681, 9 L. R. a; 455. 55 Morgan v. Farrel, 58 Conn. 413, 20 Atl. 614, 18 Am. St. 282 ; Schmidt V. Balling, 91 111. App. 388; Janney v. Springer, 78 Iowa 67, 43 N. W. 461, 16 Am. St. 460 ; Kingsbury v. Tharp, 61 Mich. 216, 28 N. W. 74; Farmers' Ins. Co. V. Ross, 29 Ohio St. 429. SB Hazard v. Hazard, 1 Story (U. S.) 371, Fed. Cas. No. 6279; Earle v. Art Library Pub. Co., 95 Fed. 544; Culley v. Edwards, 44 Ark. 423, 51 Am. Rep. 614; Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. 637, 16 So. 601, 27 L. R. A. 126, 43 Am. St. 217; Stevens v. Faucet, 24 111. 483; Niehoff v. Dudley, 40 111. 406; Lintner v. Millikin, 47 III. 178; National Surety Co. v. T. B. Town- sen Brick & Contracting Co., 176 111. 156, 52 N. E. 938 ; Bradley v. Ely, 24 Ind. App. 2, 56 N. E. 44, 79 Am. St. 251; Kerr v. Potter, 6 Gill (Md.) 404; Cannon v. Brush Elec. Co., 96 Md. 446, 54 Atl. 121, 94 Am. St. 584; Gray v. Gibson, 6 Mich. 300 ; Beecher V. Bush, 45 Mich. 188, 7 N. W. 785, 40 Am. Rep. 465; A. N. Kellogg Newspaper Co. v. Farrell, 88 Mo. 594 ; Jernee v. Simonson, 58 N. J. Eq. 282, 43 Atl. 370; Wright v. Taylor, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 538; Salter v. Ham, 31 N. Y. 321 ; Central City Sav. Bank V. Walker, 66 N. Y. 431 ; Hayward v. Barron, 19 N. Y. S. 383, 46 N. Y. St. 665; Boston &c. Smelting Co. v. Smith, 13 R. I. 27, 43 Am. Rep. 3; Polk V. Buchanan, 5 Sneed. (Tenn.) 721. See also Ex parte Hamper, 17 Ves. 407, 11 R. R. 115; Badeley v. Consolidated bank, 38 Ch. Div. 238, 57 L. J. Ch. 468, 59 L. T. 419, 36 W. R. 745 ; Cox v. Hickman, 8 H. L. Cas. 268, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 47; Mollwo v. Court of Wards, L. R. 4 P. C. 419. 56a Hazard v. Hazard, 1 Story (U. S.) 371, Fed. Cas. No. 6279; In re Pierson, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 107, Fed. Cas. No. 11153; Chisholm v. Cowles, 42 Ala. 179; Randle v. State, 49 Ala. 14; Nelms v. McGraw, 93 Ala. 245, 9 So. 719; Gulf City Shingle Mfg. Co. v. Boyles, 129 Ala. 192, 29 So. 800 ; Wheeler v. Farmer, 38 Cal. 203 ; Morgan v. Farrel, 58 Conn. 413, 20 Atl. 614, 18 Am. St. 282 ; Ellsworth v. Pomeroy, 26 Ind. 158; T. E. Foley Co. V. McKinley, 114 Minn. 271, 131 N. W. 316; Fairly v. Nash, 70 Miss. 193, 12 So. 149; Mackie v. Mott, 146 § 103 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 108 relation that determines but what they actually agree upon in their contract.'"^ It is the intent to do those things which constitute a partnership that should usually determine whether or not that relation exists between the parties.'^^ But, on the other hand, if the terms of the contract or the facts are not such as to make the parties partners, or authorize that conclusion, they will not be declared to be partners even though they intended to form a part- nership and call themselves partners.®* It is not necessary to Mo. 230, 47 S. W. 897; Hughes v. Ewing, 162 Mo. 261, 62 S. W. 465; Smith V. Dunn, 44 Misc. (N. Y.) 288, 89 N. Y. S. 881 ; Willis v. Crawford, 38 Ore. 522, 63 Pac. 985, 64 Pac. 866, 53 L. R. A. 904 ; Cleveland v. Ander- son, 2 Willson Civ. Gas. Ct. App. (Tex.), § 146; Walker v. Hirsch, L. R. 27 Ch. Div. 460, 54 L. Ch. 315, 51 L. T. 581, 32 W. R. 992. B6b Martin v. Martin, 1 N. B. Eq. 515 ; Trustees &c. v. Oland, 35 N. S. 409. s'Bestor v. Barker, 106 Ala. 250, 17 So. 389; Chapman v. Hughes, 104 Cal. 302, 37 Pac. 1048, 38 Pac. 109; Mason v. Sieglitz, 22 Colo. 320, 44 ■ Pac. 588 ; Parker v. Canfield, 37 Conn. 250, 9 Am. Rep. 317; Webster V. Clark, 34 Fla. 637, 16 So 601, 27 L. R. A. 126, 43 Am. St. 217n ; Purs- ley v. Ramsey, 31 Ga. 403; Fougner V. First Nat. Bank, 141 111. 124, 30 N. E. 442 ; Griffen v. Cooper, 50 111. App. 257; Hart v. Hiatt, 2 Ind. T. 245, 48 S. W. 1038; Cooley v. Broad, 29 La. Ann. 345, 29 Am. Rep. 332 ; Halliday V. Bridewell, 36 La. Ann. 238; Thill- man V. Benton, 82 Md. 64, 33 Atl. 485 ; Gunnison v. Langley, 3 Allen (Mass.) 337; Beecher v. Bush, 45 Mich. 188, 7 N. W. 785, 40 Am. Rep. 465; Vaiden v. Hawkins (Miss.), 6 So. 227; Mulhall v. Cheathanj, 1 Mo. App. 476; Van Kuren v. Trenton Lo- comotive &c. Mfg. Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 302 ; Sheridan v. Medara, 10 N. J. Eq. (2 Stockton's Ch.) 469, 64 Am. Dec. 464; Mumford v. NicoU, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 611 ; Leggett v. Hyde, 58 N. Y. 272, 47 How. Pr. 524, 17 Am. Rep. 244; Manhattan Brass & Mfg. Co. v. Sears, 45 N. Y. 797, 6 Am. Rep. 177; Magovern v. Robertson, 116 N. Y. 61, 22 N. E. 398, 5 L. R. A. 589. See McGovern v. Mattison, 116 N. Y. 61, 22 N. E. 398, 5 L. R. A. 589; Kloster- man v. Hayes, 17 Ore. 325, 20 Pac. 426; Righter v. Farrell, 134 Pa. 482, 19 Atl. 687; Boston &c. Smelting Co. V. Smith, 13 R. I. 27, 43 Am. Rep. 3 ; Burnley v. Rice, 18 Tex. 481 ; Duryea V. Whitcomb, 31 Vt. 395; Rosenfield v. Haight, 53 Wis. 260, 10 N. W. 378, 40 Am. Rep. 770. =8 Oliver V. Gray, 4 Ark. 425 ; Sail- ors V. Nixon-Jones Printing Co., 20 111. App. 509; Dwinel v. Stone, 30 Maine 384; Rose v. Buscher, 80 Md. 225, 30 Atl. 637; Ryder v. Wilcox, 103 Mass. 24; McDonald v. Matney, 82 Mo. 358; Van Kuren v. Trenton Locomotive &c. Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 302 ; Burnett v. Snyder, 76 N. Y. 344. 109 ANALYSIS AND TESTS § 103 adopt a firm name to constitute a partnership,^" nor is it necessary that the relation be called a partnership.'" The law on this branch of the subject has been summarized as follows: "The qttestion is one of intention, and a contract of partnership will no more be created by the court against the will of a party than will those of any other character. One may not make a contract of partnership, and, calling it an agency, have it treated as such by the court for when the facts are known the 59 Fleming v. Lay, 109 Fed. 952, 48 C. C. A. 748 ; Ruggles v. Buckley, 158 Fed. 950, 86 C. C. A. 154 ; Santiago v. Morgan, Fed Cas. No. 12331 ; Hoffm. Ops. 447 ; Meaher v. Cox, Zl Ala. 201 ; Howze V. Patterson, S3 Ala. 205, 25 Am. Rep. 607; Johnson v. Carter, 120 Iowa 355, 94 N. W. 850; Staples v. Sprague, 75 Maine 458; Wadsworth V. Manning, 4 Md. 59; McKasy v. Huber, 65 Minn. 9, 67 N. W. 650; Tharp v. Marsh, 40 Miss. 158; Far- num V. Patch, 60 N. H. 294, 49 Am. Rep. 313; Musier v. Trumphour, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 274; Orvis v. Curtiss, 157 N. Y. 657, 52 N. E. 690, 68 Am. St. 810; Johnson v. Alexander, 46 App. Div. 6, 61 N. Y. S. 351 (afifd. in 167 N. Y. 605, 60 N. E. 1113) ; Jones V. Walker, 51 Misc. (N. Y.) 624, 101 N. Y. S. 22; Gregg Twp. v. Half- Moon Twp., 2 Watts. (Pa.) 342; Jones V. McMichael, 12 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 176; Griffith v. Buffum, 22 Vt. 181, 54 Am. Dec. 64; Upham y. Hewitt, 42 Wis. 85 ; Smith v. Putnam, 107 Wis. 155, 82 N. W- 1077, 83 N. W. 288. sopiunkett v. Dillon, 4 Houst. (Del.) 338; Fougner v. First Nat. Bank, 41 111. App. 202 (revd. 141 111. 124, 30 N. E. 442) ; Grififen v. Cooper, SO 111. App. 257; Johnson v. Carter, 120 Iowa 3SS, 94 N. W. 850; Cooley V. Broad, 29 La. Ann. 345, 29 Am. Rep. 332; Beecher v. Bush, 45 Mich. 188, 7 N. W. 785, 40 Am. Rep. 465; Webb. V. Johnson, 95 Mich. 325, 54 N. W. 947; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15, 29 N. W. 352; Fairly v. Nash, 70 Miss. 193, 12 So. 149; Teas V. Woodruff (N. J. Ch.), 10 Atl. 392 (revd. 45 N. J. Eq. 880, 19 Atl. 623) ; Manhattan Brass & Mfg. Co. v. Sears, 45 N. Y. 797, 6 Am. Rep. 177; Chft V. Barrow, 108 N. Y. 187, 15 N. E. 327; Hawkins v. Campbell, 48 App. Div. 43, 62 N. Y. S. 678; Fay v. Wal- dron, 3 N. Y. S. 894; Pell v. Baur, 41 N. Y. St. 99, 16 N. Y. S. 258 (affd. 133 N. Y. Zn, 31 N. E. 224) ; Wolf v. Lawrence, 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 481, 67 N. Y. S. 900; Webb v. Hicks, 123 N. Car. 244, 31 S. E. 479; Wood V. Vallette, 7 Ohio St. 172 ; First Nat. Bank v. Ballard, 19 Ohio C. C. 63, 10 Ohio C. D. 298; Kelley v. Bourne, IS Ore. 476, 16 Pac. 40; Poundstone v. Hamburger, 139 Pa. 319, 20 Atl. 1054; Price V. Middleton, 75 S. Car. 105, 55 S. E. 156; Boardman v. Keeler, 2 Vt. 65; Spaulding v. Stubbings, 86 Wis. 255, id N. W. 469, 39 Am. St. 888; Bartelt v. Smith, 145 Wis. 31, 129 N. W. 782, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 1195n; Northern R. Co. v. Patton, 15 U. C. C. P. 332; -Martin v. Martin, 1 N. B. Eq. 515; Trustees &c. v. Oland, 35 N. S. 409. § 104 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 110 law fixes the legal consequences which flow from them. Neither may one secure the benefits of the relation of a partner and by contract secure immunity from its liabiHties as against creditors. But when the contract is susceptible of the construction put upon it by the parties at the time it was made, such construction will be accepted by the courts as the true one."" § 104. Summary — Profit-sharing evidence of a partner- ship — Estoppel. — Under the above rule participation in the profits of a business is evidence tending to prove the existence of a partnership.*^ In many cases participation in the profits of a business is considered as presumptive/^ or prima facie** evidence 61 Fairly v. Nash, 70 Miss. 193, 12 So. 149. See also Beecher v. Bush, 45 Mich. 188, 7 N. W. 785, 40 Am. Rep. 465, which holds that every doubt must be resolved in favor of the in- tent of the parties. 62 In re Neasmith, 147 Fed. 160, 11 C. C. A. 402; Rector v. Robins, 74 Ark. 437, 86 S. W. 667; Buford v. Lewis, 87 Ark. 412, 112 S. W. 963; Boreing v. Wilson, 33 Ky. L. 14, 108 S. W. 914 ; Beecher v. Bush, 45 Mich. 188, 7 N. W. 785, 40 Am. Rep. 465; Corey v. Caldwell, 86 Mich. 570, 49 N. W. 611 ; McAlpine v. MiUen, 104 Minn. 289, 116 N. W. 583 ; Martin v. Cropp, 61 Mo. App. 607 ; ~Gibson v. Smith, 31 Nebr. 354, A1 N. W. 1052; Wild V. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 129, 7 Atl. 295, 57 Am. Rep. 552; Mer- chants' Nat. Bank v. Standard Wagon Co., 6 Ohio (N. P.) 264; In re Gibb's Estate, 157 Pa. 59, 27 Atl. 383, 22 L. R. A. 276; Walker v. Tupper, 152 Pa. St. 1, 25 Atl. 172; In re Dar- ling's Estate, 7 Kulp (Pa.) 323; Bade- ley v. Consolidated Bank, L. R. 38 Ch. Div. 238, 57 L. J., Ch. 468, 59 L. T. 419, },(> W. R. 745 ; Ross v. Parkyns, L. R. 20 Eq. 331, 30 L. T. 331, 44 L. J., Ch. 610, 24 W. R. 5; Ex parte Tennant L. R. 6 Ch. Div. 'Xli, Zl L. T. 284, 25 W. R. 854. «3Meehan v. Valentine, 145 U. S. 611, 36 L. ed. 835, 12 Sup. Ct. 972; In re Francis, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 286, Fed. Cas. No. 5031 ; Buford v. Lewis, 87 Ark. 412, 112 S. W. 963; Torbert V. Jeffrey, 161 Mo. 645, 61 S. W. 823 ; Tamblyn v. Scott, 111 Mo., App. 46, 85 S. W. 918; Price v. Middleton, 75 S. Car. 105, 55 S. E. 156; Cothran v. Marmaduke, 60 Tex. 370 ; Bentley v. Brossard, 33 Utah 396, 94 Pac. 736; Pooley v. Driver, L. R. 5 Ch. Div. 458, 46 L. J., Ch. 466, 36 L. T. 79, 25 W. R. 162. 6* Blair v. Shaeffer, ZZ Fed. 218 (revd. 149 U. S. 248, 37 L. ed. 721, 13 Sup. Ct. 856) ; In re Ward, 2 Flip (U. S.) 462, Fed. Cas. No. 17144; Torbert V. Jeffrey, 161 Mo. 645, 61 S. W. 823 ; Fourth Nat. Bank v. Altheimer, 91 Mo. 190, 3 S. W. 858; Philips v. Sam- uel, l(s Mo. 657 ; Glore v. Dawson, 106 Mo. App. 107, 80 S. W. 55 ; Goddard- Peck Grocery Co. v. Berry, 58 Mo. App. 665 ; Roper v. Schaefer, 35 Mo. App. 30; Waggoner v. First Nat. Bank, 43 Nebr. 84, 61 N. W. 112; Ill ANALYSIS AND TESTS 104 of a partnership."" A great deal of confusion has arisen on this branch of the subject through a careless use of language on the part of the courts. They frequently state that two or more persons may be partners as to third persons and not as to each other ; this is in- correct. If not partners inter se they are not partners at all. What is meant is that they have made themselves liable as if they were partners. This happens when one holds himself out as a partner or is with his knowledge or consent held out as such to the knowledge of the one who seeks to take advantage of it. The liability of such a person rests upon the doctrine of estoppel.'"', Lefevre v. Silo, 112 App. Div. 464, 98 N. Y. S. 321 ; Kootz v. Tuvian, 118 N. Car. 393, 24 S. E. 776; Boston &c. Smelting Co. v. Smith, 13 R. I. 31, 43 Am. Rep. 3; Robinson v. Allen, 85 507, 32 Pac. 583; Sims v. Dame, 113 Ind. 127, 15 N. E. 217 ; Goell v. Morse, 126 Mass. 480; Putnam v. Wise, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 234, Zl Am. Dec. 309; Farrand v. Gleason, 56 Vt. 633 ; Hun- Va. 721, 8 S. E. 835 ; Walker v. gerford v. Cushing, 8 Wis. 332. The Hirsch, L. R. 27 Ch. Div. 460, 54 L. J., Ch. 315, 51 L. T. 581, 32 W. R. 992. 65 When it is said that there must be a joint ownership of the profits of a business this must not be confused with a joint ownership of the capital used in the business. Thus joint ownership of the property may mere- ly create a tenancy in common but not a partnership. La Cotts v. Pike, 91 Ark. 26, 120 S. W. 144, 134 Am. St. 48. See also Clark v. Sidway, 142 U. S. 682, 35 L. ed. 1157, 12 Sup. Ct. 327; Parkhurst v. Kinsman, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 488, Fed. Cas. No. 10757 (affd. 18 How. 289, 15 L. ed. 385) ; Thorndike v. De Wolf, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 120; Murphy v. Craig, 16 Mich. 155, 42 N. W. 1097; Baldwin v. . Burrows, 47 N. Y. 199. One distinc- tion between joint, tenants and part- ners is that as between the latter there is no right of surviorship. Cowles V. Garrett, 30 Ala. 341 ; Brad- ley V. Harkness, 26 Cal. 69; La So- ciete Francaise v. Weidmann, 97 Cal. difference between a co-tenancy and a partnership is found mainly in the termination of their relation and the methods by which a partner and a co- tenant may dispose of their separate interests. 66 Fechteler v. Palm, 133 Fed. 462, 66 C. C. A. 336; Alabama Fertilizer Co. V. Reynolds, 85 Ala. 19, 4 So. 639; Jowers v. Phelps, 33 Ark. 465; Omaha &c. Smelting & Ref. Co. v. Rucker, 6 Colo. App. 334, 40 Pac. 853 ; Morgan v. Farrel, 58 Conn. 413, 20 Atl. 614, 18 Am. St. 282; Ellison v. Stuart, 2 Pennew. (Del.) 179, 43 Atl. 836; Webster V. Clark, 34 Fla. 637, 16 So. 601, 27 L. R. A. 126, 43 Am. St. 217n; Barnett Line Steamers v. Blackmar, 53 Ga. 98 ; Reynolds v. Radke, 112 111. App. 575; Strecker v. Conn, 90 Ind. 469; Sherrod v. Lang- don, 21 Iowa 518; Rider v. Hammell, 63 Kans. 733, 66 Pac. 1026; Green v. Taylor, 98 Ky. 330, 17 Ky. L. 897, 32 S. W. 945, 56 Am. St. 375; Grieff v. Boudousquie, 18 La. Ann. 631, 89 Am. § 104 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 112 Dec. 698; Rice v. Barrett, 116 Mass. 312 ; Bissell v. Warde, 129 Mo. 439, 31 S. W. 928; Parchen v. Anderson, 5 Mont 438, 5 Pac. 588, 51 Am. Rep. 65; Sargent v. Collins, 3 Nev. 260; Seabury v. BoUes, 51 N. J. L. 103, 16 Atl. 54 (modified 52 N. J. L. 413, 21 Atl. 952, 11 L. R. A. 136) ; Vibbard v. Roderick, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 616; Clark v. Rumsey, 59 App. Div. (N. Y.) 435, 69 N. Y. S. 102 (appeal dismissed in 178 N. Y. 592, 70 N. E. 1097) ; Heye v. Tilford, 2 App. Div. 346, IZ N. Y. St. 428, 2,7 N. Y. S. 751 (aflfd. 154 N. Y. 757, 49 N. E. 1098) ; W. D. Wilson Printing Ink Co. V. Bowker, 27 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 153, 39 N. Y. St. 690, 15 N. Y. S. 293; Shafer v. Randolph, 99 Pa. St. 250; Polk v. Buchanan, 5 Sneed. (Tenn.) 721 ; Grabenheimer v. Rinds- koflf, 64 Tex. 49; Cottrill v. Van Duzen, 22 Vt 511. CHAPTER IV ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE OF A PARTNERSHIP 110. Essential elements. 111. Sharing of profits. 112. Sharing of losses. 113. Intention. 114. Mutual agency. lis. Community of interest. 116. Nature — A trust relation. 117. Partnership as distinct entity. 118. Partnership held not to be an entity. 119. Partnership held to be an en- tity. 120. Entity — Change of firm. 121. Entity — The true view. 122. Entity — Codes of other na- tions. SECTION 123. Entity — Uniform Partnership Act. 124. Distinction between partrier- ship and joint purchase. 125. Partnership distinguished from joint tenancy and tenancy in common. 126. Distinction between partner- ship and relation of landlord and tenant. 127. Distinction between partner- ship and corporation. 128. Distinction between partner- ship and trust. § 110. Essential elements. — Among the essential ele- ments of actual partnership, at least in the absence of stipula- tions to the contrary, may be enumerated the following: 1. Profit sharing (including purpose of profit). 2. Sharing of loss. 3. Intention to form partnership. 4. Mutual agency. 5. Community of interest, or common business. It may appear, upon first view, that the present chapter must, of necessity, be simply a repetition of the preceding chapter, at least as to the first three essentials above given, but it will be readily seen, upon further examination, that, although dealing with the same sub- jects, it is. nevertheless from a different angle, and touches prin- ciples which could not properly be discussed from the viewpoint of a test of partnership. For example, sharing of profits, as we have seen, is, in some jurisdictions, held in itself to be a con- clusive test of partnership. On the other hand, under the present 113 8 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 111 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 114 discussion, it is simply one element, although an essential one, while sharing of losses, although, in the absence of a contrary agreement, it must be an element of partnership, can not by any possibility be, in itself, a test thereof. With this preliminary digression and explanation, we will proceed with the subject as outlined. § 111. Sharing of profits. — ^To the extent that the law governing this matter is discussed under the heading of Tests, it will be dispensed with here, and only that phase of the subject will now be touched upon which is peculiar to this chapter- Re- gardless of the fact as to whether profit sharing, intention or other matters, are regarded as tests in any particular jurisdic- tion, all, perhaps, hold profit sharing to be an essential element of partnership. How universally this proposition is accepted is shown by the definitions of the leading text writers upon this subject, among whom may be mentioned Dixon, Par- sons, Pollock, Chancellor Kent, Pothier, Burdick, and Lord Jus- tice Lindley. Both of the latter two, while not giving a formal definition, nevertheless recognize and adhere to the principle in their discussion of the subject. In all the codes which the author has been able to examine, which define the relation, the sharing of profits is expressly made an element thereof, thus necessarily implying a view and purpose of profit.^ In an Oklahoma case^ it was said : "No definite rule has ever yet been laid down which can be said to be a conclusive test as to whether or not a part- nership exists inter sese from a given state of facts, but there must be, to constitute the same, (a) an intent on the part of the alleged partners to form a partnership; (b) there must be a participation generally in both profits and losses; (c) there must be such a community of interests as enables each party to make contracts, manage the business, and dispose of the whole prop- erty." There are also decisions in many, if not all, states, which iSee § 25 ante. While the ele- Westcott v. Gilman (Cal.), ISO Pac. ments of profit sharing alone and of ITl. itself does not establish a partner- ^ Municipal Paving Co. v. Herring ship, it is essential to a partnership. (Okla. 1915), 150 Pac. 1067. lis ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE § 113 affirm the rule that there must be a purpose of profit. A Mich- igan case* has held that an association, doing no business involv- ing profit and loss, is not a partnership, and the members thereof are not personally liable on contracts made by its officers. How- ever, if the members actively participate in the incurring of the . debts, or authorize certain officers to so incur the debts, all mem- bers so participating or authorizing are liable as partners.* It is to be observed, however, that, in the cases here cited which hold that there is partnership liability under certain conditions, there is no conflict with the rule holding that there must be a view of profit to constitute partnership, as it is not the association that creates the liabihty, but the individual act of each party held. § 112. Sharing o£ loss. — It has already been discovered that sharing of loss merely is not made a test of partnership, yet it is one of the essentials of a partnership as between the partners, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, and of partner- ship liability as to third persons, in their lack of knowledge of such an agreement. It is, perhaps, unnecessary here to go into detail upon this question, as the principle is too elementary to be questioned. In fact, the great majority of the cases on the subject are for the purpose of enforcing this rule, and fixing, first, the partnership relation, and, second, the liability for losses which necessarily follows the partnership relation, with, of course, the exception mentioned above. § 113. Intention. — Intention has, as already shown, been made a test of partnership liability in many jurisdictions. In perhaps all jurisdictions, regardless of tests, it is considered a material element of actual partnership.^ However, it is held not essential to create partnership liability as to third persons, that the parties actually intended to form a partnership,® or knew that 3 Burt V. Lathrop, 52 Mich. 106, 17 N. Cas. 344 ; Devoss v. Gray, 22 Ohio N. W. 716. St. 159; Ridgely v. Dobson, 3 Watts 4Sproat V. Porter, 9 Mass. 300; & S. (Pa.) 118. Richmond v. Judy, 6 Mo. App. 465 ; ^ Municipal Paving Co. v. Herring Ferris v. Thaw, 5 Mo. App. 279; La- (Okla.), 150 Pac. 1067. fond V. Deems, 81 N. Y. 507, 8 Abb. ^ Freeman v. Huttig Sash &c. Co. § 114 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 116 their contract in law created a partnership.' And it must be remembered that intention may be inferred from the acts done, and the acts may sometime create a partnership, although the parties did not think they would have that effect. § 114. Mutual agency. — Mutual agency, as an essential element of partnership, holds much the same relative position as does sharing of loss. It is not a real test of partnership, as there may be mutual agency without any partnership relation, and yet in the absence of agreement to the contrary, mutual agency is presumed. It is not meant that a partner has an un- limited agency by which to bind his partners to any and all con- tracts, but only to such contracts, and concerning such transac- tions, as are within the scope of the partnership business. It is not the purpose to here discuss in detail the law upon mutual agency of partners, as that will be treated more fully under the chapters on Rights and Duties of Partners inter sese. It is enough to say that an interchangeable relation of principal and agent between the parties is indispensable to the existence of a partnership.* § 115. Community of interest. — There are several subdi- visions under which community of interest may be treated. 1. There may be community of interest in the partnership prop- erty itself, as has been shown above. 2. There may be com- munity of interest in profits. 3. There may be community of interest in profits and losses. The first one of the above is the one chiefly touched upon, under this heading, as the other two are discussed, in a general way, under the general headings bear- ing their names. It is often said of partnership that it is a com- mon business with a view of profit. As stated in an Arkansas case :" "Before there can be a partnership, the parties must have (Tex.), 153 S. W. 122 (revg. judg- Pac. 960; Municipal Paving Co. v. ment (Civ. App.), 135 S. W. 740). Herring (Okla.), 150 Pac. 1067. ^Westcott V. Oilman (Cat), 150 9 Roach v. Rector, 93 Ark 521, 123 Pac. m. S. W. 399 (1909). 8 Croft V. Bain, 49 Mont. 484, 143 117 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE § 115 joined to carry on a trade or adventure for their common benefit, each contributing property or services, and have a community of interest in the profits as such, and of the property employed in the business." It is well recognized that a community of in- terest in profits is necessary,^" but the better rule seems to be that a joint ownership of the property used in carrying on the business is not necessary.^^ Common ownership of property does not of itself create a partnership,^^ even if the property is used for the purpose of making gain,^^ and a mere community of in- terest in profits is not necessarily sufficient to constitute a part- nership, even in those states where the sharing of profits is held a conclusive test of partnership, for they recognize exceptions where a share of profits is taken as compensation for services/* It was said in an Oklahoma case, a joint interest in profits generally gives rise to the relation of partnership, but a common interest in profits does not.^° A Colorado case^" gives, as the elements of partnership, community of loss, of expenses, of title and a common right to dispose of property for purposes of a partnership. This classification is at fault, as it would not only appear that all the above were always essential to a partner- ship, but also that there were other essentials, but it serves to demonstrate that there must be at least a common business with a view of profit. Community of interest, however, is not alone sufficient to prove partnership, or, in other words, is not a test of partnership. Two or more persons may be co-owners of land and not be partners.^'' If, however, they buy land to sell and to share either profits alone or profits and losses, they . may be partners.^* The general rule is well stated in the syllabus 10 Drake v. Hall, 220 Fed. 905. is Municipal Paving Co. v. Herring "Doudell V. Shoo, 20 Cal. App. (Okla.), ISO Pac. 1067. 424, 129 Pac. 478. i^ Baldwin v. Patrick, 39 Colo. 347 "Towers v. Errington, 78 Misc. (1907), 91 Pac. 828. 297, 138 N. Y. S. 119. " Bond v. May, 38 Ind. App. 396 13 Spurlock V. Wilson, 160 Mo. App. (1906), 78 N. E. 260. 14, 142 S. W. 363. is Morgart v. Smouse, 112 Md. 615 1* Shebley v. Quatman, 66 Ore. 441, (191()), 11 Atl. 137. 134 Pac. 68. § 116 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 118 to an Arkansas case:^* "A mere community of interest by ownership of property creates a tenancy in common, but not a partnership." The Montana code defines a partnership as "the association of two or more persons to carry on a business to- gether and divide the profits," and it further provides, among other things, that the interest of each member of the partnership extends to every portion of its property, and that every general partner is agent for the firm within the scope of its firm business. In the case of Weiss v. Hamilton^" it was held that the sharing of profits was not a conclusive test of partnership, but that it was essential that there be a community of ownership in the profits, before a partnership could exist. Therefore, in a con- tract for the loan of money, upon a certain fixed sum for its use, and with no agreement for profit sharing, there is no result- ing partnership, as there was no community of interest in the business.^* And where there was an association formed to pur- chase a horse and notes were signed by the members, the horse to be owned by the signers, there is no partnership unless they intended to carry on business together and share in the profits.^^ § 116. Nature — A trust relation. — ^That partnership is a trust relation was previously asserted^* and will again be more fully treated.^* All the effects of the partnership are held in trust. A partner is a trustee for the other partners and for the partnership, he is the cestui que trust of the other partners.^^ The relationship between partners being fiduciary, the highest degree of good faith between the partners is required.^° § 117. Partnership as distinct entity. — There is no other relation known to law which, in its nature, is so complicated as is partnership. A natural person is an entity, and may sue and 19 La Cotts V. Pike's Estate, 91 22 Croft v. Bain, 49 Mont. 484, 143 Ark. 26 (1909), 120 S. W. 144, 134 Pac. 960. Am. St. 48. 23 See § 23, ante. 2»40 Mont. 99 (1909), 105 Pac. 74. 2* See post § 342. 21 Turregano v. Barnett, 127 La. 620, 25 Goldsmith v. Eichold, 94 Ala. 116, 53 So. 884 (1911). 10 So. 80, 33 Am. St. 97. 26 See chaps. 13 and 14. 119 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE § 118 be sued; may receive, hold, and dispose of, real or personal property. A corporation, or artificial person is in the: same position, being endowed with a persortality by the act which cre- ates it. The question of the entity of a partnership has been re- peatedly raised, and answered in different ways. Is the partner- ship a unit, having a distinctive personality, a self, or is it merely a convenient mode of expressing the association, and the conse- quent rights and liabilities of the persons so associated therein? The conception of the relation was, as will be shown hereafter, absolutely at variance under the civil and the common law, as declared by the English courts. The American law upon this question is not at all uniform. Many states have passed laws governing the subject, at least in part, usually to the effect of making partnership a distinct entity. Where, however, there are no statutes upon the subject, with the exception of Louisiana, in which state the civil law is the basic law, the rule of the com- mon law is recognized to a certain extent, The ordinary mercantile conception of a partnership and the legal conception are thus largely at variance. For all practical business dealings, the merchant regards a partnership or firm as an entity, up to the time when he must go to court to enforce a lia- bility against it. Creditors charge the firm on their accounts and the books of the partnership are kept as if it had a separate existence. § 118. Partnership held not to be an entity. — In a number of jurisdictions it is declared that the common law does not rec- ognize a partnership as a legal entity, separate and distinct from the several partners therein.^^ Thus, "the law recognizes no 27 E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Pow- L. R. A. 315 ; Grimes v. Bowerman, der Co. v. Jones, 200 Fed. 638; Phil- 92 Mich. 258, 52 N. W. 751; In re lips V. Holmes, 165 Ala. 250, 51 So. Peck, 206 N. Y. SS, 99 N. E. 258, 41 625; Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Godbold, L. R. A. (N. S.) 1223 (revg. order 92 Ark. 63, 121 S. W. 1063, 29 L. R. A. 135 N. Y. S. 1131, 150 App. Div. 922) ; (N. S.) 282n, 135 Am. St. 168; Ab- Jones v. Blun, 145 N. Y. 333, 39 N. E. bott V. Anderson, 265 111. 285, 106 N. 954 ; Bank of Buffalo v. Thompson, E. 782; Hallowell v. Blackstone Nat. 121 N. Y. 280, 24 N. E. 473; Strauss Bank, 154 Mass. 359, 28 N. E. 281, 13 v. Frederick, 91 N. Car. 121 ; Schnei- 118 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 120 personality in a partnership other than that of the persons who compose it;"^* "partnership is but a relation; it is not a person — it is not a legal being ;"^' "a partnership, as such, can not take or hold the legal title to real estate. It is not a person, either nat- ural or artificial, and when a deed is made to a partnership it passes the title to the individual members thereof as tenants in common."^" So also, "That citizenship can not rightly be predi- cated of a copartnership as such * * . * is well settled."'^ The fact that dissolution of a firm is worked by the death of a part- ner,^^ by the sale of one partner of his interest,^' by the bank- ruptcy of a partner,^* or by the marriage of a feme sole partner suggests the correctness of this position.^'' In England the sep- arate-entity nature of a partnership has been denied, at least so far as recognizing a partner as debtor or creditor of the firm of der V. Sellers, 98 Tex. 380, 84 S. W. 417; Williams Land Co. v. CruU (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 339; State V. Cloudt (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 415 ; In re Beauchamp, 1 Q. B. (1894) 1; Ex parte Corbett, L. R. 14 Ch. Div. (1880) 122, 42 L. T. 164, 28 W. R. 569, 49 L. J. Bk. 74; In re Wakeham, L. R. 13 Q. B. Div. 43; Jacaud v. French, 12 East 317, 11 R. R. 390. 28 Wiggins V. Blackshear, 86 Tex. 665, 26 S. W. 939. 2" Harris v. Visscher, 57 Ga. 229. soShirran v. Dallas, 21 Cal. App. 405, 132 Pac. 454 (rehearing denied by Sup. Ct. Id. 462) ; Adams v. Church, 42 Ore, 270, 70 Pac. 10.37, 59 L. R. A. 782, 95 Am. St. 740. 31 Bruett V. F. C. Austin Drainage Excavator Co., 174 Fed. 668. 32 Ruggles v. Buckley, 175 Fed. 57, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 541. S3 Ley v. Alston, 172 Fed. 90, 96 C. C. A. 578. 3* Riddle v. WhitehiU, 135 U. S. 621, 34 L. ed. 283, 10 Sup. Ct. 924. 35 Brown v. Chancellor, 61 Tex. 437. For further evidence in this connec- tion see Bellairs v. Ebsworth, 3 Camp. 53, 13 R. R. 750; Cambridge Univer- sity V. Baldwin, 5 Mees. & W. 580; Simson v. Cooke, 1 Bing. 452, 8 Moore 588, 2 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 74; HoUond v. Teed, 7 Hare 50; Strange v. Lee, 3 East 484 ; Weston v. Barton, 4 Taunt. 673, 13 R. R. 726; Dry v. Davy, 10 Adol. & E. 30, 8 L. J., Q. B. 209, 3 Jur. 315 ; Wright v. Russel, 2 W. Bl. 934, 3 Wils. 530; Bank of Scotland v. Christie, 8 Clark & F. 214; Stevens v. Benning, 1 Kay & J. 168; Tasker v. Shepherd, 6 Hurl & N. 575, 30 L. J., Ex. 207, 4 L. T. 19, 9 W. R. 476; De Mazar v. Pybus, 4 Ves. 644; Hole v. Bradbury, 12 Ch. Div. 886, 48 L. J. Ch. 673 ; Barron v. Fitzgerald, 6 Bing. N. Cas. 201, 8 Scott, 460, 9 L. J., C. P. 153, 4 Jur. 88; Fowler v. Reynal, 2 De G. & Sm. 749, 13 Jur. 649, 650n; Leak v. Mac- Dowall, 3 New Reports 185, 33 Beav. 238; Pease v. Hirst, 10 B. & C. 122, 5 M. & Ry. 88, 8 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 94; Metcalf v. Bruin, 12 East 400, 2 Camp. 422, 11 R. R. 432; Backhouse 121 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE I 119 which he himself is a member is concerned.'' Where the rule that a partnership is not a distinct entity prevails, the title to real estate must not be held in the name of the firm,*^ although, of course, the equitable interest would belong to the partnership. Another rule of usual operation, in the absence of statutes to the contrary, which recognizes the law of nonentity, is, that a change in mem- bers works a change in the firm, in reality terminates the old and establishes a new firm.^^ § 119. Partnership held to be an entity. — Opposed, how- ever, to the courts adhering to this doctrine that a partnership is not a separate entity there are others which speak in un- equivocal terms to the contrary.'^ "There are two conceptions of a partnership, one springing from the agreement on which it V. Hall, 6 B. & S. 507, 34 L. J., Q. B. 141, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 562, 12 L. T. 375, 13 W. R. 654; Dance v. Girdler, 1 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 34, 8 R. R. 748; Parham Sew. Mach. Co. v. Brock, 113 Mass. 194.; White Sew. Mach. Co. V. Hines, 61 Mich. 423, 28 N. W. 157; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Coats, 44 Mich. 260, 6 N. W. 648; Forst V. Kirkpatrick, 64 N. J. Eq. 578, 54 Atl. 554; Palmer v. Bagg, 56 N. Y. 523. 38 Richardson v. Bank of England, 4 Mylne & C. 165, 2 Jur. 911. See fur- ther De Tastet v. Shaw, 1 Barn. & Aid. 664. And compare Crouch v. Bowman, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 209. 3^ Bates Law of Partnership, p. 174. 38Haskins v. D'Este, 113 Mass. 356. 39 Schreiner v. United States, 6 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 359 ; Lacey v. Cowan, 162 Ala. 546, SO So. 281; Williams v. Hurley, 135 Ala. 319, 33 So. 159; Teague v. Lindsey, 106 Ala. 266, 17 So. 538; Goldsmith v. Eichold, 94 Ala. 116, 10 So. 80, 33 Am. St. 97; Floyd V. Boyd (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 494; Parker v. Parker, 25 Ky. L. 2193, 80 S. W. 209; Good v. Jarrard, 93 S. Car. 229, 16 S. E. 698, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 383n; Morris v. Owfen (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 227. For recog- nition of one firm as two distinct entities see West v. Valley Bank, 6 Ohio St. 168. But, as bearing upon the question as to the soundness of the decision in this case just cited, see 'Campbell v. Colorado Coal &c. Co., 9 Colo. 60, 10 Pac. 248; Adams V. May, 27 Fed. 907; Wright v. Hooker, 10 N. Y. 51, Seld. Notes 216. In Second Nat. Bank v. Burt, 93 N. Y. 233, a group of partners had been transacting business in different localities under different firm names and Ruger, Ch. J., speaking for the court, said : "So far as the liability of such firms is concerned they each constitute legal entities, assuming and performing their respective obliga- tions, and each holding exclusive funds to effect the objects of its as- sociation.'' Further in this connec- tion see In re Haines, 176 Pa. St. 354, 35 Atl. 237. § 119 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 122 is founded, that it is an aggregation of persons associated to- gether to share its profits and losses, owning its property, and liable for its debts. The other that it is an artificial being, a dis- tinct entity separate in estate, in rights, and in obligations from the partners who compose it. In most of its relations to persons and things the latter conception is the more accurate."*" More emphatic than this statement is the declaration that "a partner- ship * * * ig jugt a,s distinct and palpable an entity, in the idea of the law, as distinguished from the individuals composing it, as is a corporation ; and can contract as an individualized and ' unified party, with an individual person who is a member thereof, as effectually as a corporation can contract with one of its stock- holders. * * * The only practical difference is a technical one, having reference to the forum and form of remedy."*^ "Partnerships in courts of law or in courts of equity, are entities separate and distinct from that of the individuals who compose it, as much as the individuals themselves are separate and dis- *<• In re Bertenshaw, 157 Fed. 363, property is first to be appropriated 85 C. C. A. 61, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) to the payment of its debts. The in- 886. dividual partners are indeed liable *i Walker v. Wait, 50 Vt. 668. and bound to the extent of their Justice Cooley, in delivering the separate property for the partnership opinion of the court, in Rob- debts. They may therefore be called ertson v. Corsett, 39 Mich. Ill, de- debtors, but they are only construct- clares that: "The partnership for ively, or rather consequentially, so." most legal purposes is a distinct en- So, also in Allen v. Davids, 70 S. tity ; — ^having its own property, capa- Car. 260, 49 S. E. 846, the court says : ble of contracting separate debts, "We must always remember that the having the right to sue in equity its partnership is a new entity, and binds several members, and to be protected everybody who is a party to it, against their conduct to the same ex- whether known as a party to it at tent that it might be against the con- the time or not." Again in Richards duct of strangers." v. Leveille, 44 Nebr. 38, 62 N. W. In Curtis v. HoUingshead, 14 N. J. 304, it is said: "A partnership is a Law 402, it is said: "A partnership distinct entity, having its own prop- is considered in law as an artificial erty, debts and credits. For the pur- person or being, distinct from the in- poses for which it was created, it is dividuals composing it. It is treated a person, and as such is recognized as such in law, and in equity. Its by the law." 123 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE § 121 tinct persons."" "A partnership is a legal entity as well as a corporation, except in a more limited sense."** The civil law, as administered by the courts of Louisiana, re- gards a partnership once formed and put into action as a "moral being, distinct from the persons who compose it. It is a civil person which has its peculiar rights and attributes. * * * The ideal being, thus recognized by a fiction of law, is the owner" of the partnership property.*** § 120. Entity — Change of firm. — The law touching the legal relations existing upon the change of a firm by the tak- ing from or adding to the partners will be treated in detail un- der the chapter on Change of Membership, but it is perhaps advisable here, in order to thoroughly inquire into the entity of partnership, to see wherein these principles bear upon each other. The rule is well established that a change in the membership dis- solves a partnership. The law holds the relation to be one of particular trust and confidence, and will not consent to binding a person by act of the law, to partnership and the consequent agency, with a person who is not acceptable to- him. This is not in harmony with the idea of entity, yet is not wholly op- posed to it. § 121. Entity — The true view. — The differences of opinion as to whether a partnership is an entity are not in fact as radical as they appear, for to each unquaHfied assertion there should be added the modification that "for certain purposes this fiction (that of a separate entity, for which the nontechnical nomencla- ture of the mercantile world is originally responsible) may be *2 Lacey v. Cowan, 162 Ala. 546, SO Pilcher, 39 La. Ann. 362, 1 So. 929 So. 281. (quoting Smith v. McMicken, 3 La. *3 Duquesne Distributing Co. v. Ann. 319) ; In re Arick's Succession, Greenbaum, 135 Ky. 182, 121 S. W. 22 La. Ann. 501; Sherwood v. His 1026, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 955. Creditors, 42 La. Ann. 103, 7 So. 79 : *3a Liverpool, B. & R. P. Nav. Co. Stothart v. Hardie, 110 La. 696, 34 V. Agar, 4 Woods (U. S.) 201, 14 So. 740 ; Newman v, Eldridge, 107 La. Fed. 615. See also succession of 315, 31 So. 688. 121 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 124 very properly indulged."''^ The Supreme Court of Indiana has declared that, "Expressions to that effect (a partnership is a legal entity) are not infrequently found in the cases; but it appears clear to us that in thus speaking the courts have referred to part- nerships as legal entities merely as a term of accommodation, where there was under consideration some question as to the rights of the partners inter se, or of the derivative rights of cred- itors growing out of the equities of the partners. Such state- ments can not be accepted as affording a sufficient foundation for the view that a partnership is not composed of its individual members."*^ So it is said that a partnership, though not strictly a legal entity, distinct from the persons composing it, yet is so commonly regarded as such by men of business that it may be so treated in interpreting a commercial contract.*^ **Red River Valley Cotton Co. v. J. W. Stalcup Mercantile Co., 41 Okla. 34, 136 Pac. 1115; Jones v. Blun, 145 N. Y. 333, 39 N. E. 954. Continuing, Bartlett, J., speaking for the court, says : "In keeping partner- ship accounts, and in marshaling the assets of an insolvent or liquidating firm, this is constantly done. It can not be invoked, however, to shield the individual partner * * * from the eiifect of a statute forbidding a preference, or to enable him to do as a partner that which the law pro- hibits him from doing as an indi- vidual." *5 State V. Krasher, 170 Ind. 43, 83 N. E. 498. *® See in Meehan v. Valentine, 145 U. S. 611, 36 L. ed. 835, 12 Sup. Ct. 972 (affg. 29 Fed. 276), which cites approvingly the holding in Bank of Buffalo V. Thompson, 121 N. Y. 280, 24 N. E. 473, and quotes Sir George Jessel, who, in Pooley v. Driver, L. R. 5 Ch. Div. 458, says : "You can not grasp the notion of agency, properly speaking, unless you grasp the notion of the existence of the firm as a sep- arate entity from the existence of the partners; a notion which was well grasped by the old Roman lawyers, and which was partly understood in the courts of equity." See also Warner v. Smith, 1 DeG. J. & S. 337, 32 L. J. Ch. 573, 8 L. T. 221, 11 W. R. 392; Nichol v. Stewart, 36 Ark. 612; Meyer v. Wilson, 166 Ind. 651, 76 N. E. 748; Henry v. Anderson, 77 Ind. 361 ; Tuller v. Leaverton, 143 Iowa 162, 121 N. W. 515, 136 Am. St. 756; Hosmer v. Burke, 26 Iowa 353 ; John- son V. Smith, Morris (Iowa) 105; Fitzgerald v. Grimmell, 64 Iowa 261, 20 N. W. 179; Cross v. Burlington Nat. Bank, 17 Kans. 336; Victor v. Spalding, 202 Mass. 234, 88 N. E. 846; Chaffee v. Jones, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 260; Robertson v. Corsett, 39 Mich. 777; Hubbardston Lumber Co. v. Co- vert, 35 Mith. 254; Roop v. Herron, 15 Nebr. 73, 17 N. W. 353; Rosen- baum V. Hayden, 22 Nebr. 744, 36 N. W. 147; Curtis v. Hollingshead, 14 N. J. L. 402; Good v. Red River Valley Co., 12 N. Mex. 245, 78 Pac. 125 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE § 121 The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts takes the inter- mediate position that, "A partnership is not a legal entity, having as such a domicile, although for purposes of taxation and for other purposes it may be treated by statute as having a locality."*^ The separate-entity theory is, more and more, being given stat- utory utterance ; legislation is more and more providing, at least by implication, that for the accomplishment of certain ends, for instance, the bringing of suits against partnerships, the latter are to be deemed separate entities/^ In some states the partnership 46; Napier v. Spielmann, 127 App. Div. (N. Y.) 567, 111 N. Y. S. 983; In re Haines, 176 Pa. St. 354, 35 Atl. V. Grimmell, 64 Iowa 261, 20 N. W. 179; Sweet v. Ervin, 54 Iowa 101, 6 N. W. 156; Newlon v. Heaton, 42 237; Meily v. Wood, 71 Pa. St. 488, Iowa 593; Stockwell v. Brewer, 59 10 Am. Rep. 719; In re Nims, 16 Maine 286; Faneuil Hall Nat. Bank Blatchf. (U: S.) 439, Fed. Cas. No. v. Meloon, 183 Mass. 66, 66 N. E. 410, 10269; Wheatley's Heirs v. Calhoun, 97 Am. St. 416; Hoadley v. Essex 12 Leigh (Va.) 264, 37 Am. Dec. 654. County, 105 Mass. 519; Williams v. *'■ Faulkner v. Hyman, 142 Mass. Saginaw, 51 Mich. 120, 16 N. W. 53, 6 N. E. 846. 260; McCoy v. Anderson, 47 Mich. *8Bruett V. F. C. Austin Drainage 502, 11 N. W. 290; Barber v. Smith, Excavator Co., 174 Fed. 668; Mills v. 41 Mich. 138, 1 N. W. 992; Hubbard- Fisher, 159 Fed. 897, 87 C. C. A. 77, ston Lumber Co. v. Covert, 35 Mich. 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 656n; In re Ber- 254; Dimond v. Minnesota Sav. Bank, tenshaw, 157 Fed. 363, 85 C. C. A. 70 Minn. 298, 73 N. W. 182 ; Gale v. 61, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 886; Manson Townsend, 45 Minn. 357, 47 N. W. V. Williams, 153 Fed. 525, 82 C. C. A. 1064; Rosenbaum v. Hayden, 22 475; In re Perley, 138 Fed. 927; Will- Nebr. 744, 36 N. W. 147; Leach v. iams V. Hurley, 135 Ala. 319, 33 So. 159; Atlantic Glass Co. v. Paulk, 83 Milburn Wagon Co., 14 Nebr. 106, 15 N. W. 232; Burlington & Mo. River Ala. 404, 3 So. 800; Opelika v. Daniel, R. Co. v. Dick, 7 Nebr. 242; Martin 59 Ala. 211; Sims v. Jacobson, 51 v.- District Court of First Dist., 13 Ala. 186 ; Harrison v. McCormick, 69 Nev. 85 ; Gillig v. Lake Bigler Road Cal. 616, 11 Pac. 456; King v. Rand- Co., 2 Nev. 214; Good v. Red River lett, 33 Cal. 318; Gilman v. Cosgrove, Valley Co., 12 N. Mex. 245, 78 Pac. 22 Cal. 356; Phelps Mfg. Co. v. Enz, 46; Abernathy v. Latimore, 19 Ohio 19 Conn. 58; McDonough v. Carter, 286; Robinson v. Ward, 13 Ohio St. 98 Ga. 703, 25 S. E. 938 ; Drucker v. 293 ; Haskins v. Alcott, 13 Ohio St. Wellhouse, 82 Ga. 129, 8 S. E. 40, 2 210; Beers v.- Gurney, 7 Ohio C. D. L. R. A. 328; United States Exp. Co. 411; Rice v. Summers, 2 Pa. Dist. Rep. V. Bedbury, 34 111. 459 ; Anderson v. 31 ; Frank v. Tatum, 87 Tex. 204, 25 Wilson, 142 Iowa 158, 120 N. W. 677; S. W. 409; State v. Cloudt (Tex. Civ. Ruthven v. Beckwith, 84 Iowa 715, 45 App.), 84 S. W. 415; Schweppe v. N. W. 1073, 51 N. W. 153; Fitzgerald Wellauer, 76 Wis. 19, 45 N. W. 17; § 121 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 126 may sue or be sued in its firm name.'*' In others it may be sued in such name/" Under many state tax laws property of a part- nership is listed and assessed in the firm name, in the same man- ner as corporate property in the corporate name.°^ Under some fish and game laws,°^ and anti-trust laws/^ a partnership, as such, may be fined for the commission of a crime. The present Bankruptcy Act^* "treats the copartnership as a legal entity, ir- respective of the status or the separate rights of the individual copartners. It deals with the copartnership as a person' for the purpose of subjecting the partnership property to the satisfac- tion of copartnership liabilities. * * * And so it has been held that a copartnership may be adjudged a bankrupt after the death of one partner, upon an act of bankruptcy committed by the surviving partner, and that the adjudication of bankruptcy of a copartnership does not necessarily draw into the proceedings the estate of every individual member." ^^ O'Brien v. Foglesong, 3 Wyo. 57, 31 Pac. 1047. And compare Williams Land Co. v. Crull (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 339. *9Iowa Code, § 3468; 5 Howell's Mich. Stat., § 12217 (only in jus- tice's court) ; Nebr. Rev. Stat., § 7594; Ohio 5 Gen. Code, § 11260; Wyo. Comp. Stat, § 4329. =oAla. 2 Code, § 2506; Cat. Code Civ. Proc, § 388 ; 2 Idaho Rev. Codes, § 4112; Minn. Gen. Stat., § 7689; Nev. 2 Rev. Laws, § 5007; Utah Comp. Laws, § 2927; W. Va. Code, § 1976 (only in justice's court) ; Wis. Stat. (1911), § 2611. 51 Ark. Kirhy Dig. Stat. (1904), § 6903; Ala. 1 Code, § 2108; Ariz. Rev. Stat. (1913), § 4860; Cal. Pol. Code, § 3629 (2) (6) ; Colo. 2 Mill. Ann. Stat., § 6231; Idaho 1 Rev. Codes, § 1673; 111. S Ann. Stat, § 9219; 4 Burns Ind. Ann. Stat . (1914), § 10162; Iowa Code (1897), §§ 1313, 1317; Mass. Acts (1909), ch. 490, §§ 27, 41, 43;' Mich. 1 Howell's Stats., § 1780; Minn. Gen. Stat (1913), § 1994; Mont 1 Rev. Codes, § 2521; Nev. 1 Rev. Laws, §§ 3626, 3629; Nebr. Rev. Stat, §§ 6298, 6313; Okla. 2 Rev. Laws, § 7311; Ohio 3 P. & A. Ann. Gen. Code, §§ 5320, 5370; Pa. 5 Purdon's Dig., § 6060; Tex. 3 Civ. Stat., § 7509; W. Va. Code (1906), § 744. 52 Ohio 1 P. & A. Ann., Gen. Code, § 1462; W. Va. Code Supp. (1909), § 2803, a. 4. 53 Nebr. Rev. Stat, §§ 4029, 4030; Okla. 2 Rev. Laws, §§ 8222, 8225. 5* Bankruptcy Act (U. S. Comp. Stat 1901, p. 3424). 55 In re Stein, 127 Fed. 547, 62 C. C. A. 272. See also British Partner- ship Act, 1890, § 4. Chemical Nat Bank v. Meyer, 92 Fed. 896 (affd. 98 Fed. 976, 39 C. C. A. 368); In re Meyer, 98 Fed. 976, 39 C. C. A. 368; Loveland Bankruptcy (4th ed.), § 255; Collier, Bankruptcy (8th ed.) 146; 13 Columbia Law Rev. 143. 127 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE § 122 The conference of commissioners on uniform state laws, when they prepared the Sales Act, section 76 (1), the Bills of Lading Act, section 49, and the Warehouse Receipts Act, section 58, included partnerships within their definition of "persons." The question was viewed from different standpoints by the civil and common law. By the civil law it was held to be an entity, as a separate person, distinct from the parties composing it, even allowing suits between it and the partners composing it, while the common law repudiates this distinction, holding it to be simply an association of individuals, with no rights or liabilities aside from those of the partners composing it. Equity has taken a middle ground, recognizing certain conditions thereunder as disclosing an entity, and in other matters disallowing this theory.^* Inasmuch as partnership problems are largely adjudicated by courts of equity, the idea of a limited entity is gradually grow- ing, even in our common law states, and this influence is par- ticularly shown in several of our states where laws have been passed, affirmatively establishing the principle of firm entity, at least in certain matters. Undoubtedly, the general American rule of the present day is, that, for certain purposes, the firm is an entity, yet it is not an entirely separate entity, as, for example, a corporation, for, in probably all jurisdictions, there is a curious admixture of rights and liabilities existing between the firm and the members thereof, which could not exist were the firm a sep- arate and distinct being in all matters. From the commercial viewpoint, and that of the persons composing a partnership, it may be said that their activities connected with the partnership are considered as a group of activities dissociated from the other activities of the persons composing it, and this is all that is meant by saying that a firm is recognized commercially as an entity. § 122. Entity — Codes of other nations.— Under Roman law a partnership was not an entity."' Under the old law mer- 56 Hosmer v. Burke, 26 Iowa 353 ; '' 2 Roby Roman Private Law 132. Chaffee v. Jones, 19 Pick. (Mass.) See generally on subject of entity 22 260. Harv. L. Rev., §§ 762 et scq. § 123 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 128 chant it was an entity, the members of a firm being bound in solido.^^ The codes of the countries following the civil law treat a partnership as a legal entity, or juristic person. Under the German"* and Swiss"" codes, a partnership can contract in its firm name, sue and be sued. The Japanese code declares a partnership to be a juristic person.*^ The French courts treat a partnership as a legal person.'^ The codes of Belgium, °* Spain,°* Chile°° and Mexico"" expressly declare a partnership to be a juristic person, while Italy ,"^ Roumania,"® and Portugal"' de- clare the same rule so far as third persons are concerned. In Russia,'^" and Scotland,''^ it is likewise so treated. § 123. Entity — Uniform Partnership Act. — The Uniform Partnership Act was first drafted on the theory that a part- nership is an entity,''^ but as subsequently drafted upon re- consideration and finally approved, this act substantially adopted the common-law theory that a partnership is not an entity, although recognizing it as such for some purposes.'^^ Under section two the term "person" is de- fined as including a partnership. Under section eight (3), the partnership may take title to real estate and convey it in the firm name. By section nine (1), a partner is the agent of the partnership, and in other ways a partner is given certain 58 Mitchell, Early History of Law 6*Code de Commerce (1885), § 116. Merchant, 124-140, same printed as es Code de Commerce (1865), § 348. early forms of partnerships, 3 Select se Code de Commerce (1889), § 9(3. Essays Anglo-American Legal His- ^^ Code de Commerce (1882), § 77. tory 183. es Code de Commerce (1887), § 78. 59 Handelgesetzhich (1897), § 124, sa Code de Commerce (1888), § 108. Piatt's transalation ; Lehman, Han- ''"Code de Commerce (1893), delsrecht (2d ed.) 293 pf.; Gaveis, Tshernow's Translation, § 21. Handelgesetzhich, 124 (1). 7iRell Laws Scotland (6th ed.), § 60 Code des obligations (1911), § 357, Eng. Partnership Act 1890, § 4 559. (2). 61 Commercial Code (1899), §§ 43, '2 Rep. Com. Uniform State Laws 44, Young's transalation. (1905), § 29; Rep. Amer. Bar Assn. 62 1 Planiol, Droit Civil (6th ed.), (1905), § 738. § 2500, (2d ed.), § 1957. 73 Rep. Com. Uniform State Laws 63 Code de Commerce (1873), LX, (1911), § 149; Rep. Am. Bar. Assn. art. 2. (1911), § 827. 129 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE § 124 rights and powers with respect to the partnership.'^* In prac- tical effect this act takes the middle ground as to entity, which is discussed in section one hundred twenty-one on "En- tity, the true view." Under the entity theory, the partnership being a legal per- son, distinct from the members of the firm, the rules of law applicable are very much those of the law of corporations, and a partnership becomes, in fact, a quasi-corporation. This theory overcomes some of the more technical rules connected with the joint ownership and joint liability inseparable from the common- law or aggregate rule. But the general adoption of a code rec- ognizing a partnership as an entity for all purposes, would be to overthrow a great part of the established partnership law of this country, in fact, to break up its fundamental basis, of joint liability. It would also hinder creditors, since they would then have direct rights only against the partnership as such, and not against the individuals, who could only be reached indirectly as contributory to the partnership.''® § 124. Distinction between partnership and joint pur- chase. — Usually the joint purchasers of goods, ''^ or land,'' are not held to be partners merely by virtue of that fact, for here only the one essential exists, community of interest, and neither mutual agency, intention to form a partnership, or the sharing of profits and losses, necessarily exists. But where the lands,''^ or goods,'* are to be resold and the profits divided, in many '^*See Uniform Partnership Act, 35 L. ed. 1157, 12 Sup. Ct. 327; Breen Appendix. v. Arnold, 157 Wis. 528, 147 N. W. 75 See article by Samuel Willeston, 997. See cases cited in notes 28, 35, 63 U. P. Law Rev. (Am. Law Reg.), § 169. § 196. ''8 See §§ 159, 169. '"> Jackson v. Robinson, Fed. Cas. '" Howze v. Patterson, S3 Ala. 205, No. 7144, 3 Mason (U. S.) 138; 25 Am. Rep. 607; Hillman v. Roney, Humphries v. McGraw, 5 Ark. 61; 78 111. App. 412; Bryant v. Fitzsim- Post V. Kimberly, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) mons, 106 Md. 421, 67 Atl. 356; Thorp 470; Brady v. Colhoun, 1 Pen. & W. v. Marsh, 40 Miss. 158; Jones v. (Pa.) 140. Walker, 51 Misc. 624, 101 N. Y. S. " Clark V. Sidway, 142 U. S. 682, 22. 9 — Row. ON Partn. — 'Vol. 1 § 125 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 130 cases, the joint purchasers are held partners. Thus, it has been held that a father and son who on one part traded for goods, were chargeable as partners in such transaction, whether they were dealing as partners or copurchasers.*' § 125. Partnership distinguished from joint tenancy and tenancy in common. — There are some similarities between partnership, and joint tenancy and tenancy in common. Tenancy in common is the holding of an estate in land by several persons ' by several and distinct titles.*^ Joint tenancy is where a single estate in property is owned by several persons under one instru- ment or act of the parties. In joint tenancy there are the unities of interest, title, time and possession, and there is a right of survivorship.^^ Neither of these relations necessarily involves a partnership. A mere common interest in or common owner- ship of property does not makepersons partners unless they have agreed and intended so to beT**~^22Q.owners or joint tenants using their property together for profit may become partners.** In some cases it is very difficult, to determine whether co-owners or joint tenants have made themselves partners, or remain liable merely in their original relation.'^ There are, however, several essential differences. A partnership is the creature of contract, a cotenancy need not be. One cotenant can dispose of his indi- vidual interest to whomsoever he pleases, and his cotenants can not interfere, while the disposal of one partner's interest can not be made without the consent of his copartners. One cotenant is not the agent for the others, and generally speaking, can not bind the others by his contracts with regard to the common prop- erty. A cotenant may at any time have a partition of the com- mon property as a matter of right, and the co-owner of personal 80 Short V. Thomas, 178 Mo. App. Hawley v. Keeler, 53 N. Y. 114; But- 400, 163 S. W. 252. See Pierson v. ler Sav. Bank v. Osborne, 159 Pa. St. Steinmyer, 4 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 309. 10, 28 Atl. 163, 39 Am. St. 665. 81 38 Cyc. 3. 8* McFarlane v. McFarlane, 82 Hun 82 23 Cyc. 483, 484. (N. Y.) 238, 31 N. Y. S. 272, 63 N. Y. ' 83 Story Partnership, §§ 2, 3, 32; St. 589. Millett V. Holt, 60 Maine 169; Porter »= Goell v. Morse, 126 Mass. 480. V. McClure, IS Wend. (N. Y.) 187; 131 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE § 126 property which is severable may at any time take his share with- out formality. It is necessary to dissolve a partnership in order to divide the property. These are the most important differences in the relations between partners and co-owners.^" One great dis- tinction between joint tenancy and partnership is that there is no right of survivorship between partners.^' Co-owners who share gross returns are not partners.^' § 126. Distinction between partnership and relation of landlord and tenant. — ^There is an appreciable distinction be- tween the relation of landlord and tenant and that of partners.^" As has been seen in a former section, where one takes charge of and operates a business or manufacturing plant, under a contract by which he pays a portion of the profits to the owner for its use, there may be a question as to whether he is a partner, or a tenant.'" If the owner's compensation is merely to be measured by a portion of the profits, he is not held a partner,"^ nor is he a partner where he does not share losses,"^ nor where he reserves no control over the premises."^ Ordinarily a contract with a land owner by an employe to cultivate land for a share of the crop does not create a partnership relation.'* In such contracts there is no mutual agency and the business is not carried on on joint 88 See Lindley Partnership (8th s" See § 79, ante, on profits as rent, ed.), pp. 33 et seq. for extended note ^^ Norton v. Wiswall, 26 Barb. (N. as to the remedies existing between Y.) 618; Heimstreet v. Rowland, 5 co-owners. Denio (N. Y.) 68; Prestons v. Ma- s'' Cowles V. Garrett's Adrars., 30 Call, 7 Grat. (Va.) 121. Ala. 341 ; La Societe Francaise, &c. v. ^2 Barghman v. Portman, 12 Ky. L. Weidmann, 97 Gal. 507, 32 Pac. 583; 342, 14 S. W. 342; Smith v. Hubert, Brjidley v. Harkness, 26 Cal. 69; 83 Hun (N. Y.) 503, 31 N. Y. S. Sims V. Dane, 113 Ind. 127, IS N. E. 1076, 65 N. Y. St. 16. 217; Goell v. Morse, 126 Mass. 480; o^Ault Woodenware Co. v. Baker, Putnam v. Wise, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 234, 26 Ind. App. 374, 58 N. E. 265. 37 Am. Dec. 309 ; Farrand v. Gleason, »* Christian v. Crocker, 25 Ark. 327, 56 Vt. 633; Hungerford v. Gushing, 8 99 Am. Dec. 223; Smith v.,Schultz, 89 Wis. -332. Cal. 526, 26 Pac. 1087 ; Shrum v. 88 Quackenbush v. Sawyer, 54 Cal. Simpson, 155 Ind. 160, 57 N. E. 708, 439. 49 L. R. A. 792; Frout v. Hardin, 56 89 Norton v. Wiswall, 26 Barb. (N. Ind. 165, 26 Am. Rep. 18; Musser v. Y.) 618. Brink, 68 Mo. 242; Donnell v. Harshe, § 127 • LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 132 account.'** However, if the parties have entered into an agree- ment by which th^y are jointly concerned in the cultivation of the land, one furnishing the land and farming implements, and the other furnishing labor and directing the operations, and they divide profits and share expenses, such an agreement shows an intention to constitute a partnership, and they will be held part- ners.''^ § 127. Distinctions between partnership and corporation. — There are two ordinary forms of association of several per- sons for the conduct of business, the partnership, and the cor- poration. The corporation is an artificial person, created only by legislative authority, its foundation being the charter granted by the state.'® A partnership is created by contract between its members. The persons composing a corporation are only liable for the amount of their investment, or the amount fixed by statute.®^ Each partner is liable individually for all partner- ship obligations. The capital of a corporation consists of a number of shares, represented by stock certificates, which may be transferred by indorsement, without the consent of the corporation.'^ All interests in a partnership are so merged together, that there can be no transfer without a dissolu- tion of the firm, or the consent of all the partners. A cor- 67 Mo. 170; Perrine v. Hankinson, 11 field v. White, 52 Ga. 567; Holmes v. N. J. L. 181 ; Gregory v. Brooks, 1 Old Colony R. Co., 5 Gray (Mass.) Hun (N. Y.) 404, 3 Thomp. & C. 517; 58; Richardson v. Hughitt, 76 N. Y. Putnam v. Wise, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 234, 55, 32 Am. Rep. 267; Taylor v. Brad- Z7 Am. Dec. 309; Day v. Stevens, 88 ley, 39 N. Y. 129, 1 Abb. Dec. 363, N. Car. 83, 43 Am. Rep. 732; Brown 100 Am. Dec. 415; Curtis v. Cash, 84 V. Jaquette, 94 Pa. St. 113, 39 Am. N. Car. 41 ; Reynolds v. Pool, 84 N. Rep. 770 ; note 115 Am. St. 437. Car. 37, Zl Am. Rep. 607 ; Lewis v. 9*aCedarberg v. Guernsey, 12 S. Wilkins, 62 N. Car. 303; Ambler v. Dak. n, 80 N. W. 159. Bradley, 6 Vt. 119; 32 Cent. Dig. L. & 95 Leavitt v. Windsor Land Inv. Co., T., §§ 1351, 1355. 54 Fed. 439, 4 C. C. A. 425; Tibbatts ^s Thompson Corp., §§ 9, 11; Cook V. Tibbatts, Fed. Cas. No. 14020, 6 Corp., § 1. McLean 80; Autrey v. Frieze, 59 Ala. ^'' Cook Corp., §§ 241, 242; Thomp- 587; McCrary v. Slaughter, 58 Ala. son Corp., § 5; 10 Cyc. 146; Thomp- 230; Somers v. Joyce, 40 Conn. 592; son Corp. (2d ed.), §§ 4315, 4327. Adams v. Carter, 53 Ga. 160; Holi- sscook Corp., §§ 11, 12. 133 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND NATURE § 128 poration is controlled by directors^ for whom the stockholders vote, each having voting power in proportion to the number of shares he holds, and the directors have authority over the prop- erty and business, and appoint the agents and officers. The stockholders as individuals have no authority, except that a ma- jority at a stockholders' meeting may elect directors and exercise some general control over the management."® In a partnership, each partner is a full agent within the scope of the partnership business, for the partnership, and for each of the other partners, and contracts made by him bind all the associates. The corpora- tion is a continuous organization unaffected by any transfer of the stock, or the death, insanity or insolvency of its members.^ The death, insanity, or insolvency of a partner, or the transfer of the interest of one partner to another person causes either the dissolu- tion or re-organization of the firm. A corporation has a separate entity, does business in its corporate name, and can sue and be sued by such name. It can sue its stockholders, and its stockhold- ers can sue it.^ As a general rule a partnership has no separate entity, but all the partners must sue and be sued by their own names, and a partnership can neither be sued by one of the mem- bers, or bring suit against any one of them. The member of a partnership takes on himself much greater liabilities than the member of a corporation and correspondingly, has much greater powers to bind his associates. For these reasons, the personal character of the members of a partnership is of very great im- portance to other members. § 128. Distinction between partnership and trust. — The question sometimes arises as to whether property held by trus- tees for the benefit of the owners is trust or partnership property. It was said in a Massachusetts case :^ "A declaration of trust or other instrument providing for the holding of property by trus- ^^ Thompson Corp. (2d ed.), §§ ^ Thompson Corp., § 8 ; Cook Corp., 4460, 4477; Cook Corp., § 11. § 11. 1 Thompson Corp., § 9; Cook Corp., ^Frosj^v. Thompson, 219 Mass. 360, § 11. 106 N. E. 1009. § 128 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 134 tees for the benefit of the owners oi assignable certificates repre- senting the beneficial interest in the property may create a trust or it may create a partnership, whether it is the one or the other depends upOn the way in which the trustees are to conduct the affairs committed to their charge. If they act as principals and are free from the control of the certificate holders a trust is cre- ated; but if they are subject to the control of the certificate hold- ers, it is a partnership." The reasoning in this case was based on an earlier decision,* in which the subject was treated at length, and the court said, in part : "Where persons associate themselves , together to carry on business for their mutual profit, they are none the less partners because ( 1 ) their shares in the partnership are represented by certificates which are transferable and trans- missible, and because (2) as a matter of convenience (if not of necessity in case of transferable and transmissible certificates) the legal title to the partnership property is taken in the name of a third person. The person in whose name the partnership prop- erty stands in such a case is perhaps in a sense a trustee. But speaking with accuracy he is an agent, who for the principal's convenience holds the legal title to the principal's property."^ In that case it was held that the property involved was trust prop- erty, because it was the property of the trustees, to be managed for the benefit of the certificate holders, but to be managed by the trustees and not the certificate holders. Where trustees of asso- ciation property did not act independently, but under the stocks- holders' control it was held a partnership and not a trust." * Williams v. Milton, 215 Mass. 1, e Prost v. Thompson, 219 Mass. 360, 102 N. E. 355. 106 N. E. 1009. 5 Williams v. Milton, 215 Mass. 1, 102 N. E. 355.' CHAPTER V KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS 135. Partners. 136. General partners. 137. Special partners. 138. Nominal or ostensible part- ners. 139. Dormant or secret partners. 140. Silent partners. 141. Kinds of partnerships. 142. Universal partnerships. 143. General partnerships. 144. Special or particular partner- ships. 145. Classification loosely used. 146. Limited partnerships. 147. Joint stock companies. 148. Partnership associations. SECTION 149. Subpartnerships. 150. Rights and liabilities of sub- partners inter sese. 151. Trading and nontrading part- nerships. 152. Mining partnerships. 153. Creation and dissolution of mining partnerships. 154. Legal and illegal partnerships. 155. Defective incorporations. 156. Unincorporated associations. 157. Clubs and societies. 158. Partnership by representation. 159. Joint ownership as partner- ship. 160. Joint adventure. § 135. Partners. — There are several classes of partners, each having distinct rights and liabilities. The following classi- fication embraces the principal kinds : (1) General partners, (2) Special partners, (3) Nominal partners, (4) Dormant partners, (S) Silent partners. § 136. General partners. — General partners are full part- ners, those usually met with in common business life, with mu- tual agency and the other ordinary incidents of an ordinary part- nership. As the principles of partnership as treated in general in this work, are also the principles governing general partners, when not otherwise specified, it would be superfluous to attempt a detailed discussion of the subject here, but attention is directed to the whole general treatment of the subject in this work. 135 § 137 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 136 § 137. Special partners. — A special partner is one who has not full partnership liability, his liability being limited by agreement with his co-partners. Only in limited partnerships can a special partner avoid liability to third parties. These can only be formed under statutory authorization and must have at least one general partner. The special partner does not take any active part in the business, and does not incur liability beyond his investment. If he actively takes part in the business or if the at- tempt to create a limited partnership does not follow closely the prescribed statutory formalities, the special partner is usually lia- ble as a general partner. The entire subject of limited partnership is treated in a subsequent chapter. § 138. Nominal or ostensible partners. — A nominal, or, as sometimes designated, ostensible, partner, is a person who may not be an actual member of the firm, or who may be a special partner, and who holds himself out, or permits himself to be held out, as a general partner. In such a case, he becomes liable as such general partner, to any one dealing with the firm upon such representation, as if he were such a partner, although he may not be so liable to other creditors to whom he has not been so held out.^ The term, as used, is, in reality, a misnomer, as there is, thereby, no partnership created, but only partnership liability by estoppel. The party held, has not, at least by the act which cre- ates the liability, made himself a member of the firm, but has estopped himself from denying the relation. This is demon- strated in certain cases, ^ which hold that one who is merely a nominal partner with another is not disqualified from acting as a witness for such other person, on account of interest. The question arises, when the term, "& Co." is used to indicate a 1 Parsons Partnership (3d. ed.), p. 162 Pa. St. 559, 29 Atl. 855. See long 30; Herman Kahn Co. v. Bowden, 80 list of cases cited in 10 Ann. Cas., pp. Ark. 23, 96 S. W. 126, 10 Ann. Cas. 135, 136. Contra: Young v. Axtell 132 ; Poole v. Fisher, 62 111. 181 ; (cited in Waugh v. Carver, 2 H. Bl. Fletcher v. Pullen, 70 Md. 205, 16 242) ; Poillon v. Secor, 61 N. Y. 456. Atl. 887, 14 Am. St. 355 ; Bissell v. 2 Parsons v. ■ Crosby, 5 Esp. 199 ; Warde, 129 Mo. 439, 31 S. W. 928; Mawman v. Gillett, 2 Taunt. 325, 11 Lancaster &c. Bank v. Bofifenmyer, R. R. 597. 137 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 139 person not designated by name in the firm title, whether the per- son SO designated, is a dormant or a nominal partner. It has been held that he is sufficiently indicated, at least by inference, to be a nominal partner.^ If, however, there are two or more partners covered by the general designation, "& Co.," one or more of them may be dormant, if there was an intention therefor, and if, in fact, he was unknown to the public* Some early cases held that if there was no firm name or general designation as "& Co.," which covered all the partners, all not so designated should be considered dormant partners.^ Mr. Bates, in his work on Partnership criticises this rule, inas- much as it would make all partners in a partnership with a ficti- tious name dormant partners, and a review of the late cases cited herein will probably not carry out the old rule. The nominal partner is not liable to a creditor who did not know that he was held out as a partner.® When a partnership business has been in- corporated, its members have sometimes been held liable as part- ners, where those dealing with the concern were not notified of the incorporation.'' § 139. Dormant or secret partners. — A dormant partner is, in reality, the converse of the nominal partner, being, in fact, an actual partner, yet not known as such, and taking no active part in the management of the firm business. It is a compara- tively simple matter to fix the liability of the nominal partner, as his holding out in itself raises an estoppel upon him. More diffi- cult questions are raised as to the status of the dormant partner, 3 Goddard v. Pratt, 16 Pick. Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. 637, 16 So. (Mass.) 412. 601, 27 L. R. A. 126, 43 Am. St. 217; * Metcalf V. Officer, 2 Fed. 6.4Q, 1 Seabury v. BoUes, 51 N. J. L. 103, 16 McCrary (U. S.) ' 325 ; Warren v. Atl. 54, 11 L. R. A. 136 (modified 52 Ball, 37 111. 76; Grosvenor v. Lloyd, N. J. L. 413, 21 Atl. 952, 11 L. R. A. 1 Mete. (Mass.) 19. 136). 5 Bank of St. Mar/s v. St. John, ^ McGowan v. American &c. Tan 25 Ala. 566; Mason v. Connell, 1 Bark Co., 121 U. S. 575, 7 Sup. Ct. Whart. (Pa.) 381. 1315, 30 L. ed. 1027; Wechselberg v. e Thompson v. First Nat. Bank, 111 Flour City Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 90, U. S. 529, 4 Sup. Ct. 689, 28 L. ed. 507 ; 12 C. C. A. 56, 26 L. R. A. 470. § 139 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 138 as, usually, the third person enters into his relations with the firm without knowing of the dormant partner's connection with it. The question of liability is raised in several ways. Where the firm property is disposed of by the known partner or partners, it has been held that the dormant partner is estopped from contesting the validity of a mortgage given by the known partner on the firm realty, he allowing the public to believe that the known partner is the sole owner of the business and realty, provided the mortgagee, at the time the mortgage was taken by him, had no notice of the true facts in the matter.^ The question further arises, in a different form, when the active partner incurs indebtedness,- and the creditor thereafter learns of the connection of the dormant partner, and seeks to en- force the liability against him. Here, also, the principle is well established that the dormant partner is liable. The rule is well stated in a federal case,^ which holds that persons who jointly participate in the profits of trade or business, ostensibly carried on by another for his sole use and benefit, are equally liable when discovered, with the ostensible and actual owner, to all creditors of the firm whose debts were contracted during the time of such participation, without knowledge of the same, or of the actual re- lation between the parties at the time the credit was given, and that liability exists, notwithstanding the parties may have pri- vately stipulated that they shall not be partners, and in contem- plation of law really are not such as between themselves. A study of the various cases upon this question will show the above statement to be in accord with the great majority of these cases.^" The term "secret partner" is sometimes used as synonymous with "dormant partner," and sometimes in a slightly different and s Taylor v. Cummer Lumber Co., 59 Nash, 47 Ga. 218. See also Gilmore Fla. 638, 52 So. 614. v. Merritt, 62 Ind. 525 ; Bromley v. 9 Bigelow V. Elliott, Fed. Cas. No. Elliott, 38 N. H. 287, 75 Am. Dec. 1399, 1 Cliflf. (U. S.) 28. 182; Elmira &c. Co. v. Harris, 124 loWinship v. Bank of United N. Y. 280, 26 N. E. 541; North v. States, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 529, 8 L. ed. BIoss, 30 N. Y. 374. Contra: Cochran 216; Berthold v. Goldsmith, 24 How. v. Anderson County Nat. Bank, 83 (U. S.) 536, 16 L. ed. 762; Phillips v. Ky. 36, 6 Ky. L. 168. 139 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 139 broader sense. In the American and English Encyclopaedia of Law the following definition of dormant partner is given : "A dormant partner is one who takes no active part in the business, and whose name does not appear in the title of the partnership, and who is unknown to those who give credit to the firm." The same work designates a secret partner as, "one who participates in the business but keeps his relations with the firm a secret," thus making participation or non-participation in the business the distinction between the two, while later in the discussion of the cases, the distinction is practically obliterated, several cases being cited to the effect that a domant partner may act as clerk or agent.^^ Mr. Lindley describes a dormant partner simply as, "a part- ner taking no part in the management of the partnership," and yet later in his work on the subject he says : "If, however, a lender stipulates for more than this (e. g., for a right to control the business or the employment of the assets, or to wind up the business), * * * he ceases to be a mere lender, and becomes a dormant partner." In the case of Metcalf v. Officer^^ it is held that it is sufficient to make a partner dormant if he is not an os- tensible partner, while another federal case,^^ held that "secret partnership" means that partnership where the existence of cer- tain persons as partners is not made known to the public by any of the partners. It will be seen that these text books and cases, while recognizing, perhaps, some difference between the secret and the dormant partner, nevertheless, in a final analysis, make but little, if any, actual distinction between the two. Probably the correct solution of the matter would be that secret partner- ships are divided into two classes, those in which the secret part- ner is active, and those in which he is not active, the latter being known as dormant, and the former being loosely spoken of as secret, in a limited sense. A person may be ostensible as to cer- 11 Waite V. Dodge, 34 Vt. 181 ; How " United States Bank v. Binney, V. Kane, 2 Pin. (Wis.) 531, 2 Chand. Fed. Cas. No. 16791, 5 Mason (U. S.) 222, 54 Am. Dec. 152. 176. 12 2 Fed. 640. § 140 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 140 tain persons who know his connection with the firm, and still be dormant as to the public at large.^* § 140. Silent partners. — Silent partners, or sleeping part- ners, as they are often spoken of, are those members of the firm, who, while actually partners, and known to the world as such, nevertheless take no part whatsoever in the management of the business. Their liabihties, as a rule, are the same as those of the active partners, or, at least, their position as silent partners would not, of itself, usually create any different liability. § 141. Kinds of partnerships. — There are several different kinds of partnerships. The old classification made three divi- sions, relating to their scope, as follows: Universal, General, Special. Classification along other lines might be made, as, for instance, (1) Limited partnerships, (2) Joint stock companies, (3) Partnership associations, (4) Mining partnerships, (5) Trading partnerships, (6) Non-trading partnerships, (7) Sub- partnerships, (8) Legal or illegal partnerships. There are still other relations which are not, strictly speaking, partnerships, and yet which may result in obligations similar to partnership rela- tions, and these relations will be considered in this chapter, owing to their close connection hereto. Among them might be enumer- ated, (1) Defective corporations, (2) Unincorporated associa- tions, (3) Partnership by representation, (4) Joint ownership, (5) Joint adventure. These relations will be considered in detail after a review of the various kinds of partnerships above desig- nated. § 142. Universal partnerships. — As has been previously ^pointed out herein,^"* Roman law divided partnerships into two divisions, general and special. The first division of general part- nerships included those in which the partners placed all their property, time and efforts in a common ownership. This division i*In re Ess, Fed. Cas. No. 4530, 3 N. Y. 374; Fosdick v. Van Horn, 40 Biss. (U. S.) 301 ; North v. Bloss, 30 Ohio St. 459. ^^ See ante § 4. 141 KINDS OF PARTNERS AICD PARTNERSHIPS § 144 is by later ^yriters considered under an entirely separate heading, viz., universal partnerships, and will be so discussed heire. It is an unusual form of partnership, as comparatively few persons care to enter into such close relations with another, and yet it does exist.^^ In Louisiana universal partnerships are recognized by the code, but, unlike most states, must be registered." The case just cited also holds that the parties must put everything they possess in the partnership to make it universal. However, on account of the disfavor with which universal partnerships are viewed by the people at large, a court will not presume a partnership universal unless it clearly appears so to have been intended by the partners.^* There is no rule of public policy which is broken by universal partnership.^" It follows from the rule above given as to contribution in such partnerships that the same rule applies to division of profits, and that all profits, how- ever made, are for the joint benefit of the partners.^" § 143. General partnerships. — The second division of gen- eral partnership under Roman law is that form where the part- ners join their efifects and services in business or professions, not including certain outside matters. This division in itself is the general partnership of modern writers in common law jurisdic- tions. This is .the class of partnerships which we meet in every- day business life, with which we are most familiar, and that with which the greater portion of this work will be taken up. § 144. Special or particular partnerships. — The special or particular is the partnership which deals with a single investment or other transaction of a business nature. It is very satisfac- torily iexplained in a United States case,^^ which holds that a "Lyman v. Lyman, Fed. Cas. No. i^ Murrill v. Murrill, 33 La. Ann. 8628, 2 Paine (U. S.) 11; Gass v. 1233. Wilhite, 2 Dana (Ky.) 170, 26 Am. is Gray v. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616; Dec. 446; Waite v. Merrill, 4 Greenl. Mitchell v. O'Neale, 4Nev. 504. (Maine) 102, 16 Am. Dec. 238; " Gray v. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616. Gasely v. Separatists Soc, 13 Ohio ^^ Bates Partnership, p. 13. St. 144; Schriber v. Rapp, 5 Watts ^i !„ re Warren, Fed. Cas. No. (Pa.) 351, 30 Am. Dec. 327. 17191, 1 Dav. (U. S.) 320. § 145 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 142 partnership may exist in a single as well as in a series of transac- tions, and that if there is a joint purchase with a view to a joint sale and a communion of profit and loss, this will constitute a .partnership.^^ Not all associations of persons, however, who join together and subscribe toward a common fund for a pur- chase of property, can be considered special partnerships, for, owing to the lack of certain essentials of partnership, as, for in- stance, not being organized for profit, there may be no such rela- tion. An illustration of this principle is when certain persons join in building a church, which is to be owned by the members contributing in proportion to the various amounts contributed by them.^^ In some of the older cases this class of partnerships was referred to as "limited partnerships,"^* but this term is not used in the modern law in this connection, the term limited now refer- ring to liability, and not to scope. § 145. Classification loosely used. — The classification of partnerships into universal, general and special or particular is very generally used by text-book writers and jurists, but the line of demarcation between the classes is differently drawn. Some throw certain partnerships, which are general under the above classification, among universal partnerships, as, for example, where the whole capital is not invested, but the. scope of the busi- ness is unlimited.^^ Particular partnerships sometimes, under other classifications, take from general partnerships those part- nerships which do not necessarily deal with a particular transac- tion, but with a particular branch of business.^* 22 Kayser v. Mongham, 8 Colo. 232, 24 American Ins. Co. v. Coster, 3 6 Pac. 803. See also Heshion v. Paige (N. Y.) 323. Julian, 82 Ind. 576 ; Mumford v. 25 Goldsmith v. Sachs, 17 Fed. 726, Nicoll, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 611; Mifflin 8 Sawy. (U. S.) 110; Princeton &c. V. Smith, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 165. Tpk. Co. v. Gulick, 16 N. J. L. 161 ; See § 168 on partnership in a single Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law (Uni- transaction. versal Pts.). 23 Woodward v. Cowing, 41 Maine 26 gee cases cited under special 9, 66 Am. Dec. 211. See also § 124 partnership, § 144. on joint purchase and § 159 on joint ownership. 143 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 146 It is, however, submitted that the classifications last referred to are not logical, but arbitrary, and that there is no actual divid- ing line between them, as the line must consequently shift with every close decision. On the contrary, the clear lines of demar- cation of the classification herein is mentioned, and summarized as follows : Universal : All property and services. General : All property and services in a certain line or lines, less than all. Spe- cial : Single transactions. Perhaps, after all, the classification is not of supreme importance, as the rules governing the partner- ship liability and the individual liability connected thereto, are largely the same in all these divisions. § 146. Limited partnerships. — Limited partnerships, al- though coming properly within this classification, will be consid- ered but briefly here, owing to the fact that the subject has grown, under our modern conditions, to such proportions as to constitute almost a branch of the law in itself, and to require an entire chapter for an intelligent discussion. In many states statu- tory provision is made for the formation of limited partnerships. A limited partnership is one where the firm consists of one or more general partners and one or several special partners, the latter be- ing liable for the debts or losses of the firm only to the amount of their several contributions in cash to the firm capital.^^ Provision is made by such statutes for the method in which the limited part- nership must be formed and for the publication of notice of the limited liability of certain members. Should there be a failure to comply with these statutory regulations the resulting partnership will be general, and, not limited.^* In some jurisdictions it is pro- vided or held that substantial compliance with the statutory pro- vision is sufficient.^" Other cases hold that such statute must be 27 Black's Law Dictionary, 874; 567. "A limited partnership that has Robbins Electric Co. v. Weber, 172 not complied with the law of its crea- Pa. St. 635, 34 Atl. 116. tion is not a limited partnership at all. 28 Hutchins V. Page, 204 Mass. 284, It is, however, a partnership in which 90 N. E. 565, 134 Am. St. 656; Van- all the members are liable as at corn- horn V. Corcoran, 127 Pa. St. 255, 18 mon law." Blumenthal v. Whitaker, Atl. 16, 4 L. R. A. 386; Ussery v. 170 Pa. St. 309, 33 Atl. 103. Crusman (Tenn. Ch. App.), 47 S. W. 29 Cummings v. Hayes, 100 111. App. § 147 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 144 strictly complied with.^° Thus, where there was an omission of a required publication giving notice of the formation of such lim- ited partnership^^ or where the affidavit which stated that the special partner's contribution to the firm capital has been actually- paid in was false,^^ it has been held that there was a general part- nership. A limited partnership may also become general when upon renewal the assets of the 'firm are substantially less than they were at the time of its formation.^^ A limited partnership also becomes general if it continues in business after the time for which it was created has expired.** The statutory provision for the renewal and continuance of a limited partnership must be complied with.^^ § 147. Joint stock companies. — A joint stock company is an association of persons combining property or services in a 347; Manhattan Co. v. Laimbeer, 108 N. Y. 578, IS N. E. 712; Spencer Op- tical Mfg. Co. V. Johnson, 53 S. Car. 533, 31 S. E. 392; Deckert v. Chesa- peake Western Co., 101 Va. 804, 45 S. E. 799. See also Buckle v. Her, 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 214, 81 N. Y. S. 631 ; Patterson v. Youngs, 129 N. Y, S. 673. 30 Holliday v. Union Bag &c. Co., 3 Colo. 342; In re Thayer, Fed. Cas. No. 13867, 7 Am. L. Rev. 177; Pierce v. Bryant, S Allen (Mass.) 91; Hag- gerty v. Foster, 103 Mass. 17 ; Matter of Allen, 41 Minn. 430, 43 N. W. 382. 31 Davis V. Sanderlin, 119 N. Car. 84, 25 S. E. 815. 32 Myers v. Edison General Electric Co., 59 N. J. L. 153, 35 Atl. 1069. In the above case the certificate stated that the special partner had paid in his contribution, when it was not paid in fact till about a week later. Held this rendered the special partner liable generally. To same effect, Patterson v. Youngs, 129 N. Y. S. 673. See in this connection Chick v. Robinson, 95 Fed. 619, 37 C. C. A. 205, 52 L. R. A. 833. In the above case the affidavit was filed stating that the amount of the special partner's contribution to the capital stock had been paid in. The special partner's check for the amount had actually been received, but was not presented until after the affidavit was made. It was held that the receipt of the check justified the affidavit. For other cases in which it was held that there had not been a sufficient compliance with the statute see Spencer Optical Mfg. Co. v. John- son, S3 S. Car. 533, 31 S. E. 392; Blumenthal v. Whitaker, 170 Pa. St. 309, 33 Atl. 103; First Nat. Bank v. Creveling, 177 Pa. St. 270, 35 Atl. 595. 33 Durgin V. Colburn, 176 Mass. 110, 57 N. E. 213. See also Lee v. Burn- ley, 195 Pa. St. 58, 45 Atl. 668; Fourth Street Nat. Bank v. Whitaker, 170 Pa. St. 297, 33 Atl. 100. 3* Sarmiento v. The Catharine C, 110 Mich. 120, 67 N. W. 1085 ; Colum- bia Bank v. Berolzheimer, 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 235, 53 N. Y. S. 417. 35 Strang v. Thomas, 114 Wis. 599, 91 N. W. 237. 145 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 147 common business for profit, but which, by complying with cer- tain prescribed rules, may release its members from certain liabil- ities imposed upon ordinary partnerships. It partakes of the na- ture of a corporation, in that there is no delectus personarum as to members, and that neither the death of a member nor the transfer of his shares to another works a dissolution of the busi- ness.®° As Mr. Bates, in his work on Partnership says : "The fact of transferable shares makes such an association different, not merely in magnitude, but in kind, from ordinary partnerships, because not based upon mutual trust and confidence in the skill, knowledge, and integrity of every other partner. Hence a sale of his shares by a member, the shares being transferable, is not a dissolution. Death of a member is not a dissolution, if such was the intent, and the character of the association, in that the shares are transferable and it is governed by officers, and is in the form of a corporation, is evidence of such intent. It is sometimes thought that in a joint stock company there is no individual liabil- ity of shareholders, except as to the money actually paid in or subscribed. This, however, is not inherently correct, and is only made so by statute, this rule being recognized by the writers." Judge Story, in his work says : "In joint stock and other large companies which are not incorporated, but are a simple, though extensive, partnership, their liabilities to third persons are gener- ally governed by the same rules and principles which regulate com- mercial partnership." Along the same line Mr. Bates says : "There is no intermediate association, or form of organization, between a corporation and a partnership, known to the common law, and, unless otherwise provided by statute, as is the case in England and New York, a joint stock company is treated and has the attri- butes of a common partnership."^^ It is however true, with joint stock companies (as in other partnerships), that an agreement 38 Machinists' Nat. Bank v. Dean, Neish v. Oat Co., 57 Vt. 316 ; Walker 124 Mass. 81 ; Carter v. McClure, 98 v. Wait, 50 Vt. 668 ; Moore v. May, Tenn. 109 (1897), 38 S. W. 585, Z6 117 Wis. 192 (1903), 94 N. W. 45. L. R. A. 282, 60 Am. St. 842 ; Mc- " Bates Partnership, p. 72. 10 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 148 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 146 made between the parties limiting liability, which agreement is known and assented to by the creditor, is valid as to the creditor.'* Joint stock companies are also like corporations in that there is not general and mutual agency, but that the business is conducted through certain officers or agents who have all the power to bind the company that partners have to bind the firm.'' There is a dis- tinction between the common-law joint stock company, — ^which is in effect a partnership, though using a corporate name, and man- aged by selected members, as the shareholders are liable for the debts of the company as in an ordinary partnership*" — and the statutory joint stock company, which is organized under special statute, is practically a quasi-corporation, and is different from a corporation only in the fact that its members are liable as part- ners.*^ A later chapter will be devoted to a fuller consideration of joint stock companies. § 148. Partnership associations. — In some jurisdictions, among them Pennsylvania and Michigan, provision is made by statute for certain organizations known as partnership associa- tions.*^ These associations may be formed for any purpose which is carried on by an ordinary business corporation, and they are organized in much the same manner. They usually issue stock, adopt a seal, and can, in the state of their origin, sue and be sued in the association name. The word "limited" is appended to this name. In Pennsylvania, the transferee of stock can not take part in the management of the association until he is elected by the other members.*' The Pennsylvania courts hold that such an association is sui generis, is not a joint stock company, is a quasi-corporation, but while similar in some respects to a corpora- ls Walburn V. Ingilby, 1 Myl. & K. 279, 31 N. E. 96, 16 L. R. A. 183; 61 (1833), 3 L. J. Ch. 385. Westcott v. Fargo, 61 N. Y. 542, 19 38 Van Aernam v. Bleustein, 102 N. Am. Rep. 300. Y. 355, 7 N. E. 537, 2 N. Y. St. 470. *2 Act of June 2, 1874, Pa. Laws, *o Hodgson V. Baldwin, 65 111. 532-; p. 271 ; 2 Comp. Stat, of Mich., ch. Frost V. Walker, 60 Maine 468 ; Taft 160. V. Warde, 106 Mass. 518; Kramer v. *3 Laflin v. Steytler, 146 Pa. St. 434, Arthurs, 7 Pa. St. 165. 23 Atl. 215, 14 L. R. A. 690. *i People V. Coleman, 133 N. Y. 147 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 149 tion, is in its essentials a partnership.** The Massachusetts courts hold them to be merely joint stock companies and treat them as partnerships.*^ In Michigan they are considered corporations and not limited partnerships.*^ The United States Supreme Court holds that they are not corporations so far as federal juris- diction is concerned.*^ The status of such associations, outside of the state of their origin, is uncertain. § 149. Subpartnerships. — A subpartnership can perhaps be defined in no more concise and satisfactory manner than by borrowing Mr. Lindley's statement that it is a "partnership within a partnership." One or more of the partners in any part- nership may enter into another partnership among themselves or with third persons, for the further disposition of their profits or losses in the main partnership. For example, A, B and C are the members of a partnership. C has an agreement with another party, D, whereby D furnishes money to C, assists him therein, and is to receive one half the profits received by C therefor. This is only a subpartnership, and D is not liable as a partner in the principal firm to A and B, and, for the same reason, can not demand a partnership accounting from the principal firm. He has no ownership in the assets of the principal firm, before dis- tribution, but as soon as C gets his proportion of the profits, D is then an owner with C of C's interest.** That the subpartner can not have recourse against the princi- pal partners of their debtors, by reason of the subpartnership, is evident. A more difficult question is presented as to the liability ** Carter v. Producers' Oil Co., 182 ^^ Great Southern Fireproof Hotel Pa. St. 551, 38 Atl. 571, 39 L. R. A. Co. v. Jones, 177 U. S. 449, 20 Sup. 100; 200 Pa. 579, SO Atl. 167. Ct. 690, 44 L. ed. 482. See, contra, an *5 Edwards v. Warren Linoline &c. earlier circuit couft case, Andrews Works, 168 Mass. 564, 47 N. E. 502, Bros. Co. v. Youngstown Coke Co., 38 L. R. A. 791. Ltd., 86 Fed. 585, 30 C. C. A. 293. ^oStaver &c. Co. v. Blake, 111 ^^Ex parte Barrow, 2 Rose 252; Mich. 282, 69 N. W. 508, 38 L. R. A. Bray v. Fromont, 6 Madd. 5, 22 R. R. 798 ; Rouse &c. Co. v. Detroit Cycle 224 ; Ex parte Dodgson, Mont. & Mac. Co., Ill Mich. 251, 69 N. W. 511, 38 A. 445. L. R. A. 794. § 149 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 148 of the subpartner to the creditors of the principal firm. Like any other person, he may, of course, be liable under certain con- ditions, and this liability will be, therefore, excluded from this discussion, as the question arises at this place simply as to the lia- bility arising from the fact alone of subpartnership, with its sharing of profits, or profits and losses. We may also eliminate a discussion of the English law, as there is no liability there, since the case of Cox v. Hickman abrogated the sharing of profits as a test of partnership. This leaves the American law to be considered and in this country the law is not uniform. In many jurisdic- tions which follow the case of Cox v. Hickman, as a general rule the subpartner's liability is denied, as his sharing of profits does not of itself establish the liability. Even in some jurisdictions which do not recognize the authority of Cox v.' Hickman, but hold the test to be sharing of profits, subject to the exception that the profits must be profits as such, a subpartner is considered not to be a partner with the principal partners to creditors, as the subpart- ner does not share profits as such, but only has an interest in them as a fixed fund, after they are distributed to the partner with whom he is interested as a subpartner. The rule in force in New York, for example, illustrates this principle,^® while in Massachu- setts several leading cases^° hold the contrary doctrine, that the participation of the subpartner in the profits as such, renders him liable to the creditors of the principal firm. The above deci- sions in the states named are typical of the viewpoint from which ihe subject is seen in the various jurisdictions, and the gen- eral trend of any jurisdiction as to the test of partnership must be investigated in order to judge its attitude upon the liability of subpartners to creditors of the principal firm. The above New York case of Burnett v. Snyder further decides, howevei:, that one who becomes a joint owner with a partner of his share in a partnership, standing in his name alone, with the knowledge and « Nirdlinger v. Bernheimer, 133 N. Y. Super. Ct. 577 ; Burnett v. Snyder, Y. 45 (1892), 30 N. E. 561; Burnett 43 N. Y. Super. Ct. 238. V. Snyder, 81 N. Y. 550 (1880), 37 bo pitch v. Harrington, 13 Gray Am. Rep. 527; Burnett v. Snyder, 76 (Mass.) 468, 74 Am. Dec. 641; Bailey N. Y. 344 ; Burnett v. Snyder, 45 N. v. Clark, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 372. 149 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 150 consent of all the members of the firm, is liable as a partner. But this relation is more of a real partnership in the prin- cipal firm than a subpartnership, as it was an interest in the main firm itself, and was with the consent of the partners of the prin- cipal firm themselves, which is necessary in a partnership, but not in a subpartnership.^^ Some courts go a step further, and hold that the mere knowledge and consent of the other main partner- ship members does not make the subpartner a partner with them unless there was a new partnership among all to that effect.^^ The general rule in this country is undoubtedly in accordance with the rule in England and in New York, and is, it is submitted, the better and more logical of the two, although, it must be con- ceded, the Massachusetts rule is the only one which gives any meaning to the term "subpartnership," as it is the only rule which makes it a partnership with the principal firm at all.^^ § 150. Rights and liabilities of subpartners inter sese. — The principles above set forth only relate to the relations existing between the partnership and the subpartnership, and should not be confused with the principles applying to the. members of the subpartnerships as between themselves. As between thfese mem- bers themselves, the subpartnership is an ordinary partnership, of whatever class their agreement or the law makes it, and is gov- erned by all the laws usually governing such ordinary partner- ships. There is some question as to whether the subpartnership is, in fact, a real partnership, as it is sometimes said that, "the contract of so-called 'subpartnership' does not provide for a busi- 51 Along the same line, see Arquim- (1882), 8 Sawy. (U. S.) 176; Morri- bo V. Hillier, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 253. son v. Dickey, 122 Ga. 353, 50 S. E. Contra : Fitch v. Harrington, 13 Gray 175, 69 L. R. A. 87 ; Meyer v. Krohn, (Mass.) 468, 74 Am. Dec. 641 ; Rocka- 114 111. 574 (1885), 2 N. E. 495; fellow V. Miller, 107 N. Y. 507, 14 N. Reynolds v. Hicks, 19 Ind. 113 E. 433, 12 N. Y. St. 295. (1862) ; Boimare v. St. Geme, 113 52Sheare v. Paine, 12 Allen La. 898, 37 So. 869; Setzer v. Beale, (Mass.) 289; Channel v. Fassit, 16 19 W. Va. 274 ; Riedeburg v. Schmitt, Ohio 166. 71 Wis. 644, 38 N. W. 336. 53Bybee v. Hawkett, 12 Fed. 649 § 151 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 150 ness to be carried on by the contracting parties in common, with a view to profit."^* This objection is, however, based upon the false premise that such an association is not a business to be carried on by the con- tracting parties in common, with a view of profit. It is conceded that the above might be the case, but not necessarily so. The at- tending to the dividing and subdividing of profits, which might devolve upon the subpartnership, could become so complicated in itself that it might be looked upon as a separate business. The contracting parties might carry it on for their joint benefit, in common, and there would be a view of profits, although there might be, in some jurisdictions, a dispute as to whether or not the profits were profits as such. The great weight of authority is, moreover, in favor of the proposition that the subpartners are partners, as between themselves.^^ We have seen above that many jurisdictions hold that there is no partnership between the main partners and the person who is a subpartner only, as the profits are not shared as such. This reasoning does not necessarily apply to the subpartners in the affairs of the subpartnership, as it is readily seen that it has the essentials of a real partnership, loss even being possible if there are expenses, and small profit from the larger partnership. § 151. Trading and nontrading partnerships. — The dis- tinction between trading and nontrading partnerships is fully in- dicated, in a general way, by the names alone. The former is com- mercial, the object of which is buying and selling. The latter embraces those partnerships which are not embraced under the former. To this extent, the distinction is simple, may be seen at a glance, but when applied to individual cases it is often exceed- ingly hard to classify the relation. As a rule, the question is im- material as to which class the partnership belongs ; but one excep- tion often makes it very important, this exception being, that in 5* Burdick on Partnership, p. 61. Am. Dec. 641 ; Ex parte Dodgson, 55 Mathewson v. Clarke, 6 How. Mont. & McA. 445 ; Murray v. Bogert, (U. S.) 122, 12 L. ed. 370; Fitch v. 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 318, 7 Am. Dec. Harrington, 13 Gray (Mass.) 468, 74 466; Channel v. Fassitt, 16 Ohio 166. 151 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 151 a trading partnership there is a presumption of mutual and gen- eral agency, while the rule does not apply in nontrading partner- ships. Among trading partnerships might be enumerated those conducting the following businesses : Dry goods stores, general stores,^® buying and selling cattle and selling meat and vegeta- bles,^'' sugar refinery,^^ farming and cooperage,^'' and pork pack- ing.^" In Pennsylvania, however, it has been held that there is no distinction between nlechanical, manufacturing and commer- cial partnerships, as the necessity for borrowing might be as great in the former as in the latter.*^ The following partnerships, among others, have been held to be nontrading ones : Attorneys,^ ^ real estate, insurance and collecting,^'' mining and quarrying,** farming or planting,®^ a mere firm of brokers,*" running a the- ater.*'^ The rule as to the question of agency is very clearly laid down in the illustration last given, of persons running a theater. Loomis, J., there says, in his opinion : "In a commercial partner- ship each acting partner is its general agent, with implied author- ity to act for the firm in all matters within the scope of its busi- ness; and the presumption" of law is that all commercial paper which bears the signature of the firm, executed by one of the partners, is the paper of the partnership, for the reason that the giving of such notes would be within the usual course of mercan- tile transactions. But when we pass to nontrading partnerships the doctrine of general agency does not apply, and there is no 56 Walsh V. Lennon, 98 111. 27, 38 4 Dana (Ky.) 375; Marsh v. Gold, 2 Am. Rep. 75; Dow v. Moore, 47 N. Pick. (Mass.) 285; Hedley v. Bain- H. 419. bridge, 3 Q. B. 316, 2 G. & D. 483, 57 Wagner v. Simmons, 61 Ala. 143. 6 Jur. 853. B8 Twibill V. Perkins, 8 La. Ann. e^ Deardorf v. Thacher, 78 Mo. 128, 132. 47 Am. Rep. 95. 59 McGregor v. Cleveland, S Wend. e* Decker v. Howell, 42 Cal. 636 ; (N. Y.) 475. SkiUman v. Lachman, 23 Cal. 198. eoBenninger v. Hess, 41 Ohio St. 6= McCrary v. Slaughter, 58 Ala. 64. 230. "Hoskinson v. Eliot, 62 Pa. St. ae Third Nat. Bank v. Snyder, 10 393. Mo. App. 211. 62 Friend v. Duryee, 17 Fla. Ill, 35 «^ Pease v. Cole, 53 Conn. 53, 22 Am. Rep. 89; Breckinridge v. Shrieve, Atl. 681, 55 Am. Rep. S3. § 151 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 152 presumption of authority to support the act of one partner. Hence, in order to subject the firm upon a bill or note executed by the partner in its name, a course of conduct, or usage, or other fact^ sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the acting partner had been invested by his copartners with the requisite authority, must appear, or that the firm has ratified the act by receiving the benefit of it." This rule, we take it is the rule adopted by Amer- ican courts, and is but a reaffirmation of, and in accordance with the English rule. Lord Denman, in a well-known English case,°* said that: "Partners in trade have authority, as regards third persons, to bind the firm by bills of exchange, for it is the usual course of mercantile transactions so to do; and the authority is by the custom and law of merchants, which is part of the general law of the land. But the same reason does not apply to other partnerships. There is no custom that attorneys should be par- ties to negotiable instruments, nor is it necessary for the purpose of their business. Upon the whole, we think that the implied authority is confined to partners in trade." Some authorities ignore the test of liability referred to, but adopt another, which is equivalent in result. Chancellor Kent, in his chapter on partner- ship in the third volume of his Commentaries,®" omits the use of the terms "trading" and "nontrading" and makes the distinction between partnerships, in respect to the power of one partner to bind the firm, depend on the single test of the usual scope of the business, in connection with the subject-matter of the contract. This rule was adopted in Crosthwait v. Ross,^" where it was held that one partner in the practice of medicine could not bind the firm by drawing a bill or note on which to raise money, because it was not within the scope of the partnership business. Though under a different name, the real distinction here taken is between partners in trade and partners in an occupation.''^ As above treated, it really makes no difference whether the question hinges ssHedley v. Bainbridge, 3 Q. B. ^o i Humph. (Tenn.) 23, 34 Am. 316, 2 G. & D. 483, 6 Jur. 853. Dec. 613. "s 7th ed., p. 44. " Pease v. Cole, 53 Conn. 53 (1885), 22 Atl. 681,. 55 Am. Rep. 53. 153 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 152 upon the terms "trading partnership" or upon "scope of author- ity" as the first term impHes the second, in the absence of stipula- tions to the contrary. § 152. Mining partnerships. — A mining partnership per- mits the co-owners of a mine to be partners only in the profits, the mine being owned as tenants in common, and not as partner- ship property.''' The general rules of partnership apply, except where modified by the fact that the common property is held as tenants in common. For instance, as in other cases of part- nership, there must be some community of profit and loss.'''' The ownership of the mine as co-tenants, however, allows one party to sell his share to a third person without the consent of his co- owners and without dissolving the partnership, since the profits follow the property.'* Since this method of transfer of interests does away with the delectus personse, there is no relation of trust and confidence and one partner can not bind the other by his act or contract. Even a partner who has been placed in charge as manager can only bind the others by contracts for necessary labor or supplies, and can not give a note unless expressly authorized, or permitted by usage ?2Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512. C. C. A. 578; G. V. B. Min. Co. v. 9 Sup. Ct. 355, 32 L. ed. 764 ; Bissell First Nat. Bank, 95 Fed. 35, 35 C. C. V. Foss, 114 U. S. 252, 5 Sup. Ct. 851, A. 510; Thomas v. Hurst, n Fed. 29 L. ed 126,; Kahn v. Central Smelt- 372 ; Nisbet v. Nash, 52 Cal. 540 ; ing Co., 102 U. S. 641, 26 L. ed. 266; Duryea v. Burt, 28 Cal. 569; Haw- Meagher v. Reed, 14 Colo. 335, 24 kins v. Spokane Hydrauhc Min. Co., Pac. 681, 9 L. R. A. 455 ; Harris v. 3 Idaho 241, 28 Pac. 433 ; Southmayd Lloyd, 11 Mont. 390, 28 Pac. Tid, 28 v. Southmayd, 4 Mont. 100, 5 Pac. Am. St. 475; Daily v. Fitzgerald, 17 318; Lamar v. Hale, 79 Va. 147; N. Mex. 137, 125 Pac. 625, Ann. Cas. Blackmarr v. Williamson, 57 W. Va. 1914 D, 1183n; Lindley Partnership, 249, 50 S. E. 254, 4 Ann. Cas. 265 and p. 55. note ; Childers v. Neely, 47 W. Va. 70, " Barber v. Cazalis, 30 Cal. 92. 34 S. E. 828, 49 L. R. A. 468, 81 Am. 7* Ley V. Alston, 172 Fed. 90, 96 St. 777. § 152 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 154 to do so/' In one case it was said :^° "It would be most unjust to subject each proprietor to personal liabilities, which might sweep away all his property, created against his consent by those who became members against his wishes." It was said in one case with regard to the exceptions to the rules of ordinary part- nership as applied to mining partnerships : "Among the excep- tions is one which allows one member of a mining partnership to convey his interest in the mine and business to a stranger without dissolving the copartnership. This exception has grown out of the necessities of the case, which require the continuous working of mines in order that the same may be made profitable. So, like- wise, it has been held that neither assignment, nor death, nor bankruptcy of the owner of an interest in a mining concern should operate to dissolve a copartnership existing for the pur- pose of working the mine. Another difference between a mining partnership and an ordinary trading partnership is that the for- mer is not founded upon the delectus personse, while the latter is. Hence, one mining partner has not the right to bind his associates to the same extent as a member of a trading partnership."''^ It has been said that a mining partnership is a cross between ten- ancy in common and partnership proper.'* It is also true that mining partnerships are similar to joint stock companies, to the extent that there is no delectus personse, as above explained. It may be wondered why mining partnerships are to be looked upon as any different from partnerships in any other occupation, but it must be remembered that law is unsettled, as a rule, in mining 75 Kahn v. Central Smelting Co., R. R. 93 ; Tredwen v. Bourne, 6 M. & 102 U. S. 641, 26 L. ed. 266; Taylor W. 461, 9 L. J., Ex. 220, 4 Jur. 747. V. Castle, 42 Cal. 367 ; Jones v. Clark, ^^ Skillman v. Lachman, 23 Cal. 198, 42 Cal. 180; Settembre v. Putnam, 30 83 Am. Dec. 96. Cal. 490; Higgins v. Armstrong, 9 ^^ Patrick v. Weston, 22 Colo. 45, Colo. 38, 10 Pac. 232; Charles v. 43 Pac. 446 (1895). See also Charles Eshleman, 5 Colo. 107; Shaw v. Mc- v. Eschleman, 5 Colo. 114; Manville Gregory, 105 Mass. 96; Bentley v. v. Parks, 7 Colo. 128, 2 Pac. 212. Brossard, 33 Utah 396, 94 Pac. 736; ^s Gilmore Partnership, p. 107. Hartney v. Gosling, 10 Wyo. 346, 68 Mallett v. Uncle Sam Gold &c. Min. Pac. 1118, 98 Am. St. 1005 ; Fereday Co., 1 Nev. 188, 90 Am. Dec. 484. See V. Wightwick, 1 Russ. & M. 45, 31 also Nolan v. Lovelock, 1 Mont. 224. 155 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 153 camps, and that habits of miners, and their continuous change from one locality to another, together with the nature of the work, combine to produce a rule more conformable to mining conditions. Of course, the above only applies to the legal pre- sumption, and there is nothing to prevent the partners from adopting all the principles of an ordinary partnership, should they so provide.''® The majority in interest in a mining partner- ship have the right to control the method and means of working the mine.^" § 153. Creation and dissolution of mining partnerships. — A mining partnership arises by operation of law, where co-owners work a mine.*^ It may be created by agreement.*^ There may be a mining partnership merely in working a claim, which is TflBybee v. Hawkett, 12 Fed. 649, 8 Sawy. (U. S.) 176; Quinn v. Quinn, 81 Cat. 14, 22 Pac. 264; Decker v. Howell, 42 Cal. 636; Ly- man V. Schwartz, 13 Colo. App. 318, 57 Pac. 735; Haskins v. Cur- ran, 4 Idaho 573, 43 Pac. 559; State Nat. Bank v. Butler, 149 111. 575, 36 N. E. 1000; Doyle v. Burns, 123 Iowa 488, 99 N. W. 195; Freeman V. Hemenway, 75 Mo. App. 611; Congdon v. Olds, 18 Mont. 487; Hor- ton V. New Pass Gold &c. Min. Co., 21 Nev. 184, 27 Pac. 376, 1018; Ran- dall V. Merideth, 76 Tex. 669, 13 S. W. 576; Sauntry v. Dunlap, 12 Wis. 364; Crawshay v. Maule, 1 Swanst. 495, 1 Wils. 181. 80 Dougherty v. Creary, 30 Cal. 290, 89 Am. Dec. 116; Hawkins v. Spo- kane Hydraulic Min. Co., 3 Idaho 241, 28 Pac. 433 ; Bartlett v. Boyles, 66 W. Va. 327, 66 S. E. 474; Childers v. Neely, 47 W. Va. 70, 34 S. E. 828, 49 L. R. A. 468, 81 Am. St. 111. 81 Howard v. Luce, 171 Fed. 584; Walker v. Bruce, 44 Colo. 109, 97 Pac. 250; Manville v. Parks, 7 Colo. 128, 2 Pac. 212; Dale v. Goldenrod Min. Co., 110 Mo. App. 317, 85 S. W. 929; Freeman v. Hemenway, 75 Mo. App. 611 ; Daily v. Fitzgerald, 17 N. Mex. 137, 125 Pac. 625, Ann. Cas. 1914 D, 1183n; Bentley v. Brossard, 33 Utah 396, 94 Pac. IZt; Hartney v. Gosling, 10 Wyo. 346, 68 Pac. 1118, 98 Am. St. 1005; Marks v. Gates, 2 Alaska 519. In California and Idaho it is pro- vided by statute that "'a mining part- nership exists when two or more per- sons own or acquire a mining claim for the purpose of working it and extracting the mineral therefrom, ac- tually engage in working the same." Ferris v. Baker, 127 Cal. 520, 59 Pac. 937; Dorsey v. Newcomer, 121 Cal. 213, 12, Pac. 557; Duryea v. Burt, 28 Cal. 569; Hawkins v. Spokane Hy- draulic Min. Co., 3 Idaho 241, 28 Pac. 433. s^Ervin v. Masterman, 16 Ohio C. C. 62, 8 Ohio C. D. 516; Childers v. Neely, 47 W. Va. 70, 34 S. E. 828, 49 L. R. A. 468, 81 Am. St. 111. § 154 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 156 owned by one of the partners, and in the profits, though none in the title/" Co-ownership of a mining claim does not in itself constitute a mining partnership; it is a partnership only when the co- owners work the mine.** Where one merely enters into a "grub- stake" contract, by which he is to furnish supplies to a pros- pector and share in mining claims which he may discover, no partnership is created.^^ When one mining partrier dies, the survivors have no right of control of his interest — ^this right failing since there is no delectus personse.*" Whether a mining partner is liable for debts incurred by the partnership subsequent to the sale of his interest, depends on the facts of the case, and rests practically on the law of estoppel, and he may be liable to employes and creditors who do not know of the transfer.*^ The permanent suspension of the operation of a mine dissolves the mining partnership.^* The estate of a mining partner succeeds to the interest of a deceased partner occupying the same relation he would if alive.*" 'The ceasing of work by one mining partner dissolves the partnership as to him."" § 154. Legal and illegal partnerships. — The term "illegal partnership" is often loosely used, but it is, technically, an im- proper use of the term, as all real partnerships must be formed for a legal object. The relation thus formed for illegal purposes can not be a partnership, but simply an attempt to form a part- nership, and which may or may not carry partnership liability, according to the circumstances of each individual case. With this explanation, the term will hereafter be used, simply as a matter of convenience in referring to the subject, and without regard to its technical inaccuracy. The illegality of the firm, 83 McMahon v. Meehan, 2 Alaska «'■ Kelley v. McNamee, 164 Fed. 369, 278. 90 C. C. A. 357, 16 Ann. Cas. 303. 8* Madar v. Norman, 13 Idaho 585, ss Nielson v. Gross, 17 Cal. App. 74, 92 Pac. 572. 118 Pac. 725. 85 Costello V. Scott, 30 Nev. 43, 93 8^ Boehme v. Fitzgerald, 43 Mont. Pac. 1, 94 Pac. 222. 226, 115 Pac. 413. 86 Jones V. Clark, 42 Cal. 180. sxiLamont v. Reynolds (Colo. App.), 144 Pac. 1131. 157 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 155 however, may not affect the rights of third parties who are not parties thereto, it having been held that when a clergyman is pro- hibited by law from trading, and he becomes a secret partner in a trading firm, he is liable to become a bankrupt in respect to the partnership concerns.^* It is also generally true that, on the other hand, the creditor can not take any advantage of the fact that the partnership is illegal and that the fact of the illegality of the partnership will not give the creditor any rights in the partnership property which he would not have had were the part- nership legal.*^ The illegality will not, however, be presumed from minor and nonessential matters, but must be shown plainly to have arisen from an essential element of the partnership.®* The policy of the law, in illegal partnerships, is the same as the usual one in all illegal contracts, namely, to leave the parties in the same position as it finds them, and to lend no aid to carry out such an illegal agreement, and it will not aid in an accounting. It is immaterial whether the partnership is illegal, or whether the partnership is itself legally organized, but has some illegal profits or losses to be adjusted."* Liability arising from attempts to form partnerships having an illegal purpose will be further dis- cussed in the chapter on "Purposes and Subject-matter ;""^ and in the chapter on "Who May Be Partners," the subject of attempted partnerships between persons forbidden by law to form such re- lations, will be considered.®^ § 155. Defective incorporations. — There is a great di- versity of opinion as to whether or not persons attempting to form a corporation, which proves defective, and is not perfected, become liable to creditors of the concern as part- ners. Those jurisdictions which hold to the partnership lia- bility do so upon the theory that, the incorporation failing, it leaves the members thereof standing simply as individuals joined together in a common business for the sake of profit, and, ig- 91 Mej^ots Case, 1 Atk. 198. ^^Snell v. Dwight, 120 Mass. 9; 92 Tucker v. Adams, 63 N. H. 361. Fairbank v. Leary, 40 Wis. 637. 93 Whitcher v. Morey, 39 Vt. 4S9. 95 See ch. 6. 98 See ch. 7. § 155 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 158 noring the test of intention of the parties look upon them as having assumed partnership relations. The implication would arise that each subscriber would be liable to creditors for the whole indebtedness, but that he would also be entitled to a con- tribution from the other subscribers. This right of contribution was denied in a Kentucky case,®'' but the court, in its opinion, recognized the general rule, deciding the case "entirely upon the sufficiency of appellant's petition to sustain the action against appellees." Several citations are given in the notes below which hold that the subscribers in defectively organized corporations are Hable as partners.®* In one New York case'® it was even held that neither the intention of the subscribers nor the belief of the creditors in the transaction governed the relation, but that the mere fact that the corporation was not legally organized created the partnership liability. Other, and probably more numerous and authoritative, decisions hold a different rule, not holding the subscribers liable as partners if they believed that they were in- corporated, and assuming only a stockliolder's liability. This holding is more in conformity with the test of intention, and is supported by many strong decisions.^ If, however, a creditor obtains a judgment against a corporation as such, he is estopped from claiming that the stockholders are partners.^ Perhaps the clearest conception of the true rule is given by Mr. Justice Garver, in a Kansas case,^ from which decision, owing to its clear state- ment, we quote at some length : "When the question (of corporate existence) arises collaterally, as it does in this case, it is not nec- !"■ Warring v. Arthur, 98 Ky. 34, 32 York Iron Mine v. First Nat. Bank, S. W. 221 (1896), 17 Ky. L. 605. 39 Mich. 644; Merchants' Nat. Bank "8 Garnett v. Richardson, 35 Ark. v. Pendleton, 5S Hun (N. Y.) 579, 9 144; Flagg v. Stone, 85 111. 164; Cole- N. Y. S. 46, 29 N. Y. St. 891 ; Row- man V. Coleman, 78 Ind. 344 ; Vreden- land v. Meader Fur Co., 38 Ohio St. burg V. Behan, 33 La. Ann. 627 ; Mar- 269. tin V. Fewell, 79 Mo. 401. 2 Cresswell v. Oberly, 17 111. App. 89 Jessup V. Carnegie, 80 N. Y. 441, 281 ; Pocheln v. Kemper, 14 La. Ann. 36 Am. Rep. 643. 308, 74 Am. Dec. 433. ^ Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 22 ^ McLennan v. Hopkins, 2 Kans. Fed. 197; Tarbell v. Page, 24 111. 46; App. 260, 41 Pac. 1061 (1895). Ward V. Brigham, 127 Mass. 24 ; New 159 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 155 essary that the various steps prescribed by law should have been fully and regularly taken, or that the corporation should exist de jure ; it is sufficient that enough has been done to make it a cor- poration de facto. * * * It is difficult, and perhaps unneces- sary, to attempt to reconcile the many decisions bearing on this question. Between some of them there is an irreconcilable conflict, so that when we come to determine what is a de facto corporation, we are met by a diversity of authority." The rule recognized by the Supreme Court of this state is thus stated by Mr. Justice Brewer:* "When parties have associated themselves together for the purpose of organizing a corpora- tion under a general law, and have proceeded in good faith to take all the steps supposed necessary to complete such in- corporation, and on the faith thereof engage in business as a corporation for a series of years, a party who has repeatedly dealt with them as such will not, when sued on a note and mortgage held by it, be permitted to show, as a defense to the action, that there was some technical omission in the steps pre- scribed for incorporation. The corporation is one de facto ; and only the state can then inquire — and that in a direct proceed- ing — whether it be one de jure. * * * There must in such cases be a law under which the incorporation can be had. There must also be an attempt in good faith on the part of the incor- porators to incorporate under such law. And when, after this, there has been for a series of years an actual, open and notorious exercise, unchallenged by the state, of the powers of a corpora- tion, one who is sued on a note held by such corporation will not be permitted to question the validity of the incorporation as a defense to the action. No mere matters of technical omission in the incorporation, no acts of forfeiture from misuses after the incorporation, are subjects of inquiry in such an action. The attempt to incorporate, referred to in that case, must be something more than the mere physical organization, or formal arrangement into a working force, of the promoters of the enter- * Pape V. Capitol Bank, 20 Kans. 440, 27 Am. Rep. 183. § 156 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 160 prise. Something must be done beyond the mere transaction of business in the manner and form usually adopted by corpora- tions. There must also be something more tangible and effective than a mere mental operation in the direction of what is intended. The steps taken and the attempt made must, to some extent and in some degree, have resulted in the effecting of those things which the law designates as a prerequisite to a corporate exist- ence, however informal and irregular such proceedings and results may be." Some cases^ hold that when there is a failure on the part of the organizers of the claimed corporation to do some act, gen- erally the neglect to file the articles of association or incorpora- tion, made by the statute a prerequisite to corporate existence, there is no de facto corporation, and that the claimed corporate existence may be attacked collaterally. If, however, a person is sued by the alleged corporation upon a contract in which the corporate capacity is recognized, an exception to the foregoing rule exists,^ as the question, in this connection, hinges upon the rule which forbids a party to avoid his contracts simply because the person with whom he contracts has not the legal capacity to enter into a contract of which he has had the benefit. The whole question is, as has been indicated above, not uniform in the various jurisdictions, and has, in many, been made the subject of statutory regulation, and should, consequently, be carefully investigated in every jurisdiction. It will be more fully treated in a subsequent chapter.'' § 156. Unincorporated associations. — It will be remem- bered that, in order for an association of individuals to become 5 Bigelow V. Gregory, IZ 111. 197 ; Ih ; Society Perun v. Cleveland, 43 Kaiser v. Lawrence Sav. Bank, 56 Ohio St. 481, 3 N. E. 357; Sheble v. Iowa 104, 8 N. W. 772, 14 Am. Rep. Strong, 128 Pa. St. 315, 18 Atl. 397. 85; Whipple v. Parker, 29 Mich. 369; « Fresno Canal &c. Co. v. Warner, Granby Min. &c. Co. v. Richards, 95 72 Cal. 379, 14 Pac. Zl ; Meikel v. Mo. 106, 8 S. W. 246 ; Hurt v. Salis- German Sav. Fund Soc, 16 Ind. 181 ; bury, 55 Mo. 310 ; Abbott v. Omaha Jones v. Cincinnati Type Foundry Co., Smelting &c. Co., 4 Nebr. 416; Hill v. 14 Ind. 89; Massey v. Citizens' Build- Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31; Stout v. ing &c. Assn., 22 Kans. 624. Zulick, 48 N. J. L. 599, 7 Atl. 362 ; ^ See ch. 9. Buffalo & A. R. Co. v. Gary, 26 N. Y. 161 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 158 liable as partners, by reason of the association alone, there must be a view of profit. Consequently, if there be no profit in con- templation, there is no partnership or partnership liability. Co- ownership is hot partnership, in itself, and if two or more per- sons purchase property with the intention of dividing it, or of erecting a building, this, of itself, does not constitute a partner- ship.* § 157. Clubs and societies. — An interesting and important question arises here as to the liability of individual members of a club — social, political or otherwise, but not for profit. The rule is that the members are not liable as partners by reason of the membership,® but simply through their individual and personal participation in the act from which the liability originated. The officers who may make the contracts are liable, and all others who authorize or ratify, or assist in the making of the cbntract are liable thereon.^" Partnership agency is not implied from such association alone, but must be proved, though a course of dealing may amount to proof of originaljauthority.^^ In many ways the association, while not a partnership, is nevertheless, in some respects, similar thereto. For instance, part of the members can not sue the others on the contract of the association ;^^ but a court of equity may entertain a bill to wind up such an or- ganization.^^ Perhaps the general rule as to the liability of mem- bers of unincorporated associations is, that the membership itself does not alone establish the liability upon the member, but that the participation in, or authorization or ratification of the act by the member must be the cause of his liability. § 158. Partnership by representation. — The question often arises as to whether or not persons, acting as personal repre- 8 Porter v. McCIure, 15 Wend. (N. 'Heath v. Gpslin, 80 Mo. 310, SO Ajn. Y.) 187; Morris v. Litchfield, 14 111. Rep. 505; Eichbaum v. Irons, 6 Watts App. 83. See §§ 159, 169. & S. (Pa.) 61, 40 Am. Dec. 540. 9 Burt V. Lathrop, 52 Mich. 106, 17 ii Richmond v. Judy, 6 Mo. App. N. W. 716; Richmond v. Judy, 6 Mo. 465. App. 465. " McMahon v. Rauhr, 47 N. Y. 67. " Ray V. Powers, 134 Mass. 22 ; " Gorman v. Russell, 14 Cal. 531. 11 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 158 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 162 sentatives, such as administrators or executors, become partners with those who were in partnership with the persons for whom the representatives act. The executors and devisees of a deceased partner have no right to insist on admission into partnership with the surviving partners, unless those partners have previously- entered into an agreement to that effect,^* neither the authority to continue the business/^ The executors' right as against the surviving partners is to have the deceased partner's share ascertained and paid,^° and they may enforce this right by bringing an action which may ruin the partnership business. On the other hand, if executors allow the share of the deceased to remain in the business and take the profits for the estate, the executors or administrators may become personally liable to creditors as partners for debts contracted in carrying on the business.^^ Administration of the estate's interest as a going partnership under order of court may protect the representatives personally.^' Even if the testator di- rects the executor by will to continue the business and the articles of partnership permit this, the executor is personally liable for debts contracted in a partnership business, where he engages in the business and uses the testator's assets though for the benefit of the estate,^'' but if in conformance with a testamentary direc- tion or with the partnership articles, he merely allows the part- ner's capital to remain till the end of the partnership term, he is not personally liable, unless he personally engages in the busi- ness.^" The liability seems to depend on whether the executor 1* Chittenden v. Witbeck, 50 Mich, worth, 1 Mont. D. & D. 475 ; Ex parte 401, 15 N.W. 526; McCannv. Hazard, Garland, 10 Ves. 110, 7 R. R. 352; 36 Misc. 7, 72 N. Y. S. 45 ; Pearce v. Holme v. Hammond, 14 L. J., Ex. 157, Chamberlain, 2 Ves. Sr. 33 ; Crawford L. R. 7 Ex. 218. V. Hamilton, 3 Madd. 254 ; Crawshay is Waller v. Barrett, 24 Beav. 413, V. Maule, 1 Swanst. 495, 1 Wils. 181. 27 L. J. Ch. 214, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 128. isAltgelt V. Alamo Bank, 98 Tex. i^Wild v. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 252, 83 S. W. 6. 129, 7 Atl. 295, 57 Am. Rep. 552. IS Lindley Partnership (8th ed.), p. ^oRjchter v. Poppenhusen, 9 Abb. 695. (N. ,S.) 263, 57 Barb. 309, 39 How. " Michels Co. V. Young, 150 111. Pr. 82 (affd. 42 N. Y. ilZ) ; Wild v. App. 442; In re Maloney's Estate, 233 Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 29, 7 Atl. 295, Pa. 614, 82 Atl. 958; Ex parte Holds- 57 Am. Rep. 552. 163 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 158 merely leaves capital in the business, or himself actually takes part. In the latter case only he is personally liable, and is not liable in a representative capacity.^^ If he takes no active part, but merely allows the capital to remain, he is not personally liable.^^ In the case of Richter v. Poppenhusen,^* it was said that to ren- der the executors of a deceased partner liable as partners, with the surviving partner, in respect to the business carried on after the death of their testator : "It is necessary to show that they vol- untarily employed the testator's assets which had come to them, in the trade. It is not sufficient that the business is carried on by the surviving partner, with their assent and encouragement ; for it was his right and duty to do so, without either. * * * Nor do the executors incur any responsibility by allowing the share of the capital of the testator to remain in, and be employed in the business of the partnership, after his death, for the benefit of the cestui que trust, when it is done in accordance with the tes- tator's instructions contained in his will, or with the partnership agreement ; but the assets so directed to be employed are liable to make good the debts contracted during their employment. To this extent the estate of a deceased partner will, in equity, be applicable to the liquidation of the demands of those who have become creditors of the partnership after his decease. The ex- ecutors, however, can not be made liable personally, without entering into the partnership. When this is done, then they be- come liable as partners, although they derive no profit personally, but are concerned only for the use and benefit of others; and this liability arises either by virtue of an actual agreement, or upon the familiar principle that they have held themselves out to the world as partners." 21 Alsop V. Mather, 8 Conn. 584, 21 419, 58 Atl. 805 ; Egan v. Wirth, 26 Am. Dec. 703 ; Citizens' Mut. Ins. Co. R. I. 363, 58 Atl. 987. See cases cited V. Ligon, 59 Miss. 305 ; Richter v. in four last preceding notes. Poppenhusen, 9 Abb. (N. S.) 263, 57 2^9 Abb. (N.'S.) 263, 57 Barb. (N. Barb. 309, 39 How. Pr. 82 (aflfd. 42 Y.) 309, 39 How. Pr. 82 (affd. 42 N. N. Y. 373). Y. Z7Z). 22Tisch V. Rockafellow, 209 Pa. § 159 LAW OF PARTNERSHIPS 164 § 159. Joint ownership as partnership. — Joint ownership is not partnership, as a perusal of the decisions will show.^* Land may be purchased by two or more persons, with the intention of dividing it, or making separate sales.^^. It has even been held that a series of independent transactions wherein one finds money and buys land selected by the other, profits being divided when the lands are sold again, does not make the parties partners.^' If one party enters into a contract with another, that he will pur- chase an undivided interest in the second party's land, that they will divide it into lots and sell it, sharing profits and dividing the unsold lots, does not constitute a partnership inter sese.^^ A dis- tinction is seen if the property owned in common was obtained with a view of, and was used for, the purpose of carrying on a business, or if there is to be a community of interest in the profits and losses of the joint property. In such cases, there is a partnership relation.^* § 160. Joint adventure. — A joint adventure is a commer- cial enterprise undertaken by several persons jointly. It is of a nature analogous to partnership and governed, in most respects, by the same rules of law.^° One distinction from ordinary part- nership is that a joint adventure usually relates to a single trans- action.^" The principal distinction is that one party may bring 2* Dorman v. Gross, 3 111. App. 409. Doane v. Adams, IS La. Ann. 350 ; 25 Sikes V. Work, 6 Gray (Mass.) Chester v. Dickerson, 54 N. Y. 1, 13 433; Schaeffer v. Fowler, 111 Pa. St. Am. Rep. 550; Ross v. Willett, 76 451, 2 Atl. 558. Hun (N. Y.) 211, 27 N. Y. S. 785, 28 Wells V. Bibcock, 56 Mich. 276, 58 N. Y. St. 694; Berry v. Colborn, 22 N. W. 809, 27 N. W. 575. 65 W. Va. 493, 64 S. E. 636, 17 Ann. 27 Sears v. Munson, 23 Iowa 380. Gas. 1018. 28 Boeklen v. Hardenburgh, 37 N. so Camp v. United States, 15 Ct. CI. Y. Super. Ct. 110 (affd. 60 N. Y. 8) ; 469 (aflfd. 113 U. S. 648, 5 Sup. Ct. Belknap v. Wendell, 21 N. H. 175. 687, 28 L. ed. 1081, 20 Ct. CI. 531) ; See § 125 on distinctions between Pickerell v. Fisk, 11 La. Ann. 277; partnership and joint tenancy; also § Alderton v. Williams, 139 Mich. 296, 169 on partnership for dealing in 102 N. W. 753 ; Knapp v. Honley, 108 lands; also § 115 on community of Mo. App. 35*3, 83 S. W. J.OOS; Felbel interest and § 124 on joint purchase, v. Kahn, 29 App. Div. 270, 51 N. Y. 29 Slater v. Clark, 68 111. App. 433 ; S. 435. 165 KINDS OF PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS § 160 an action at law for a breach ot the contract or a share of profits or losses or to recover a contribution.^^ In some jurisdic- tions it is said that a corporation may not become a partner, but may take part in a joint adventure.^^ The subject will be treated more fully later. 31 Hurley v. Walton, 63 111. 260; 363, 100 Am. Dec. 415; Peltier v. Williams v. Henshaw, 11 Pick. Sewall, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 386; Fin- (Mass.) 79, 22 Am. Dec. 366,; See- lay v. Stewart, 56 Pa. St. 183. horn V. Hall, 130 Mo. 257, 32 S. W. 32 Mestier v. A. Chevalier Pave- 643, 51 Am. St. 562; Taylor v. Brad- ment Co., 108 La. 562, 32 So. 520. ley, 39 N. Y. 129, I Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) CHAPTER VI PURPOSES AND SUBJECT-MATTER 165. Purpose must be for gain. ' 166. Association for purpose other than pecuniary profit. 167. Voluntary associations for mu- tual relief. 168. Partnership may exist as to single transaction. 169. Partnership for dealing in real estate. 170. Illegal purpose or business. 171. Grounds of illegality. SECTION 172. Sharing profits of crime. 173. Offenses against morality or public welfare. 174. Partnership in public office. 175. Effect of illegality generally — Accounting to partner. 176. Effect of illegality — Severable contract. 177. Effect of illegality — Partner re- quired to turn over proceeds of illegal transaction. § 165. Purpose must be for gain. — This subject may be considered in two aspects : First, the purposes for which a part- nership may be formed in general; and,, second, the scope of a particular partnership agreement. These two phases of the sub- ject will be briefly treated in the order named. As is made appar- ent by the preceding chapters, the fundamental idea of a partner- ship inter se is that it is formed for the purpose of trade or gain in business, and that each partner has the right of common owner- ship in the profits, and to participate in a division of them.^ The 1 See ante, ch. 3, "A partner- ship is a creature of the law mer- chant, and its origin is founded in that law which is the custom of merchants, recognized and enforced by the courts. One essential feature which must be always present to con- stitute a partnership is that it is formed for business purposes. It is a voluntary association, arising out of contract, for the purpose of carrying on a joint undertaking, with the ob- ject of making a profit to be shared among the partners. Every definition of a partnership includes the purpose of business and profit. It is a com- bination of two or more persons of capital, or labor, or skill, or some or all of these, for the purpose of busi- ness for the common benefit." Teed V. Parsons, 202 111. 455, 66 N. E. 1044; Missouri^ Bottlers' Assn. v. Fennerty, 81 Mo. App. 525. 166 167 PURPOSES AND SUBJECT-MATTER § 166 Uniform Partnership Act^ defines partnership as an association of persons to carry on, as co-owners, a business for profit, and nearly all the other definitions emphasize the fact that to consti- tute a partnership, the purpose of the association must be for gain.^ § 166. Association for purpose other than pecuniary profit. — As a result, associations, the objects of which are social, literary, or merely to further the public good or mental advancement of their members, and not for pecuniary gain, are not usually considered partnerships.* Thus, a musical club,^ a grand army post,® an association to enforce excise laws,'' an association to save property from destruction by fire,^ a reform club," are not partnerships. The same is true of a social and religious organization, the members of which put their property in common and live together as- one family and have everything in common, there being no profit sharing and no business.^" An agreement whereby several persons keep house together in order to diminish expenses, one to pay certain designated bills and the other to pay all other bills, has been held not to constitute a part- nership.^^ Nor does a mere agreement to hold land in common 2 Uniform Partnership Act, § 6 (1). Midland Counties Guardian Society 3 See ch. 2, ante. for the Protection of Trade.") * Lewis V. Tilton, 64 Iowa 220, 19 = Danbury Cornet Band v. Bean, 54 S. W. 911, S2 Am. Rep. 436; Burt v. N. H. 524; Stewart v. Gibson, 7 CI. Lathrop, 52 Mich. 106, 17 N. W. 716; & F. 707. McMahon v. Rauhr, 47 N. Y. 61 ; La- « Pain v. Sample, 158 Pa. St. 428, fond V. Deems, 81. N. Y. 507, 8 Abb. 27 Atl. 1107. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 344; Ostrom v. ^ McCabe v. Goodfellow, 133 N. Y. Greene, 161 N. Y. 353, 55 N. E. 919; 89, 30 N. E. 728, 17 L. R. A. 204. Ash V. Guie, 97 Pa. St. 493, 39 Am. s Thomas v. Ellmaker, 1 Pars. Eq. Rep. 818 (a masonic lodge) ; Winona Cas. (Pa.) 98. Lumber Co. v. Church, 6 S. Dak. 498, » Flemyng v. Hector, 2 Gale 180, 6 62 N. W. 107; Wilson v. Henderson, L. J. Ex. 43, 2 M. & W. 172 ("West- 123 Cal. 258, 55 Pac. 986; Davison v. minster Reform Club"). Holden, 55 Conn. 103, 10 Atl. 515, 3 "Teed v. Parsons, 202 III. 455, 66 Am. St 40; Wise v. Perpetual Trus- N. E. 1044 (where it was more in the tee Co. (Eng.), A. C. 139 (1903); nature of a tenancy in common). Caldicott V. Griffiths, 1 C. L. R. 715, " Austin v. Thomson, 45 N. H. 113. e Ex. 898, 23 L. J. Ex. 54. ("The § 167 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 168 constitute a partnership/^ And an association of farmers to con- struct and operate a telephone line to connect their residences, each bearing his share of costs and expense, is not a partnership under the New York Code, since the organization was not for the purpose of engaging in trade or business, and there were no profits." § 167. Voluntary associations for mutual relief. — ^A com- pany of rural residents who erect and maintain a telephone route connecting their residences, each paying expenses and maintain- ing his own connections, is a voluntary association, not a part- nership/* A voluntary unincorporated association of manufac- turers to look after the affairs of its members as affected by labor unions of their employes, is not a partnership, although it may incidentally accumulate property/" Patrons of a voluntary association engaged in cheese making do not become copartners therein/" The members of a farmers' union, one of whom, un- der a contract with the union, managed a store for it, are not partners, and are not liable to contribute for his services and expenditures/' On the other hand, voluntary associations for mutual relief in times of sickness or want, by means of funds raised by initiation fees, dues and the like, are often considered as partnerships/* It was said in one case that a society for the employment of its funds in purposes of mutual benevolence, among its members and their families, in the absence of charter, is a "voluntary association of individuals, and the members, in "Huckabee v. Nelson, 54 Ala. 12; " Primm v. White, 162 Mo. App. Gilmore v. Black, 11 Maine 485 ; 594, 142 S. W. 802. Treiber v. Lanahan, 23 Md. 116; i^A. J. Lindemann v. Advance Sikes V. Work, 6 Gray (Mass.) 433; Stove Works, 170 111. App. 423. Ballou V. Spencer, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) is Coolidge v. Taylor, 85 Vt. 39, 163; White v. Fitzgerald, 19 Wis. 80 Atl. 1038. 480. " McDonald v. Fleming, 178 Mich. "Branagan v. Buckman, 67 Misc. 206, 144 N. W. 519. (N. Y.) 242, 122 N. Y. S. 610 (judg- is Pgarce v. Piper, 17 Ves. 1, 11 ment affd. (1911), 145 App. Div. 950, R. R. 1 ; Beaumont v. Meredith, 3 130 N. Y. S. 1106). See also Primm v. Ves. & B. 180; Gorman v. Russell, 14 White, 162 Mo. App. 594, 142 S. W. Cal. 531. 802. 169 PURPOSES AND SUBJECT-MATTER § 168 their relations to third persons, are to be considered as partners, in the same manner as individuals associated for the purpose of banking; or joint stock companies."^' § 168. Partnership may exist as to single transaction. — It is not essential that the subject-matter of a partnership should be a permanent or continuing business ; there may be a partner- ship merely for the consummation of a single transaction, ven- ture or undertaking.^** Thus, a partnership rnay be created by an agreement relating to a single transaction in the sale or pur- chase of land,^^ or in the sale of particular mining properties,^^ or the resale of wool purchased for such purpose.^* It has also been held that an agreement whereby the parties are to co-operate in the sale of lands, on which one of them holds an option, and share in the ■ profits, constitutes a partnership agreement.^* On the other hand it has been held that advance 19 Babb V. Reed, S Rawle (Pa.) 151, 28 Am. Dec. 650. 20 Harris v. Umsted, 79 Ark. 499, 96 S. W. 146; Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 30 Pac. 605, 16 L. R. A. 745, 29 Am. St. 133 ; Robinson v. Compher, 13 Colo. App. 343, 57 Pac. 754; Plunk- ett V. Dillon, 4 Houst (Del.) 338; Winstanley v. Gleyre, 146 111. 27, 34 N. E. 628; Jones v. Davies, 60 Kans. 309, 56 Pac. 484, 72 Am. St. 354 (revd. 61 Kans. 602, 60 Pac. 314) ; Cochran v. Anderson County Nat. Bank, 83 Ky. 36, 6 Ky. L. 168; Ripley V. Colby, 23 N. H. 438; Clark v. Rumsey, 59 App. Div. (N. Y.) 435, 69 N. Y. S. 102; Demarest v. Koch, 129 N. Y. 218, 29 N. E. 296; Hulett V. Fairbanks, 40 Ohio St. 233; Yeo- man V. Lasley, 40 Ohio St. 190; Flower v. Barnekofif, 20 Ore. 132, 25 Pac. 370, 11 L. R. A. 149; Pierson v. Steinmyer, 4 Rich. (S. Car.) 309; Spencer v, Jones, 92 Tex. 516, 50 S. W, 118, 71 Am. St. 870; Williamson V. Nigh, SB W.-Va. 629, 53 S. E. 124; Westcott V. Oilman (Cal.), 150 Pac. 777 ; Shacklef ord v. ' Williams, 182 Ala. 87, 62 So. 54. 21 Rush V. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 319; Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 30 Pac. 605, 16 L. R. A. 745, 29 Am. St. 133 ; Jones V. Davies, 60 Kans. 309, 56 Pac. 484, 72 Am. St. 354 (revd. 61 Kans. 602, 60 Pac. 314) ; Yeoman v. Lasley, 40 Ohio St. 190; Spencer v. Jones, 92 Tex. 516, 50 S. W.' 118, 71 Am. St. 870, revg. (Tex. Civ. App.), 47 S. W. 29. See also Bank of Monroe v. Drew, 126 La. 1028, S3 So. 129, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 255; Clark v. Sidway, 142 U. S. 682, 35 L. ed. 1157, 12 Sup. Ct. 327. See, however, Gottschalk v. Smith, 156 111. 377, 40 N. ,E. 937 (affg. 54 111. App. 341) to the contrary. 22 Spencer v. Barnes, 25 Cal. App. 139, 142 Pac. 1088. 23Stundon v. Dahlenberg, 184 Mo. App. 381, 171 S. W. 37. 2* Frazer v. Linton, 183 Pa. St. 186, 38 Atl. 589. See also Clark v. Emery, § 169 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 170 of money to purchase and erect buildings in consideration of interest on the moriey advanced and one-half the profits of the sale, which profits are guaranteed to be equal at least to a certain sum, the advances and profits being secured by a mortgage, does not constitute the party advancing a partner with the other.^^ However, one distinction between a partnership and a joint ad- venture is, that a partnership ordinarily is formed for transact- ing a general business of some kind, while a joint adventure is formed for a single transaction.^® § 169. Partnership fot dealing in real estate. — A partner- ship may exist for the purpose of buying, dealing or speculating in land.^' The elements essential to a partnership for dealing in real estate are those necessary to the formation of any other partnership, and whether there is a partnership depends more on the intention of the parties than anything else. The mere joint purchase of land does not make the owners partners.^* A 58 W. Va. 637, 52 S. E. 770, S L. R. A. (N. S.) 503, for a case somewhat similar, in which it was held that no partnership was formed. 25 Curry v. Fowler, 87 N. Y. 33, 41 Am. Rep. 3.43. 2« Saunders v. McDonough (Ala.), 61 So. 591. " Shaeffer v. Blair, 149 U. S. 248, 13 Sup. Ct. 856, Z7 L. ed. 721 ; Clay V. Freeman, 118 U. S. 97, 6 Sup. Ct. 964, 30 L. ed. 104; Thompson v. Bow- man, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 316, 18 L. ed. 1Z(>; Pendleton v. Wambersie, 4 Cranch (U. S.) 73, 2 L. ed. 554; Bates V. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 30 Pac. 605, 16 L. R. A. 745, 29 Am. St. 133; Grant v. McArthur's Exrs., 153 Ky. 356, 155 S. W. 732; Winstanley v. Gleyre, 146 III. 27, 34 N. E. 628; Holmes v. McCray, 51 Ind. 358, 19 Am. Rep. 735 ; Richards v. Grinnell, 63 Iowa 44, 18 N. W. 668, 50 Am. Rep. 727; Jones v. Davies, 60 Kans. 309, 56 Pac. 484, 72 Am. St. 354 (revd. 61 Kans. 602, 60 Pac. 314) ; Simps6n V. Tenney, 41 Kans. 561, 21 Pac. 634; Winslow V. Young, 94 Maine 145, 47 Atl. 149; Dudley v. Littlefield, 21 Maine 418; Morgart v. Smouse, 103 Md. 463, 63 Atl. 1070, 115 Am. St. 367; Corey v. Cadwell, 86 Mich. 570, 49 N. W. 611 ; Menage v. Burke, 43 Minn. 211, 45 N. W. 155, 19 Am. St. 235; Hunter v. Whitehead, 42 Mo. 524; Williams v. Gillies, 75 N. Y. 197; Chester v. Dickerson, 54 N. Y. 1, 13 Am. Rep. 550; Mitchell v. Ton-, kin, 109 App. Div. (N. Y.) 165, 95 N. Y. S. 669; Hulett v. Fairbanks, 40 Ohio St. 233; Ludlow v. Cooper, 4 Ohio St. 1; Flower v. Barnekoff, 20 Ore. 132, 25 Pac. 370, 11 L. R. A. 149; Kelley v. Bourne, 15 Ore. 476, 16 Pac. 40; Spencer v. Jones, 92 Tex. 516, SO S. W. 118, 71 Am. St. 870. See note, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 503. 28 See § 124, ante ; Clark v. Sidway, 171 PURPOSES AND SUBJECT-MATTER § 169 partnership to deal in lands may be created by an oral agree- ment, and a written one is not essential.^" ' Under the following circumstances the courts have held that partnerships to deal in lands were created ; where lands were bought jointly for specula- tion, each to share equally in the net profits,'" or in net profits less a commission to the one finding a purchaser,'^ or to share equally in purchase-money, expenses, and proceeds,'^ even though title is taken in the name of but one of those jointly interested,*' if it is provided that the title is so taken for the benefit. of all, or it appears from the agreement that it was clearly the intention of the parties to share expenses and profits as partners. This rule holds in some cases where one party has advanced all the money, and the other has furnished services only, the per- son furnishing the money to be paid interest on the advances.'* In a good many other cases, parties sharing in the profits of the sale of land have been held not to be partners, in most of which it seems that a portion of the profits was taken as interest, com- mission, or compensation for services.'^ This is especially true if there is no sharing in losses,'^ or in profits while undivided,'^ 142 U. S. ^82, 12 Sup. Ct. 327, 35 L. s* Richards v. Grinnell, 63 Iowa 44, ed. 1157; Thompson v. Bowman, 6 18 N. W. 668, 50 Am. Rep. 727 ; Corey Wall. (U. S.) 316, 18 L. ed. 736; v. Cadwell, 86 Mich. 570, 49 N. W. Clark V. Emery, 58 W. Va. 637, 52 611 ; Smith v. Putnam, 107 Wis. 155, S. E. 770, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 503. 82 N. W. 1077, 83 N. W. 288. 29 See post §§ 218, 219. ^ ss See §§ 75, 17, 80, ante. Seymour 30 Hodge V. Mitchell, 33 Minn. 389, v. Freer, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 202, 19 L. 23 N. W. 547 ; Guibert v. Saunders, ed. 306 ; Smith v. Garth, 32 Ala. 368 ; 45 Hun 589, 10 N. Y. St. 43 ; Hulett Mayfield v. Turner, 180 Til. 332, 54 V. Fairbanks, 40 Ohio St. 233 ; Can- N. E. 418 ; Burkee v. Gunn, 41 Kans. ada V. Barksdale, 84 Va. 742, 6 S. E. 496, 21 Pac. 637, 13 Am. St. 300; 10. Wells V. Babcock, 56 Mich. 276, 22 N. 31 Davenport v. Buchanan, 6 S. W. 809, 27 N. W. 575; Wakeman v. Dak. Zld, 61 N. W. 47. Somarindyck, IZ App. Div. 601, 76 32 Ludlow V. Cooper, 4 Ohio St. 1. N. Y. S. 815. ssKayser v. Maugham, 8 Colo. se Morton v. Nelson, 145 111. 586, 232, 6 Pac. 803; Heard v. Wilder, 81 32 N. E. 916. Iowa 421, 46 N. W. 1075 ; Newell v. ^^ Clark v. Emery, 58 W. Va. Gil, Cochran, 41 Minn. 374, 43 N. W. 84; 52 S. E.770, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 503n. Flower v. Barnekoff, 20 Ore. 132, 25 Pac, 370, 11 L. R. A. 149. 169 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 172 and has been held even where the parties themselves termed their association a "partnership."^* In many cases it has been held that, under the circumstances, those who shared in the profits and losses arising from the purchase and sale of lands were liable 38 Thompson v. Holden, 117 Mo. 118, 22 S. W. 905. In the case of Winslow V. Young, 94 Maine 145, 47 Atl. 149, a S3mdicate was formed to buy certain lands for speculation, by tacit assent the title was taken by three of the parties as trustees, but the deed contained no declarations of trust and no names of beneficiaries, and there was never any agreement by the parties in interest, defining or limiting the trust, or the rights, pow- ers and duties of the trustees, nor did the trustees make any declaration of trust. When the title was obtained, it was conveyed to the trustees sub- ject to a mortgage, which the trus- tees agreed and assumed to pay with- out the knowledge of the other par- ties and without authority from them. The trustees paid the amount due on the mortgage and brought a bill in equity seeking contribution from the other parties. The court held that the parties to the agreement to purchase lands were not partners, and since the trustees had paid the mortgage voluntarily without authority, the other parties could not be compelled to contribute. The court said in the course of its opinion: "It may be conceded that under some circum- stances, associated parties may be re- garded in law as partners, when the parties themselves do not understand that a partnership exists. But before the law will imply such relation, con- trary to the intention of the parties, it must appear not only that funds were contributed to a common object, but that the enterprise oi" business contemplated and intended to be car- ried on, is of such a character and purpose that it can not result in a successful issue if the proprietors are treated as tenants in common and not co-partners, ^t" * * It is undoubted- ly true that the purchase was specu- lative and that the proprietors ex- pected their profits to arise from sales of the land. They did not contem- plate building upon it or making other improvements, but simply to hold it for sale at advanced prices, which it was supposed would be obtained in a short time. There was therefore no necessity for a partnership to accom- plish this end. Ownership as tenants in common was equally effective. The elements which justify a court in finding a partnership to result from the character of the business to be done are wanting. * * * One ele- ment of a partnership is a community of interest in the subject-matter of it. But that alone is insufficient. * * * Another element is that each partner from the relation itself becomes the agent of all the others, having the jus disponendi of its property, and authority to bind the firm by con- tracts, within the scope of the busi- ness, and upon dissolution of the partnership by death of one of its members, the survivors become en- titled to retain and dispose of the partnership effects for a settlement of its affairs. In the present case, while there was community of inter- est, there was no element of agency in the individual parties. This objec- tion might be met and overcome if by 173 PURPOSES AND SUBJECT-MATTER 170 as partners to third persons.^* So the members of a joint stock company formed to deal in real estate have been held liable as partners,*" in other cases those sharing in profits from the sale of lands have been held not liable as partners to third persons.*^ § 170. Illegal purpose or business. — A partnership which is formed for the purpose of carrying on an illegal business or one which is contrary to public policy is, at least to that extent, void.*^ Thus, where a partnership is formed for the purpose of illegally acquiring public coal lands, neither the partnership nor agreement of all the proprietors the title had been taken by the trustee under an active and defined trust to manage and dispose of the property. But this was not the case. * * * Even if the payments of the several parties were regarded as payments to a common fund to purchase the prop- erty jointly, when the trustees took title without any trust declared by them or by the parties in interest and none was subsequently declared by agreement of all, the trust in Winslow and his associates resulted to the con- tributors in their several proportions, as an integral interest in the land and attached to it, and the individual owner could have compelled a con- veyance of his individual share from the trustees, if his share was fully paid, — if not so paid, then upon pay- ment of the amount due. Upon all the facts it is apparent that a partner- ship was not intended by the parties, nor can one result as matter of law." 39 Morse v. Richmond, 97 III. 303 (afifg. 6 III. App. 166) ; Straus v. Kohn, 83 111. App. 497; Jones v. Da- vies, 60 Kans. 309, 56 Pac. 484, 72 Am. St. 354 (revd. 61 Kans. 602, 60 Pac. 314); Palliser v. Ehradt, 46 App. Div. 222, 61 N. Y. S. 191 ; Sage V. Sherman, 2 N. Y. 417; Fowler v. Stone's River Nat. Bank (Tenn.), 57 S. W. 209; Upton v. Johnson, 84 Wis. 8, 54 N. W. 266. 40 Clagett V. Kilbourne, 1 Black (U. S.) 346, 17 L. ed. 213. 41 Demarest v. Koch, 129 N. Y. 218, 29 N. E. 296 (affg. 26 Jones & S. 583, 9 N. Y. S. 726) ; Curry v. Fowler, 87 N. Y. 33, 41 Am. Rep. 343. 42 Powell V. Maguire, 43 Cal. 11; Craft V. McConoughy, 79 111. 346, 22 Am. Rep. 171; Tenney v. Foote, 95 111. 99; Hunter v. Pfeiffer, 108 Ind. 197, 9 N. E. 124; Spaulding v. Na- than, 21 Ind. App. 122, 51 N. E. 742; Anderson's Admr. v. Whitlock, 2 Bush (Ky.) 398, 92 Am. Det. '489; Stewart v. M'Intosh, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 233; Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14, 39 Atl. 268; Sampson v. Shaw, 101 Mass. 145, 3 Am. Rep. 327; Dunham v. Presby, 120 Mass. 285; McGunn v. Hanlin, 29 Mich. 476; Du- rant v. Rhenier, 26 Minn. 362, 4 N. W. 610; Shriver v. McCloud, 20 Nebr. 474, 30 N. W. 534; Gaston v. Drake, 14 Nev. 175, 33 Am. Rep. 548; Tucker v. Adams, 63 N. H. 361; Watson v. Murray, 23 N. J. Eq. 257; Kelly v. Devlin, 58 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 487 (aff. 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 555); Warner v. Griswold, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 665; Woodworth v. Bennett, 43 N. Y. 273, 3 Am. Rep. 706; King v. Wi- nants, 71 N. Car. 469, 17 Am. Rep. § 171 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 174 the party with whom it contracts can obtain relief under a con- tract made in furtherance of the original legal agreement.*^ It must be made plainly to appear, however, that the purposes for which the partnership is formed are illegal.** § ,171. Grounds of illegality. — Partnerships may be illegal because they are against public policy or against positive law, statute or otherwise. They are often referred to, in a general way, under more divisions than above given, but it is submitted that all other divisions are really subdivisions of the two classes above given. On account of the fact that often both of the above classes may contain a particular offense, the statute gov- erning the offense is simply declaratory of the public policy, there will be no attempt here to classify the various subdivisions under either of the above, but some of the particular subdivisions of one or both are hereafter given, which, if the object of a part- nership, would render it illegal and invalid. § 172. Sharing profits of crime. — An agreement for shar- ing the profits of crime is one of the most conspicuous of those rendering the partnership invalid. An old English case, Everet V. Williams, not found in the reports but often referred to by the old writers, is too interesting and too much to the point to be here omitted, although its very existence is denied by some. There, it is said, one highwayman sued another with whom he had worked his occupation, for a partnership accounting of the result of their operations. Realizing the absurdity of their posi- tion, the plaintiff's lawyers drew up their bill in such a manner that the transactions appeared to be exchanges and not robberies, 11; Dudley v. Little, 2 Ohio 504, 15 Am. St. 837; Watson v. Fletcher, 7 Am. Dec. 575; Davis v. Gelhaus, 44 Grat. (Va.) 1; Fairbank v. Newton, Ohio St. 69, 4 N. E. 593 ; Central Ohio 50 Wis. 628, 7 N. W. 543. Salt Co. V. Guthrie, 35 Ohio St. 666 ; *3 Kennedy v. Lonabaugh, 19 Wyo. Jackson v. Akron Brick Assn., S3 352, 117 Pac. 1079, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, Ohio St. 303, 41 N. E. 257, 35 L. R. A. 133n. 287, 53 Am. St. 638; Morris Run **Thwaites v. Coulthwaite (1896), Coal Co. V. Barclay Coal Co., 68 Pa. 1 Ch. 496, 65 L. J. Ch. 238, 74 L. T. St. 173, 8 Am. Rep. 159; Wiggins v. 164, 44 W. R. 295, 60 J. P. 218; Dela- Bisso, 92 Tex. 219, 47 S. W. 637, 71 mour v. Roger, 7 La. Ann. 152; Will- 175 PURPOSES AND SUBJECT-MATTER § 172 the profits of which were over two thousand pounds, as alleged. In some manner the actual facts were made apparent, the bill was dismissed, at the costs of counsel who signed it; and the solicitors of the plaintiff were fined fifty pounds, each, and one of them deported. Both plaintiff and defendant were hanged. Whether or not the account is authentic, it at least shows the law as it then existed, relative to the effect of an agreement to share the profits of crime upon the attempted partnership. The same rule, of course, applies to other forms of crime, such as smug- gling,*^ carrying on a gambling establishment, or lottery^" (which includes speculating in futures or on margins),*^ book- making or illegal horseracing,*^ contracts in restraint of trade,*" or, in fact, to any attempted partnership relation in any act which the law recognizes as a crime. There are decisions in several states that hold that an agreement to control prices is not illegal if the effect is not to prevent a healthy competition or to raise prices.^" Although one of the cases cited in support of this contention is an Ohio case, it is not the present Ohio law. A statute enacted several years ago, commonly known as the Valentine Act, which includes, as offenses, combinations, "to limit or reduce the pro- duction, or increase, or reduce, the price of merchandise or any commodity;" also, "to fix at any standard or figure, whereby its price to the public or consumer shall be in any manner con- iams V. Connor, 14 S. Car. 621; Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14, 39 Whitcher V. Morey, 39 Vt. 459; Fair- Atl. 268; Morrison v. Bennett, 20 bank v. Leary, 40 Wis. 637. Mont. 560, 52 Pac. 553, 40 L. R. A. « Biggs V. Laurence, 3 T. R. 454; 158. Stewart v. Gibson, 7 CI. & Fin. 707. *» King v. Winants, 71 N. Car. 469, *6 Smith V. Richmond, 114 Ky. 303, 17 Am. Rep. 11 ; Central Ohio Salt 70 S. W. 846, 24 Ky. L. 1117, 102 Am. Co. v. Guthrie, 35 Ohio St. 666; Mor- St. 283; Watson v. Murray, 23 N. J. ris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Eq. 257; Watson v. Fletcher, 7 Grat. Co., 68 Pa. St. 173, 8 Am. Rep. 159. ( Va.) 1 ; Berns v. Shaw, 65 Va. 667, so Breslin v. Brown, 24 Ohio St. 565, 64 S. E. 930, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 522n IS Am. Rep. 627; Potter v. Morris (gambling). &c. Dredging Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 422, 46 *''Tenney v. Foote, 95 111. 99. Atl. 537; Wopdworth v. Bennett, 43 *8Shaffner v. Pinchback, 133 III. N. Y. 273, 3 Am. Rep. 706; Fairbank 410, 24 N. E. 867, 23 Am. St. 624; v. Newton, 50 Wis. 628, 7 N. W. 543. § 173 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 176 trolled or established, any article, etc., etc.," changed the Ohio law subsequent to the decision cited, and makes the mere com- bination to control and Establish prices an offense, regardless of whether the purpose is or is not the raising of prices."^ In other states partnership agreements to advance prices and pre- vent competition have been held unenforcible.^^ A partnership formed for the purpose of trading with persons inhabiting states declared in insurrection is illegal.^^ Where certain per- sons, relatives, agreed to file on different one-hundred-sixty-acre tracts of public coal lands, and convey them to a corporation to be formed, granting the corporation an option, such option was held illegal and void, and the agreement to obtain the coal lands was held a criminal conspiracy against the United States to ob- tain coal lands, since the statute allows an individual to enter only one hundred sixty acres of coal land, and an association only three htindred twenty acres.^* § 173. Offenses against morality, or public welfare. — On account of the necessity of protecting the public morality, agree- ments contrary thereto, whether relating to partnership or other- wise, have been refused the countenance of the law from time immemorial, by statute, or, if there is no statute in any par- ticular jurisdiction upon the particular offense, then upon the broad power of public policy. One member of a partnership which has for its purpose the renting of apartments for purposes of prostitution, can not maintain an action against the Other for an accounting. '^^ It has been held that where a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife, though not married, legally, since 5^- Jackson v. Akron Brick Assn., 53 ^^ Snell v. Dwight, 120 Mass. 9. Ohio St. 303, 41 N. E. 257, 35 L. R. A. ^* Kennedy v. Lonabaugh, 19 Wyo. 287, S3 Am. St. 238. , 352, 117 Pac. 1079, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, 52 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Wabash R. 133n. Co., 61 Fed. 993, 9 C. C. A. 659 ; Craft 5= Chateau v. Singla, 114 Cal. 91, 45 V. McConoughy, 79 111. 346, 22 Am. Pac. 1015, 33 L. R. A. 750, 55 Am. Rep. 171 ; Leonard v. Poole, 114 N. St. 63. Y. 371, 21 N. E. 707, 4 L. R. A. 728, 11 Am. St. 667. 177 PURPOSES AND SUBJECT-MATTER § 173 the woman was in fact bound by a previous undissolved common law marriage, upon the death of the man, the woman is entitled to one-half the property, as a partner."* On the other hand, in another jurisdiction, where a woman had lived in meretricious relations with a man for years, knowing him to be married, it was held that such illicit relationship was not the consideration for a partnership between them, and she could not maintain an action against him for an accounting as a partner for the prop- erty accumulated by him."^ A surviving partner has also been denied the right to an accounting against the deceased partner's executrix, where tl^e partnership was formed to manufacture and sell distilled liquors, when the business was conducted and the licenses, state and federal, held in the deceased's name; and the state law required that the applicant for a, distiller's license must state that he is the only person pecuniarily interested in the business, and the federal laws required every distiller to give the collector of the district written notice as to the parties interested in the business/^ A secret partnership agreement to stifle or diminish competitive bidding on public work or letting is void, such contracts being against public policy.^® An agreement to s^ Chapman v. Chapman, 16 Tex. railroad company) ; Hannah v. Fife, Civ. App. 382, 41 S. W. 533. 27 Mich. 172 ; Pendleton v. Asbury, "Vincent V. Moriarty, 52 N. Y. S. 104 Mo. App. 723, 78 S. W. 651 519, 31 App. Div. 484. (combination between newspapers of =8 Vandegrift v. Vandegrift, 226 Pa. county) ; Whalen v. Harrison, 26 254, 75 Atl. 365. Mont. 316, 67 Pac. 934; Baird v. 59 McMullan v. Hoffman, 69 Fed. Sheehan, 38 App. Div. ■ (N. Y.) 7, 56 509 (fictitious bid made to give ap- N. Y. S. 228 (affd. 166 N. Y. 631, 60 pearance of competition) ; Hoffman v. N. E. 1107) ; Coverly v. Terminal McMullen, 83 Fed. 372, 28 C. C. A. Warehouse Co., 85 App. Div. (N. Y.) 178, 45 L. R. A. 410 (affd. 174 U. S. 488, 83 N. Y. S. 369 (affd. 178 N. Y. 639, 43 L. ed. 1117, 19 Sup. Ct. 839) 602), 70 N. E. 1097 (lease of dock (fictitious bid) ; Brady v. Yost, 6 belonging to city of New York) ; Idaho 273, 55 Pac. 542 ; Hunter v. Daily v. Hollis, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 570, Pfeiffer, 108 Ind. 197, 9 N. E. 124; 66 S. W. 586 (contractors agreed as Edelen v. Newman, 5 Ky. L. 120 to amount that each should bid ; suc^ (combination among liverymen to cessful bidder to share profits). A prevent competition between them- contract entered into by an adminis- selv^s in bidding for contract to carry tratrix, which would induce her to mail to and from terminal office of a discourage purchasers from attending 12— Row. ON Partn,— Vol. 1 § 174 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 178 purchase officers' and court fees is illegal, but there may be a right to an accounting as to other business embraced in the partnership agreement, where the funds obtained from the purchase of fees were not used in the other business.'" It is of course well set- tled that compensation can not be recovered for services rendered in the performance of an illegal lobbying contract." So, a co- partner who expends money for lobbying purposes can not com- pel contribution on the part of the other partner nor will the partner making such expenditures be entitled to a credit for the amount so expended when chargeable with receipts.'^ A partner- ship agreement between a president of a bank, who agreed to advance capital, and another party, for land and cattle transac- tions, was illegal because money was loaned to the partners from the bank of which one was president."* § 174. Partnership in public office. — As a general rule there can be no partnership in a public oifice and an agreement, to transfer to or divide with another the emoluments of a public office is void, because against public policy."* An agreement be- tween partners to divide equally the salary of the office of prose- cuting attorney, to which one of them was elected, is void and unenforcible, since the tendency of such a contract is to injure the public."" However, it was earlier held in the same state that her sale as administratrix, is against 108, 25 L. ed. 899 ; Martin v. Wade, 37 public policy. Beatrice Creamery Co. Cal. 168; Campbell v. Offutt, 151 Ky. V. Fitzgerald, 70 Nebr. 308, 97 N. W. 229, 151 S. W. 403 ; Schmitt v. Dool- 301. ing, 145 Ky. 240, 140 S. W. 197, Ann. 60 Spurlock V. Wilson, 160 Mo. App. Gas. 1913 B, 1078; McGowan v. New 14, 142 S. W. 363. Orleans, 118 La. 429, 10 Ann. Cas. 61 Cary v. Western Union Tel. Co., 633 ; Glover v. Taylor, 38 La. Ann. 47 Hun (N. Y.) 610, 20 Abb. N. Cas. 634; Bailey v. Sibley Quarry Co., 166 (N. Y.) 333, 15 N. Y. St. 204; Globe Mich. 321, 129 N. W. 17; First Nat. Works V. United States, 45 Ct. CI. Bank of Columbus v. State, 68 Nebr. (U. S.) 497. / 482, 94 N. W. 633, 4 Ann. Cas. 423; 62 McDonald v. Buckstaff, 56 Nebr. Gray v. Hook, 4 N. Y. 449; Hunter 88, 76 N. W. 476. v. Nolf, 71 Pa. St. 282; Waldo v. 63 Rush V. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Martin, 4 B. & C. 319, 10 E. C. L. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 319, rehearing 341, 2 Car. & P. 1, 12 E. C. L. 3, 6 denied Id. 609. Dowl. & R. 364, 28 Rev. Rep. 289. 6* Meguire v. Corwine, 101 U. S. 65 Anderson v. Branstrom, 173 179 PURPOSES AND SUBJECT-MATTER § 175 an agreement by a public officer that his salary should be assets of a partnership would be enforced, since this was not considered as the assignment of unearned salary as a public officer, but as an agreement as to the disposition of the salary when earned."" There can be no partnership in the office of administrator." § 175. Effect of illegality generally — Accounting to part- ner. — As shown in preceding sections the courts generally will not recognize a partnership contract to carry on an illegal business or to conduct a legal business in an unlawful manner, and will not enforce its claims against third parties nor compel an accounting or contribution between the parties."^ Where a partner who is innocent of any connection with the wrong-doing asks an accounting and division of the profits, the copartner, in order to defeat a division, can not show that he made the profits by cheating customers,"® or otherwise illegally,'^'' in order to avoid rendering his share of profits to the partner seeking an account- ing. So where the purpose or business was not illegal or immoral, a partner will not be permitted to avoid sharing of loss by setting Mich. 157, 139 N. W. 40, 43 L. R. A. Providence Mach. Co. v. Browning, ■ (N. S.) 422n, Ann. Cas. 1914 D, 817n. 72 S. Car. 424, 52 S. E. 117; Wiggins 68 McGregor v. McGregor, 130 v. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219, 47 S. W. 637, Mich. SOS, 90 N. W. 284, 97 Am. St. 71 Am. St. 837; Watson v. Fletcher, 7 492. See also Thurston v. Fairman, Grat. (Va.) 1 ; Harris v. Amery, L. 9 Hun (N. Y.) 584. R. 1 C. P. 148, Harr. & R. 294, 12 Jur. «7 Seel/s Admr. v. Beck, 42 Mo. (N. S.) 165, 35 L. J. C. P. 89, 13 L. 143. T. Rep. (N. S.) 504, 14 W. R. 199. ¥See cases cited in note 42, § 170; ^sVan Tine v. Hilands, 131 Fed. McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U. S. 639, 124; Blalock v. Copeland, 23 Ky. L. 19 Sup. Ct. 839, 43 L. ed. 1117; Ma- 14SS, 65 S. W. 349; Pennington v. fine &c. Ins. Bank v. Megar, Dud. Todd, 47 N. J. Eq. 569, 21 Atl. 297, (Ga.) 83; Shaffner v. Pinchback, 133 11 L. R. A. 589, 24 Am. St. 419; 111. 410, 24 N. E. 867, 23 Am. St. 624; Thwaites v. Coulthwaite (1896), 1 Smith V. Richmond, 114 Ky. 303, 70 Ch. 496, 65 L. J. Ch. 238, 74 L. T. S. W. 846, 24 Ky. L. 1117, 102 Am. 164, 44 W. R. 295, 60 J. P. 218. St. 283; Morrison v. Bennett, 20 ^" Jones v. Davidson, 2 Sneed. Mont. 560, 52 Pac. 553, 40 L. R. A. (Tenn.) 447; Corralitos Co. v. 158; Vandegrift v. Vandegrift, 226 Mackay, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 316, 72 Pa. 254, 75 Atl. 365, 18 Ann. Cas. 404; S. W. 624. § 176 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP ^ 180 up that they were the result of a sharp practice in business which he suggested.'^ § 176. Effect of illegality — Severable contract. — As above indicated, illegality in the object, of an attempted partnership makes it invalid. The illegality, however, in order to render the partnership invalid, must touch the whole partnership, and, if the business of the partnership be severable, and some parts of the business are illegal, and some parts legal, the relation will stand as to the parts which are legal, and will be illegal as to the illegal parts.'^ Thus a partnership in breeding, training and racing horses is legal, and may be settled in court, but in the settlement one partner is not entitled to credit for money paid by him on a bet on horses made for the firm, though there was a promise on the part of the firm to repay him/^ § 177. Effect of illegality — Partner required to turn over proceeds of illegal transaction. — Contrary to the general rule and on the principle that their duty to .turn over the proceeds of an illegal transaction is collateral to the transaction itself, agents" 71 Shriver v. McCloud, 20 Nebr. 474, '^ Central Trust &c. Co. v. Respass, 30 N. W. 534. 112 Ky. 606, 66 S. W. 421, 23 Ky. L. 72 Northrup v. Phillips, 99 111. 449; 1905, 56 L. R. A. 479, 99 Am. St. 317. Anderson v. Powell, 44 Iowa 20; '4 state v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 34 Dunham v. Presby, 120 Mass. 285; Md. 344; Haacke v. Knights of Lib- Willson V. Owen, 30 Mich. 474; Todd erty Social Qub, 16 Md. 429, 25 Atl. V. Raffert/s Admr., 30 N. J. Eq. 254; 422; Willson v. Owen, 30 Mich. 474; Lane v. Thomas, 37 Tex. 157 ; Gilliam v. Brown, 43 Miss. 641 ; Whitcher v. Morey, 39 Vt. 459. See Cheuvronf v. Horner, 62 W. Va. 476, Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Mitchell, 24 59 S. E. 964. Contra : Clarke &c. Co. Okla. 488, 103 Pac. 720, 20 Ann. Cas. v. Brown, 77 Ga. 606, 4 Am. St. 98; 371, as to the right of persons to Alexander v. Barker, 64 Kans. 396, 67 form a partnership to carry on a busi- Pac. 829. See also Daniels v. Barney, ness in which it is necessary that the 22 Ind. 207, This latter case holds person conducting that business be le- that the principal may recover unless gaily qualified to do so. For a case the agent engaged in the unlawful holding that both partners need not transaction at the orders of the prin- possess the legal qualifications, in cipal. Compare also with Houts v. case one of them has such qualifica- Scharbaner, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 60S, tions and the business is to be car- 103 S. W. 679, where vendor's agent ried on by him, see Harland v. Lil- falsely represented to the vendees that , ienthal, 53 N. Y. 438. he was a joint purchaser with them. 181 PURPOSES ANO SUBJECT-MATTER § 177 and partners" have been required to turn over and account for the proceeds of an unlawful transaction, especially when the transaction is completed and a division of the pronts has been agreed on.''® The illegality of one contract does not ex- tend to another unless the two are united either in consideration or promise.''^ It was held the vendor could not re- cover money paid his agent in fur- therance of and in accordance with their scheme to mislead and defraud the vendees. But a vendee or pur- chaser who appoints an agent to con- summate the deal may recover from his agent commissions paid to the latter by the vendor, notwithstanding the vendee intends to dispose of the property in an illegal manner. Com- mercial Club V. Davis, 136 Mo. App. 583, 118 S. W. 668. In case the party from whom the proceeds are sought to be recovered was not merely an agent or depositary but a co-conspira- tor, no recovery can be had. Feltner V. Feltner, 132 Ky. 705, 116 S. W. 1196. '5 This doctrine probably originated in Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 70, 17 L. ed. 732; Fryer v. Marker, 142 Iowa 708, 121 N. W. 526, 23 L.R. A. (N. S.) 477n; Richardson v. Welch, 47 Mich. 309, 11 N. W. 172; Gilliam v. Brown, 43 Miss. 641 ; Crescent Ins. Co. V. Bear, 23 Fla. SO, 1 So. 318, 11 Am. St. 331; Andrews v. New Or- leans Brewing Assn., 74 Miss. 362, 20 So. 837, 60 Am. St 509. "Although a contract may be illegal, it does not follow that it is illegal or immoral for the parties to it, after its com- pletion, to fairly settle and adjust the profits and losses which have resulted from it. The vice of the contract does not enter into such settlement." Mitchell V. Fish, 97 Ark. 444, 134 S. W. 940, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 838n, quoting from De Leon v. Trevino, 49 Tex. 88, 30 Am. Rep. 101. See also Simon v. Garlitz (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. W. 461. But compare Wiggins V. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219, 47 S. W. 637, 71 Am. St. 837. See, however, Butler V. Agnew, 9 Cal. App. 327, 99 Pac. 395 ; Craft v. McConoughy, 79 111. 346, 22 Am. Rep. 171 ; Snell v. Dwight, 120 Mass. 9; Morrison v. Bennett, 20 Mont. 560, 52 Pac. 553, 40 L. R. A. 158; Coffey v. Burke, 132 App. Div. (N. Y.) 128, 116 N. Y. S. 514; Citi- zens' Nat. Bank v. Mitchell, 24 Okla. 488, 103 Pac. 720; Vandegrift v. Van- degrift, 226 Pa. 254, 75 Atl. 365 (in which it was held that since recovery could not be had without relying on the illegal partnership it would be de- nied. This was an action for an ac- counting brought by a surviving part- ner against the executrix of the de- ceased partner). 76 Mitchell V. Fish, 97 Ark. 444, 134 S. W. 940, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 838n. See also McRae v. Warmack, 98 Ark. 52, 135 S. W. 807 (as to the right of an assignee of a life insurance policy to recover the amount of premiums paid by him and the amount which the intestate actually owed him). '''' Kansas City &c. Brick Co. v. Na- tional Surety Co., 167 Fed. 496 (ac- tion to recover for brick furnished a contractor with which to make a pub- lic improvement, the contract for the improvement being illegal because let in violation of the statute governing such matters.) CHAPTER VII WHO MAY BE PARTNERS SECTION 185. Generally. 186. Aliens. 187. Felons and convicts. 188. Infants. 189. Insane persons. 190. Married women. 191. Husband and wife. 192. Partnership as partner. 193. Corporation — As general rule, can not be partner. 194. Theory that corporation may enter into partnership — Uni- form Partnership Act. 195. Corporation held liable as part- SECTION 196. Corporation held liable as part- ner — Illustrations. 197. Corporation as co-owner not held liable as partner. 198. Tenants in common as part- ners. 199. Authority of agent to make his principal a member of a part- nership. 200. Partners not qualified to take part in firm business requir- ing license. 201. Delectus personarum — Choice of partners. § 185. Generally. — Any person who has capacity to con- tract may make a valid contract of partnership. The Uniform Partnership Act provides^ that, "A partnership) is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit," and that "person" shall be considered to include individu- als, partnerships, corporations, and other associations. Mr. Justice Lindley says :^ "By the law of this country, a valid contract of partnership can be entered into between any persons who are not under the disabilities of minority or unsoundness of mind, and are not convicts within the meaning of 33 and 34 Vict. ch. 23. * * * There are certain trades, businesses and professions Which can not be lawfully carried on, either solely or in partner- ship, unless some statutory requisite has been complied with, but 1 Uniform Partnership Act, § 6, cl. ^ Lindley, Partnership (8 ed.), p. 86. 1, § 2, cl. 3. 182 183 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS § 186 now that the disabilities under which spiritual persons formerly lay have been removed, the author is not aware that there is any glass of persons (ej^cept convicts), who, being of sound mind and over twenty-one years of age, are rendered incapable of be- coming members of partnerships. * * * Agreements entered into between several persons, some of whom are by law incom- petent to contract, are not wholly null and void, but are only in some respects less effective than if all the parties to them were competent. Hence there is nothing to prevent a person who is not sui juris from being a partner. But if any such person is a partner, his or her want of capacity to contract will necessarily give rise to consequences deserving special notice." § 186. Aliens. — Alien friends may be partners, but if war breaks out between their respective countries they become alien enemies, and the partnership is dissolved or suspended.^ By the law of nations all intercourse between citizens of countries at war with each other which is inconsistent with a state of hos- tilities is prohibited. Within that prohibition is included any act or contract which tends to increase the enemy's resources, and every kind qf trading or commercial dealing or intercourse, di- rectly or indirectly, between the two countries in any form.* 5 McAdams v. Hawes, 9 Bush the ransom of persons ; (2) property (Ky.) IS; Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 from the enemy s hands; (Brandon v. Mass. 561, 97 Am. Dec. 124, 1 Am. Nesbit, 6 T. R. 28, 3 R. R. 109; Good- Rep. 142; Woods v. Wilder, 43 N. Y. rich v. Gordon, IS Johns. (N. Y.) 6; 164, 3 Am. Rep. 684; New York Life Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 Ins. Co. V. Statham, 93 U. S. 24, 23 Wash. (U. S.) 484, Fed. Cas. No. L. ed. 789. 3373) ; (3) contracts by prisoners of * Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561, war made for their subsistence while 97 Am. Dec. 124, 1 Am. Rep. 142; in the hands of the enemy (Crawford Shaw V. Carlile, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) v. The William Penn, 3 Wash. (U. 594; Briggs v. United States, 143 U. S.) 484, Fed. Cas. No. 3373) ; (4) or S. 346, 36 L. ed. 180, 12 Sup. Ct. 391, contracts to enable a shipmaster in an 27 Ct. Gl. 564. As to status of citi- enemy's harbor to return the vessel zens of the North and South during to her home port (Crawford v. The the Civil War, see The Prize Cases, William Penn, 3 Wash. (U. S.) 484, 2 Black (U. S.) 635, 17 L. ed. 459. Fed. Cas. No. 3373; Hallet v. Jenks, The following agreements are rec- 3 Cranch (U. S.) 210, 2 L. ed. 414). ognized as valid: (1) agreements for § 186 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 184 Except as mentioned in the preceding note an alien enemy can not, except with the Hcense or permission of the government,' make a vahd contract,' nor enforce a prior existing agreement,^ so long as the war continues.^ Ordinarily, contracts entered into prior to the declaration of war are merely suspended during its continuance and revive upon its termination.^ But commercial partnerships or other executory contracts, continuing in their nature, which can not be performed without violating the laws governing a state of war, are dissolved thereby. This applies to any contract entered into prior to hostilities that contemplates or B Matthews v. McStea, 91 U. S. 7, 23 L. ed. 188. License may be im- plied from such aliens being permit- ted to remain in the country after the outbreak of hostilities. Zacharie V. Godfrey, SO 111. 186, 99 Am. Dec. 506; Parkinson v. Wentworth, 11 Mass. 26; Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119;. Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561, 97 Am. Dec. 124, 1 Am. Rep. 142 ; Clarke v. Morey, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 68; Bradwell v. Weeks, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 1; Russel v. Skipwith, 6 Bin. (Pa.) 241; Otteridge v. Thompson, 2 Cranch (U. S.) 108, Fed. Cas. No. 10618. It may be im- plied from a general relaxation of the rule against nonintercourse. Black- burne . v. Thompson, 15 East 81, 3 Camp. 61, 13 R. R. 382. 8 Hill V. Baker, 32 Iowa 302, 7 Am. Rep. 193; Phillips v. Hatch, 1 Dill. (U. S.) 571, Fed. Cas. No. 11094; Wright V. Graham, 4 W. Va. 430. ' Semmes v. City Fire Ins. Co., 36 Conn. 543 ; Brooke v. Filer, 35 Ind. 402; Bell v. Chapman, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 183; Jackson v. Decker, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 418; Blackwell v. Willard, 65 N. Car. 555, 6 Am. Rep. 749; Wilcox v. Henry, 1 Dall. (U. S.) 69, 1 L. ed. 41 ; Mumford v. Mum- ford, 1 Gall. (U. S.) 366, Fed. Cas. No. 9918; Haymond v. Camden, 22 W. Va. 180;, Sturm v. Fleming, 22 W. Va. 404. 8 Marchand v. Coyle, 18 La. Ann. 632; Shotwell v. Ellis, 42 Miss. 439; In re The Rapid, 8 Cranch (U. S.) 155, 3 L. ed. 520; In re The Eliza, 2 Gall. (U. S.) 4; Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 Wash. (U. S.) 484, Fed. Cas. No. 3373. ^ Harmon v. Kingston, 3 Camp. ISO, 13 R. R. 775; Flindt v. Waters, 15 East 260, 3 R. R. 457; Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, 28 L. ed. 751, 5 Sup. Ct. 221 ; New York Life Ins. Co. V. Statham, 93 U. S. 24, 23 L. ed. 789; Ross V. Jones, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 576, 22 L. ed. 730; Brown v. Hiatts, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 177, 21 L. ed. 128; Semmes v. City Fire Ins. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 12651, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 445' (revd. 13 Wall. (U. S.) 158, 20 L. ed. 590) ; Hanger v; Abbott, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 532, 18 L. ed. 939; Dun- lop V. Ball, 2 Cranch (U. S.) 180, 2 L. ed. 247; Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. (U. S.) 199, 1 L. ed. 568; Stiles v. Easley, 51 111. 275 ; Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124, 9 Am. Rep. 639; Whelan v. Cook, 29 Md. 1; Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561, 91 Am. Dec. 124, 1 Am. Rep. 142; Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119; Bell v. Chapman, lO.Johns. 185 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS 187 necessitates intercourse with the enemy during hostilities.^" Nor can a contract not licensed by the government, entered into dur- ing the war, be enforced after peace is declared.^^ Legal proceed- ings may, however, be maintained on a subsisting contract against an ah en enemy or his property, if found within the jurisdiction of the courts of this country; if this were not true an enemy would be more advantageously situated than a friend.^^ § 187. Felons and convicts. — It was formerly the rule in England that a felon's or outlaw's share in a partnership vested in the crown/^ Then a felon or outlaw could contract but not sue until removal of his disability,^* nor could he plead his own dis- (N. Y.) 183; Griswold v. Wadding- ton, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 57; Kiersted V. Orange, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 151, 54 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 29 (revd. 69 N. Y. 343, 25 Am. Rep. 199) ; Sanderson V. Morgan, 39 N. Y. 231; Ahnert v. Zaun, 40 Wis. 622. lOEsposito V. Bowden, 7 El. & Bl. 1(&, 27 L. J. Q. B. 17, 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1209, 5 W. R. 732; Williams v. State, n Ark. 463 ; Yeaton v. Berney, 62 111. 61 ; Brown v. Delano, 12 Mass. 370 ; Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Hill- yard, 2,7 N. J. L. 444, 18 Am. Rep. 741 ; Griswold v. Waddington, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 57 (aff. 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 438) ; Woods v. Wilder, 43 N. Y. 164, 3 Am. Rep. 684; Cohen v. New York &c. Ins. Co., 50 N. Y. 610, 10 Am. Rep. 522 ; Bank of New Or- leans V. Matthews, 49 N. Y. 12 ; Shaw V. Carlile, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 594; The William Bagaley v. United States, 5 Wall. (U. S.) Zn, 18 L. ed. 583; Uni- versity V. Finch, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 106, 21 L. ed. 818; Matthews v. McStea, 91 U. S. 7, 23 L. ed. 188; Cramer v. United States, 7 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 302; Booker v. Kirkpatrick, 26 Grat. (Va.) 145. ^^ United States v. Grossmayer, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 72, 19 L. ed. 627; Scholefield v. Eichelberger, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 586, 8 L. ed. 793 ; Hart v. United States, 15 .Ct. CI. (U. S.) 414; Sey- mour V. Bailey, 66 111. 288; Mixer v. Sibley, 53 111. 61 ; Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124, 9 Am. Rep. 639; Fore- man V. Carter, 9 Kans. 674; Buford V. Speed, 11 Bush (Ky.) 338; Dorsey V. Thompson, Zl Md. 25 ; Dorsey v. Kyle, 30 Md. 512, 96 Am. Dec. 617 and note; Dejarnette v. DeGiverille, 56 Mo. 440; Willison v. Pattison, 7 Taunt. 439, 1 Moore 133, 18 R. R. 525. 12 McVeigh v. United States, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 259, 20 L. ed. 80; Uni- versity V. Finch, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 106, 21 L. ed. 818. The courts are closed, however, against the alien enemy dur- ing the continuance of hostilities ex- cept with permission of the govern- ment. Wells v. Williams, 1 Salk. 46 Hoskins v. Gentry, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 285 Dorsey v. Thompson, 37 Md. 25 Clarke v. Morey, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 68. i*Lindley Partnership (8 ed.), p. 89; Bacon's. Abr., Felony and Out- lawry. 1* See note 13 supra. § 188 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 186 ability in an action against him.^° Now; felons in England are disabled from suing or contracting, but their property is not forfeited, and the crown may place the custody and management of his property in an administrator, or an interim curator/® In this country the disabilities which attach to a convict under the common law do not generally obtain/^ He may enter into con- tracts and sue and be sued thereon/* By statute in most states certain disabilities are imposed on convicts during their term of imprisonment, and reference should be made to such statutes in order to determine what modifica- tions of the general law have been made thereby/' § 188. Infants. — Since the contracts of an infant are vjoid- able, and not void, he may enter into a partnership agreement, and a contract of partnership between an infant and an adult is not void^" but is voidable at the infant's option.^^ Consequently ^^ Foster Cr. Law, p. 61. 18 Act 33 and 34 Vict., ch. 23 ; Lind- ley Partnership (8 ed.), p. 89. 17 Elliott Contracts, § 266 ; In re Nerac, 35 Cal. 392, 95 Am. Dec. Ill; Cannon v. Windsor, 1 Houst. (Del.) 143; Willingham v: King, 23 Fla. 478, 2 So. 851 ; Presbury v. Hull, 34 Mo. 29 ; Platner v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 118; Frazer v. Fulcher, 17 Ohio. 260 ; Kenyon v. Sanders, 18 R. I. 590, 30 Atl. 470, 26 L. R. A. 232; Davis V. Laning, 85 Tex. 39, 19 S. W. 846, 18 L. R. A. 82, 34 Am. St. 784. 18 Willingham v. King, 23 Fla. 478, 2 So. 851 ; Avery v. Everett, 110 N. Y. 317, 18 N. E. 148, 1 L. R. A. 264, 6 Am. St. 368; Stephani v. Lent, 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 346, 63 N. Y. S. 471; Platner v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 118; Kenyon v. Saunders, 18 R. I. 590, 30 Atl. 470, 26 L. R. A. 232. 1^ For illustration, of the nature and effect of statutes taking away the civil rights of convicts, see In re Donnelly, 125 Cal. 417, 58 Pac. 61, 73 Am. St 62 ; Gray v. Stewart, 70 Kahs. 429, 78 Pac. 852, 109 Am. St. 461 ; Harmon v. Bowers, 78 Kans. 135, 96 Pac. 51, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 502n; Smith v. Becker, 62 Kans. 541, 64 Pac. 70, S3 L. R. A. 141; Avery v. Everett, 110 N. Y. 317, 18 N. E. 148, 1 L. R. A. 264, 6 Am. St. 368. 20 Osburn v. Farr, 42 Mich. 134, 3 N. W. 299. 21 Latrobe v. Deitrich, 114 Md. 8, 78 Atl. 983; Mehlhop v. Rae, 90 Iowa 30, 57 N. W. 650; Vinsen v. Lockard, 7 Bush (Ky.) 458; Bush v. Linthi- cum, 59 Md. 344; Dana v. Stearns, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 372 ; Osburn v. Farr, 42 Mich. 134, 3 N. W. 299; Goodnow v. Empire Lumber Co., 31 Minn. 468, 18 N. W. 283, 47 Am. Rep. 798; Kerr v. Bell, 44 Mo. 120; Gordon v. Miller, 111 Mo. App. 342, 85 S. W. 943 ; Gay V. Johnson, 32 N. H. 167; Continental Nat. Bank v. Strauss, 137 N. Y. 148, 32 N. E. 1066; Bixler v. Kresge, 169 Pa. 405, 32 Atl. 414, 47 Am. St. 920; Miller v. Sims, 2 Hill (S. Car.) 479; 187 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS § 188 he may avoid being held liable by the partnership creditors. No individual liability attaches to him upon his plea of infancy,^^ and he may usually rescind his contract during infancy and thus escape liability,^^ nor can he be held liable by the adult member of the firm who settles the partnership liabilities.^* The infant may even avoid liability for the partnership debts without dis- affirming his contract with the partner.^° In one case it was said :^° "There can be no question but that an infant may become interested in business as a general partner. Nothing forbade it at common law and nothing in the statutory law now forbids it. His infancy was a factor in the situation, which enabled him to disaffirm his obligations and agreements, and in that respect, the privilege was a personal one to himself. Infancy does not disable one from entering into contracts and so long as the in- fant does not avail himself of the privilege to set up his infancy in bar of, or to avoid an obligation, his position, and his acts are those of any responsible person. Any other view of his situation would lead to holding all his acts and engagements void ; whereas they are voidable merely at his election." However, courts attempt to prevent the minor from gaining an undue advantage from his disability. Consequently it is held Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Grat. (Va.) R. 307; Murphy v. Yeomans, 29 U. C. 503, 94 Am. Dec. 478. C. P. 421 ; Woods v. Woods, 3 Mani- 22 Conklin v.- Ogborn, 7 Ind. 553 ; toba 33. Mehlhop V. Rae, 90 Iowa 30, 57 N. 23 See Elliott Contracts, Infants, ch. W. 650; James v. Alford, IS La. Ann. 11 ; Adams v. Beall, 67 Md. 53, 8 Atl. 506; Neal v. Berry, 86 Maine 193, 29 664, 1 Am. St. 379. Contra: Dunton Atl. 987; Latrobe v. Dietrich, 114 Md. v. Brown, 31 Mich. 182. 8, 78 Atl. 983 ; Bush v. Linthicum, 59 2* Neal v. Berry, 86 Maine 193, 29 Md. 344; Tobey v. Wood, 123 Mass. Atl. 987. 88, 25 Am. Rep. 27n ; Mason v. 25 Mehlhop v. Rae, 90 Iowa 30, 57 Wright, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 306; Os- N. W. 650; Conary v. Sawyer, 92 burn V. Farr, 42 Mich. 134, 3 N. W. Maine 463, 43 Atl. 27, 69 Am. St. 525; 299; Dunton v. Brown, 31 Mich. 182; Tobey v. Wood, 123 Mass. 88, 25 Am. Folds V. Allardt, 35 Minn. 488, 29 N. Rep. 27n. See, however, Miller v-. W. 201; Gordon v. Miller, 111 Mo. Sims, 2 Hill (S. Car.) 479; Salinas v. App. 342, 85 S. W. 943; Avery v. Bennett, 33 S. Car. 285, 11 S. E. 968. Fisher, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 508; Goode 26 Continental Nat. Bank v. Strauss, V. Harrison, 5 B. & Aid. 147, 24 R. 137 N. Y. 148, 32 N. E. 1066. § 1S8 Law of partnership 188 by the weight of authority that he can not at the same time set up his disability to relieve himself of the firm's debts and retain possession of the firm's assets.^' It follows that in the absence of any fraud practiced on the infant in order to induce him to enter into the partnership relation the minor can not rescind his part- nership agreement and recover additions made by him to the assets of the firm. He is entitled to only his pro rata share of the assets remaining after the settlement of the firm's liabilities.^* " Shirk V. Shulte, 113 Ind. 571, 15 N. E. 12; Latrobe v. Dietrich, 114 Md. 8, 78 Atl. 983 ; Bush v. Linthicum, 59 Md. 344; Pelletier v. Couture, 148 Mass. 269, 19 N. E. 400, 1 L. R. A. 863; Gordon v. Miller, 111 Mo. App. 342, 85 S. W. 943; Yates v. Lyon, 61 N. Y. 344, revg. Yates v. Lyon, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 205. See also Rich- ards V. Hellen, 153 Iowa 66, 133 N. W. 393. "The plaintiff, however, con- tends that inasmuch as he was a mi- nor, and had disaffirmed his personal liability for the debts of the firm, he has an individual interest in such of the partnership property as has been fully paid for at the time when in- solvency proceedings were instituted. We do not think that such a conten- tion is maintainable, either on prin- ciple or on authority. * * * it -vyin be observed that he did not and does not disaffirm his contract of copart- nership, but only his liability for firm debts. He claims title to the goods sued fpr, as a partner, such goods having been paid for by the /firm, and being partnership assets." Conary v. Sawyer, 92 Maine 463, 43 Atl. 27, 69 Am. St. 525. In the case of Adams V. Beall, 67 Md. 53, 8 Atl. 664, 1 Am. St. 379, it is said : "The business was not, it is true, a successful one, but this in the absence of fraudulent rep- resentations on the part of the appel- lant can not affect the question. * * * Where money is paid by a minor in consideration of being admitted as a partner into the business of the ap- pellant (the adult), and he does be- come and remain a partner for a given time he ought not to be allowed to recover back the money thus paid, unless he was induced to enter into the partnership by the fraudulent rep- resentations of the appellant" See also, Wilhelm v. Hardman, 13 Md. 140, in which it is said: "Where an infant pays money on a voidable con- tract, and has enjoyed the benefit of it, he can not avoid it, and recover back his money. The rule which pro- tects infants from liability on con- tracts will be allowed to operate re- ciprocally where it can be so applied. - It is not too much to say that if an infant goes into a mercantile venture which proves unsuccessful he ought, at least, to be held so far that the assets acquired by the firm should be applied to the payment of the debts of the concern. If he has been ca- joled into any waste of his capital it ' hardly seems equitable that the creditor of his firm should, either directly or indirectly, be called upon for reimbursement." Yates v. Lyon, 61 N. Y. 344; 11 Columbia Law Rev., p. 470. 28 Ex parte Taylor, 8 DeG. M. & G. 254; Latrobe v. Dietrich, 114 Md. 8, 78 Atl. 983; Adams, v. Beall, 67. Md. 189 WHO MAY EE PARTNERS § 188 If a minor falsely represents that he was of age, and enters into partnership with an adult who relied on the truth of his statement, the adult may, as between them, dissolve the partnership and incur no liability.^* While a minor acts as partner, like any other part- ner, he ordinarily has all the rights and powers of a partner to bind the firm by his acts, within the scope of the partnership busi- ness, and is an agent for the firm.'" No one but the minor can take advantage of his disability, for it is a personal disqualifica- 53, 8 Atl. 664, 1 Am. St. 379; Page v. Morse, 128 Mass. 99 ; Moley v. Brine, 120 Mass. 324; Breed v. Judd, 1 Gray (Mass.) 455. The adult partner has the right to insist upon the assets of the firm being applied to the payment of the firm's debts and the infant's right to rescind is subject to this equity. Hill v. Bell, 111 Mo. 35, 19 S. W. 959. In regard to the case so holding it is said in the note to the case of Craig v. Van Bebber, 100 Mo. 584, 13 S. W. -906, 18 Am. St. 604: The broad views expressed to the ef- fect "that the assets of a partnership should be appropriated to the satis- faction of firm creditors over the claims of an infant partner, appear to us to be a departure from the gen- eral principles governing the liability of infants on their contracts. Why the interest of the infant in the part- nership assets should be subjected by implication of law to the claims of creditors of the firm, when it is per- fectly well settled that an infant may repudiate any security, as a mortgage, expressly given by him, is not clear. Of course, if an infant would rescind a contract he may be obliged to re- store the consideration he may have received, provided he still retains it; but the rule as stated here makes no distinction between such creditors who have disposed of property to the firm, which it still retains, and those creditors who are not in that condi- tion. If it be said that the infant must restore an equivalent, if he have not the original consideration, the rule should not have stopped with the firm assets, but should at least make the infant answerable to the extent of any property which may belong to him. The question can not be regarded as settled." The decisions holding that an infant can not recover money or other assets advanced by him to the firm seem erroneous. All the members of the firm whether infants or other- wise have a lien on the firm assets. It would be more nearly correct to hold the infant unable to recover where the rights of creditors have inter- vened on equitable grounds. The in- fant has, the same as other members of the partnership, a lien on the firm assets, but the creditors of the firm take precedence over the lien of the partners, even defeating the lien of an infant partner. See Conn v. Bout- well, 101 Miss. 353, 58 So. 105. See also Sparman v. Kiem, 83 N. Y. 245, 9 Abb. N. C. 1, in which it is held that an infant partner may recover money which he was induced to invest in business on restoring the benefits re- ceived from the partnership. 11 Co- lumbia Law Rev., p. 470. , 29 Bush V. Linthicum, 59 Md. 344. 30 Bush V. Linthicum, 59 Md. 344. § 188 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 190 tion.'^ If the firm becomes insolvent, the minor partner may take advantage of his infancy, disaffirm the partnership contract, and leave his partners to bear all the obligations of the firm, even those which he himself created.^^ The eifect of his peculiar situation is that he can claim his proportion of profits, if there are profits, but can not be compelled to share losses against his will. It is possible that on disaffirming his partnership contract he would not be allowed to withdraw his portion of the capital invested.^^ The partnership agreement of an infant, being voidable only, may of course be ratified by him on reaching his majority and by so doing he becomes liable for the firm obligations incurred during his minority.^* A minor's continuation to act as a part- 21 Brown v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 117 Mass. 479; Continental Nat. Bank V. Strauss, 137 N. Y. 148, 32 N. E. 1066; Beardsley v. Hotchkiss, 96 N. Y. 201. 32 Gay V. Johnson, 32 N. H. 167; Whittemore v. Elliott, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 518. 23 Justice Lindley says, Lindley Partnership (Ewell's ed.), p. 82: "Moreover, notwithstanding the gen- eral irresponsibihty of an infant, he can not, as against his copartners, in- sist that in taking the partnership ac- counts he shall be credited with profits and not be debited with losses. The infant partner must either repudiate or abide by the agreement under which alone he is entitled to any share of the profits. So an infant can not hold shares and decline to pay the calls payable in respect of them. He may, if he chooses, repudiate the shares, and so get rid of his liabilities, but if he does not repudiate the shares he must pay calls like any other share- holder." Cork &c. R. Co. v. Caze- nove, 10 Q. B. 935, 11 Jur. 802; Leeds &c. R. Co. V. Fearnley, 4 Ex. 26, 7 D. & L. 68, 18 L. J. Ex. 330; L. & N. W. R. Co. V. M'Michael, 5 Ex. 114, 20 L. J. Ex. 97, 15 Jur. 132. 3*Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Grat. (Va.) 503, 94 Am. Dec. 478. He even renders himself liable on claims of which he was entirely ignorant at the time. Miller v. Sims, 2 Hill (S. Car.) 479. By some jurisdictions it is held that the act whereby an infant attempts to appoint an agent is void and that he therefore can not ratify the act of such agent. Consequently it has been contended that an infant could not ratify the acts of his part- ner since he was incapable of com- municating authority to such partner to contract for him and that the at- tempt to communicate such authority being void it is not subject to a sub- sequent ratification. This contention ■ was, however, overruled, it being held that the infant might ratify such an agreement. Whitney v. Dutch, 14 Mass. 457, 7 Am. Dec. 229. That one of the general partners is an infant does not afifect the liability of a spe- cial partner. Continenta) Nat. Bank V. Strauss, 137 N. Y. 148, 32 N. E. 191 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS § 188 ner, after coming of age, ratifies the partnership agreement, without any express declaration, and he is then responsible to the same extent as any other partner for all obligations con- tracted after his coming of age, and it would seem, for the debts contracted by the firm before he came of age, and while he was a partner, but apparently this point has not yet been settled by decision. It has been held that an infant who holds himself out as a partner is not even liable to a person who trusts to his repre- sentations, not knowing him to be under age.^^ An infant who has obtained advantage from a partnership contract, on attempt- ing to avoid it, must usually restore the contracting party to the same position as if no contract had been entered into.^^ How- ever, there is a somewhat different liability of an infant at equity, as distinguished from his complete legal irresponsibility as a part- ner. Justice Lindley says :^^ "But an infant who is guilty of fraud is not so free from liability in equity as he is at law f^ and equitable as distinguished from legal relief, e. g., rescission of contract,^* or an injunction*" may be obtained against him, and he may be made to pay the costs of the action."*^ In accordance with these principles, although, as a rule, an infant can not be made bankrupt,*^ yet if he fraudulently represents himself as of 1066. Yates v. Lyon, 61 N. Y. 344, Taylor, 8 DeG. M. & G. 254, 25 L. holds that an assignment made by co- J. Bk. 35, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 220, 4 W. R. partners is not fraudulent and void 305 ; Hamilton v. Vaughan-Sherrin in law because one of the assignors Electrical Engineering Co., 3 Ch. 589 is an infant, and if the infant ratifies (1894), 63 L. J. Ch. 795, 8 R. 750, 71 the assignment on reaching his ma- L. T. 325, 43 W. R. 126. jority no fraud can be claimed be- ^''lAndley Partnership (8th ed.), p. cause of the infancy. See also King- 91. man v. Perkins, 105 Mass. Ill, in ss See Wright v. Snowe, 2 DeG. & which it is held that an infant's as- S. M. 321. signment of a debt can not be avoided ^9 Lempriere v. Lange, 12 Ch. Div. by his creditors because of his non- 675, 41 L. T. 378, 27 W. R. 879. age. 40Woolf V. Woolf (1899), 1 Ch. 25 Lindley Partnership (Ewell's ed.), 343, where an infant was restrained p. 81 ; Green v. Greenbank, 2 Marsh, from carrying on his business in such 485. a way as to represent it as that of 38 Lindley Partnership (Ewell's ed.), the plaintiff. p. 83, citing Holmes v. Blogg, 2 ^i See cases cited in last two notes. Moore 552, 19 R. R. 445; Ex parte «2 Lovell v. Beauchamp (1894), A. § 189 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 192 age, and obtains credit by his false representations, and is made bankrupt, the adjudication against him will not be superseded, and his deceived creditors will be paid out of his estate.*' § 189. Insane persons. — On the same principle applying to the partnership agreements of infants it would seem that a partnership agreem.ent entered into in good faith with an insane person, not under guardianship and in ignorance of such per- son's condition is valid until disafifirmed.** But any dealings with an insane partner when his lunacy is known are liable to be im- peached.*^ Mr. Lindley says that, as an insane person not formally adjudged insane is bound by a contract entered into in good faith with one who did not know of his incapacity, it can not be said such persons are incapable of being partners.*® Contracts made by an insane partner in the firm name are voida- ble.*^ In England it seems that an existing partnership is not C. 607, 63 L. J. Q. B. 802, 11 R. 60, 71 L. T. 587, 43 W. R. 129; Ex parte Jones, 18 Ch. Div. 122 ; Ex parte Hen- derson, 4 Ves. 163. *3Ex parte Watson, 16 Ves. 265; Ex parte Bates, 2 M. D. & D. 337. **Menkins v. Lightner, 18 111. 282; Fay V. Burditt, 81 Ind. 433, 42 Am. Rep. 142; Behrens v. McKenzie, 23 Iowa 333, 92 Am. Dec. 428 (none of which are partnership cases). *s Lindley Partnership (8th ed.), p. 93. ^s Lindley Partnership (8th ed.), p. 93. The weight of authority holds that an insane person who has been judi- cially adjudged insane and for whom a guardian or commitee has been ap- pointed, can not make a contract, and a contract which he may assume to make is void. Castro v. Geil, 110 Cal. 292, 42 Pac. 804, 52 Am. St. 84; Co- burn V. Raymond, 76 Conn. 484, 57 AtL 116, 100 Am. St. 1000; WooUey V. Gaines, 114 Ga. 122, 39 S. E. 892, 88 Am. St. 22; Ratlifl v. Baltzer, 13 Idaho 152, 89 Pac. 71 ; Mead v. Ste- gall, 77 111. App. 679; Burnham v. Kidwell, 113 111. 425; Studabaker v. Faylor, 170 Ind. 498, 83 N. E. 747, 127 Am. St. 397; Boyer v. Berryman, 123 Ind. 451, 24 N. E. 249; Aetna Life Ins. Co. V. Sellers, 154 Ind. 370, 56 N. E. 97, 77 Am. St. 481; Down- ham V. HoUoway, 158 Ind. 626, 64 N. E. 82, 92 Am. St. 330; Allen v. Berry- hill, 27 Iowa 534, 1 Am. Rep. 309; Willis V. Mason, 140 Ky. 88, 130 S. W.. 964; Breckenridge v. Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 236, 19 Am. Dec. 71 ; Eaton v. Eaton, 37 N. J. L. 108, 18 Am. Rep. 716; Blakeley v. Blake- ley, 33 N. J. Eq. 502 ; Ipock v. Atlan- tic &c. R. Co., 158 N. Car. 445, 74 S. E. 352. See §§ 367, 369, 378, Elliott , Contracts. *'' If there has been atj adjudication of insanity and no guardian has been appointed, it seems a contract of the insane person is only voidable. Mc- Cormick v. Littler, 85 111. 62, 28 Am. Rep. 610, or if the guardianship has 193 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS § 190 dissolved merely because a partner has become a lunatic, and such partner is entitled to share profits subsequently made."" And if a member of a going partnership becomes an imbecile, yet he is responsible for the subsequent misconduct of the other part- ners/' In this country there is some diversity of opinion as to whether insanity of a partner terminates the relation.'^" The better rule seems to be that, "the insanity Of a partner does not per se work a dissolution of the partnership, but may constitute sufficient grounds to justify a court of equity in decreeing its dissolution."" It has been held that neither a sane partner, nor the committee of an insane partnfer, nor both together, have power, without authority of court, to continue the partnership business.''^ Nor can the administrator of an interdict, without decree of court, bind the interdict by an agreement to pay his partner a certain sum in settlement of the partnership business."^ § 190. Married women. — At common law the contracts of a feme covert were void,°* therefore she could not become the member of a partnership'^^ except perhaps in those instances where she could contract as a feme sole, as in reference to her ' been abandoned, Willworth v. Leon- *» Jones v. Noy, 2 M. & K. 125, 3 ard, 156 Mass. 277, 31 N. E. 299; L. J. Ch. 14. Topeka Water &c. Co. v. Root, 56 *9 Sadler v. Lee, 6 Beav. 324, 12 L. Kans. 187, 42 Pac. 715; Wager v. J. Ch. 407, 7 Jur. 476. Wagoner, 53 Nebr. 511, 73 N. W. 937; bo See post § 583. Kimball v. Bumgardner, 16 Ohio Cir. ^i Raymond v. Vaughan, 128 III. Ct. 587, 9 Ohio C. D. 409; Grimes v. 256, 21 N. E. 566, 4 L. R. A. 440, 15 Shaw, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 20, 21 S. W. Am. St. 112. 718; Thorpe v. Hanscon, 64 Minn. =2 Kent v. West, S3 N. Y. S. 244, 33 201, 66 N. W. 1. Contra: Kiehne v. App. Div. 112 (appeal dismissed, 57 Wessells, S3 Mo. App. 667. A deed N. E. 1114, 163 N.-Y. 589). given by an insane member of a part- ^s Espinola v. Blaseo, 15 La. Ann. nership in the name of the firm is 426. voidable. Riley v. Carter, 76 Md. 581, s* See Elliott Contracts, ch. 13, Mar- 25 Atl. 667, 19 L. R. A. 489, 35 Am. ried Women. St. 443; Beasley v. Beasley, 180 111. "s Brown v. Jewett, 18 N. H. 230; 163, 54 N. E. 187. See Elliott Con- Carey v. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571, 43 tracts, § 367. Am. Rep. 790. 13 — Row. ON Paetn. — Vol. 1 § 190 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 194 separate estate, or where her husband was an alien enemy."' However, she was permitted by the custom of London to do busi- ness as a sole trader,"^ but this custom seems not to have existed in this country,"* except in the state of South Carolina."® The rule in equity is that, at least with the consent of her husband, she may act as a sole trader with reference to her equitable sep- arate estate to the extent that she has. power over it.*° In a great many states, perhaps in most of them, by statute a married woman is authorized to carry on business as a sole trader in re- spect to her own property, free from the control or claims of her husband or his creditors, and in these states she has substantially the privileges of a feme sole, with the corresponding rights and liabilities. In some states, she has such power only under special circumstances, as where she is abandoned or deserted by her husband, or is living separate and apart from him, or where he fails to support her, through drunkenness, profligacy, or other cause.*^ The disabilities of coverture have, in the main, been removed, and where this is true married women may form a copartnership with persons other than their husbands."^ In Eng- 56 Elliott Contracts, ch. 13, Married Nash v. Mitchell, 71 N. Y. 199, 3 Abb. Women. N. Cas. 171, 27 Am. Rep. 38. =7 2 Bishop Married Women, § 528; <52 Abbott v. Jackson, 43 Ark. 212; Petty V. Anderson, 2 Car. & P. 38, 12 note 84 Am. Dec. 673 ; Conant v. Na- E. C. L. 437,' 3 Bing. 170. See also tional State Bank, 121 Ind. 323, 22 N. Beard v. Webb, 2 Bos. & Pul. 93. E. 250 ; Deere &c. Co. v. Bonne, 108 S8 Jacobs V. Featherstone, 6 Watts Iowa 281, 79 N. W. 59, 75 Am. St. & S. (Pa.) 346; Carey v. Burruss, 20 254; Dupuy v. Sheak, 57 Iowa 361, 10 W. Va. 571, 43 Am. Rep. 790. N. W. 731 ; Plumer v. Lord, 5 Allen =9 15 Am. & Eng. EnCyc. Law 795 (Mass.) 460; Vail v. Winterstein, 94 and cases cited. Mich. 230, S3 N. W. 932, 18 L. R. A. «» Partridge v. Stocker, 36 Vt. 108, SIS, 34 Am. St. 334; Newman v. Mor- 84 Am. Dec. 664; Penn v. Whitehead, ris, 52 Miss. 402; Merritt v. Day, 38 17 Grat. (Va.) 503, 94 Am. Dec. 478. N. J. L. 32, 20 Am. Rep. 362; Zim- «i Carse v. Reticker, 95 Iowa 25, 63 mermann v. Erhard, 8 Daly (N. Y.) N. W. 461, 58 Am. St. 421; Tillman 311, 58 How. Pr. 11 (affd. 83 N. Y. V. Shackleton, 15 Mich. 447, 93 Am. 74, 60 How. Pr. 163, 38 Am. Rep. Dec. 198; Noel v. Kinney, 106 N. Y. 396) ; Little v. Hazlett, 197 Pa. 591, 74, 12 N. E. 351, 60 Am. Rep. 423; 47 Atl. 855; notes 31 Am. St. 934, 34 Am. St. 339. 195 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS § 191 land a married woman may be a partner.*' Where her disability to contract has not been removed a married woman can not be a partner,"* at least so as to subject her separate estate to part- nership obligations.*^ § 191. Husband and wife. — At common law husband and wife could not contract with each other, and of course could not enter into a partnership together."" Under the modern statutes which authorize contracts between husband and wife, where the disabilities of married women have been entirely removed, a mar- ried woman may become a partner in business with her hus- band."^ A provision of the statutes that prevents a married woman from becoming surety does not prohibit her from becom- ing a partner with her husband if such agreement is not entered into merely for the purpose of rendering her liable for her hus- band's debts."' The disabilities of coverture may not be entirely removed, consequently in some jurisdictions it is held that she can not enter into a partnership agreement with her husband,"* ssLindley Partnership (8th ed.), p. ^^ Bernard &c. Mfg. Co. v. Pack- 95 ; Married Woman's Property Act ard, 64 Fed. 309, 12 C. C. A. 123 (con- (1893), 56 and 57 Vict., ch. 63. struing Pa. law) ; Schlapback v. Long, 6* Carey v. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571, 90 Ala. 525, 8 So. 113; Burneyv. Sa- 43 Am. Rep. 790. vannah Grocery Company, 98 Ga. 711, <5s De Graum v. Jones, 23 Fla. 83, 25 S. E. 915, 58 Am. St. 342 ; Heyman 6 So. 925; Brown v. Jewett, 18 N. H. v. Heyman, 210 111. 524, 71 N. E. 591 ; 230; Knott v. Knott, 6 Ore. 142; Ha- Dr^ssel v. Lonsdale, 46 111. App. 454; gan V. Hoover, 33 S. Car. 219, US. Hoaglin v. Henderson, 119 Iowa 720, E. 725; Frank v. Anderson 13 Lea 94 N. W. 247, 61 L. R. A. 756, 97 Am. (Tenn.) 695 ; Purdom v. Boyd, 82 St. 335 ; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Al- Tex. 130, 17 S. W. 606; Miller v. exander, 16 Ky. L. 306, 27 S. W. 981 ; Marx, 65 Tex. 131. Jones v. Jones, 99 Miss. 600, 55 So. «6 In re Kinkead, Fed. Cas. No. 361; Dunifer v. Jecko, 87 Mo. 282; 7824, 3 Biss. (U. S.) 405; Belser v. Suau v. Caffe, 122 N. Y. 308, 25 N. Tuscumbia Banking Co., 105 Ala. 514, E. 488, 9 L. R. A. 593n; Zimmerman 17 So. 40; Hoaglin v. Henderson, 119 v. Erhard, 83 N. Y. 74, 60 How. Pr. Iowa 720, 94 N. ,W. 247, 61 L. R. A. 163, 38 Am. Rep. 396; Snell v. Stone, 756, 97 Am. St. 335 ; Montgomery v. 23 Ore. 327, 31 Pac. 663 ; Lane v. Sprankle, 31 Ind. 113; In re Boyle's Bishop, 65 Vt. 575, 27 Atl. 499. Estate, Tuck. (N. Y.) 4; Payne v. "^ Butler v. Frank, 7 Ga. App. 655, Thompson, 44 Ohio St. 192, S N. E, 67 S. E. 884. 654. ^^ Gilkerson-Sloss Commission Co. § 191 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 196 and that express statutory authority is necessary to create a valid partnership between husband and wife.'" This rule, prevailing in some jurisdictions, that contracts between husband and wife are void between the spouses, or their transferees, prevents husband and wife from entering into a partnership agreement inter se.''^ One text-writer has thus commented on the holdings :'^<,"And this appears to be the better doctrine. It may indeed seem a little odd that a married woman may become a partner of another woman's husband, but not of her own husband, but such is the wise policy of the law. The partnership relation is essentially a commercial and business relation, involving questions of conflicting opin- ions, settlement of accounts, dissolution, possible litigation, etc., and it would seem that the domestic happiness of husband and wife might be endangered by the raising of such questions be- tween them. Business relations of this sort between husband and wife should therefore be discouraged." The tendency of modern legislation, however, being not only increasingly toward giving married women equal rights with un- married women, but also toward giving them in all respects equal rights with men, and also to reduce the disabilities which often served merely as a privilege from liability and not as an actual hindrance from taking part in business, it seems that the rule will become more widespread, perhaps e,ven of general applica- tion, that a married woman may make a valid contract of part- nership with her husband. V. Salinger, 56 Ark. 294, 19 S. W. 747, L. R. A. 362; Artman v. Fergu- 16 L. R. A. 526, 35 Am. St. 105; son, 73 Mich. 146, 40 N. W. 907, Mayer v. Soyster, 30 Md. 402 ; Bow- 2 L. R. A. 343, 16 Am. St. 572. See ker V. Bradford, 140 Mass. 521, 5 N. 25 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law 379 and E. 480; Board of Trade v. Hayden, notes, 2 L. R. A. 343, 16 L. R. A. 530, 4 Wash. 263, 30 Pac. 87, 32 Pac. 224, 31 Am. St. 935, 4 Ann. Cas. 869; 16 L. R. A. 530, 31 Am. St. 919; Ful- Gwynn v. Gwynn, 27 S. Car. 525, 4 ler V. McHenry, 83 Wis. 573, 53 N. S. E. 229 ; Wallace v. Finberg, 46 Tex. W. 896, 18 L. R. A. 512. 35. '"> Norwood V. Francis, 25 App. Cas. ''i Voss v. Sylvester, 203 Mass. 233, (D. C.) 463, 4 Ann. Cas. 865 and 89 N. E. 241. note; Haas v. Shaw, 91 Ind. 384, ''2 Long Domestic Relations (2d 46 Am. Rep. 607; Haggett v. Hur- ed.), § 161. ley, 91 Maine 542, 40 Atl. 561, 41 197 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS § 193 § 192. Partnership as a partner. — One firm of partners may form a partnership agreement with another firm. In other words two or more partnerships may form a partnership.''^ As said in one case, there is "no legal difficulty in the way of treat- ing two firms as individual partners in a conjoint firm, if such be obviously the intention of the parties."" The Uniform Part- nership Act permits a partnership to enter into a partnership as a partner.''^ Under such an arrangement the partnership shares as a partner in profits or assets, and then its share is subdivided among its members. As to third persons, all the individuals are liable as partners.'^" The nature of a subpartnership which does not make the subpartner a member of the firm, has been already discussed.''^ § 193. Corporation — General rule as to capacity. — As a general rule, corporations can not enter into a part- nership''^ either with individuals'^ or other corporations.*" Or- dinarily a contract is considered as ultra vires*^ where by it a "In re Hamilton, 1 Fed. 800; May- 507, 14 N. E. 433, 12 N. Y. St. 295; rant v. Marston, 67 Ala. 453 ; Bullock Burnett v; Snyder, 81 N. Y. 550, 37 V. Hubbard, 23 Cal. 495, 83 Am. Dec. Am. Rep. 527; Setzer v. Beale, 19 W. 130; 'Butler v. American Toy Co., 46 Va. 274. Conn. 136; Wilson v. Morse, 117 Iowa ^^ jjavis v. Savannah Lumber Co., 581, 91 N. W. 823; Meador v. Hughes, 11 Ga. App. 610, 75 S. E. 986; Will- 14 Bush (Ky.) 652; Simonton v. Mc- iams v. Johnson, 208 Mass. 544, 95 N. Lain, 37 La. Ann. 663 ; Gage v. Rol- E. 90. Jins, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 348; Raymond ^9 Franz v. William Barr Dry Goods V. Putnam, 44 N. H. 160; Gulick v. Co., 132 Mo. App. 8, 111 S. W. 636. Gulick, 14 N. J. L. 578; Willey v. »<> Stephens v. Gall, 179 Fed. 938. Renner, 8 N. Max. 641, 45 Pac. 1132; si Thomas v. West Jersey R. Co., Commercial Bank v. Miller, 96 Va. 101 U. S. 71, 25 L. ed. 950; Stephens 357, 31 S. E. 812. v. Gall, 179 Fed. 938; Fechteler v. , "In re Hamilton, 1 Fed. 800. Palm Bros., 133 Fed. 462, 66 C. C. A. 75 Uniform Partnership Act, § 2, cl. 336 ; Central R. & B. Co. v. Smith, 3; § 6, cl. 1. 76 Ala. 572, 52 Am. Rep. 353; Led- ''s Meyer v. Krohm, 114 111. 574, 2 singer y. Central Line Steamers, 75 ;N. E. 495. Ga. 567; Gunn v. Central R. Co., 74 "See ante § 149; Meyer v. Krohn, Ga. 509; Marine Bank v. Ogden, 29 114^ 111. 574, 2 N. E. 495 ; Nir,dlinger 111. 248 ; IVfestier v. Chevalier Paving V. Bernheimer, 133 N. Y. 45, 30 N., E. Co., 108 La. Ann. 562, 32 So. 520; 561 ; Rockafellow v. Miller, 107 N. Y. Conkling v. Washington University, 2 § 193 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 198 corporation seeks to enter into a partnership with either another corporation or a natural person. This power must be expressly given to corporations.*^ It is ai violation of law for them to enter into partnerships,*^ unless they are expressly authorized to do so Md. Ch. 497; Commonwealth v. Smith, 10 Allen (Mass.) 448, 87 Am. Dec. 672 ; Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 10 Gray (Mass.) 582, 71 Am. Dec. 681 ; Hanson v. Paige, 3 Gray (Mass.) 239; French v. Donohue, 29 Minn. Ill, 12 N. W. 354; Franz v. Barr Dry Goods Co., 132 Mo. App. 8, 111 S. W. 636; Aurora Bank v. Oliver, 62 Mo. App. 390; Burke v. Concord R. Co., 61 N. H. 160, 8 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 552; Van Kuren v. Trenton L. & M. Mfg. Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 302 ; New York &c. Canal Co. v. Fulton Bank, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 412 ; People v. North River &c. Co., 121 N. Y. 582, 24 N. E. 834, 9 L. R. A. 33, 18 Am. St. 843; Bissell V. Michigan &c. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 258; Geurinck v. Alcott, 66 Ohio St. 94, 63 N. E. 714; State v. Stand- ard Oil Co., 49 Ohio St. 137, 30 N. E. 279, IS L. R. A. 145, 34 Am. St. 541 ; Boyd V. American Carbon Blank Co., 182 Pa. St. 206, 37. Atl. 937; Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co., 68 Pa. 173, 8 Am. Rep. 159; Mallory v. Hananer Oil Works, 86 Tenn. 598, 88 S. W. 396; Sabine Tram Co. v. Bancroft, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 170, 40 S. W. 837; Lamoille Val. R. Co. v. Bixby, SS Vt. 235. "It is familiar law that a corporation can not enter into a partnership." Williams v. Johnson, 208 Mass. 544, 95 N. E. 90. See,, how- ever, Catskill Bank v. Gray, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 471. 82 Fechteler v. Palm Bros., 133 Fed. 462, 66 C. C. A. 336 ; Butler v. Ameri- can Toy Co., 46 Conn. 136; Sabine Tr^m Co. v. Bancroft, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 170, 40 S. W. 837. It can only exist by virtue of an express grant' of power or from necessary implica- tion from such a grant, so that it may be said that it must be expressly given in any event. Indeed, it is so inconsistent with the ordinary powers and duties of such bodies that it could very seldom, if ever, arise ^from mere implication in any sense. 85 Thomas v. West Jersey R. Co., 101 U. S. 71, 25 L. ed. 950; Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 25, 17 L. ed. 604; Pearce.v. Madison &c. R. Co., 21 How. (U. S.) 441. 16 L.ed. 184; Central R. &c. Co. v. Smith, 76 Ala. 572, 52 Am. Rep.^353n; South Carolina &c. R. Co. v. Augusta &c. R. Co., 107 Ga. 164, 33 S.E.36; Ledsinger v. Central Line Steamers, 75 Ga. 567; Gunn v. Central R. Co., 74 Ga. 509; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Mulford, 162 111. 522, 44 N. E. 861; 35 L. R. A. 599; Bishop v. American Preservers' Co., 157 111. 284, 41 N. E: 765, 48 Am. St. 317; Marine Bank v. Ogden, 29 III. 248; Mestier v. Chevalier Pave- ment Co., 108 La. 562, 32 So. 520; Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 10 Gray (Mass.) 582, 71 Am. Dec. 681 ; Franz V. Barr Dry Goods Co., 132 Mo. App, 8, 111 S. W. 686; Aurora State Bank V. Oliver, 62 Mo. App. 390; Burke V. Concord R. Co., 61 N. H. 160, 8 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 552; People v. North River Sugar Refining Co., 121 N.. Y. 582, 24 N. E. 834, 9 L. R. A. 33n, 18 Am. St. 843, 22 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 164, 3 N. Y. S. 401, 16 Civ. Proc. (N. Y.) 1; New York &c. Canal Co. v. Fulton Bank, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 412; State v. Standard Oil 199 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS § 193' by statute.** Express power must be conferred. Statutes which empower corporations to enter into contracts essential to the transaction of their ordinary business, do not con- fer upon them the power to enter into contracts of partnership.*^ As a general rule corporations can not be made liable as mem- bers of partnerships.*^ Generally they have no power to enter into partnership either with individuals or other corporations; neither, as a rule, can they enter into an agreement which may create a partnership.*^ A purchase by a corporation of an inter- est in a partnership, was held not to constitute it a partner, as a Icorporation has no power to enter into partnership.** It can scarcely be imagined that such a power would be expressed, and it is clear that none would be implied, where it was in no way necessary for the conduct of the corporate business; as such an arrangement would not only prevent the management of the cor- poration by its responsible officers, but would defeat the policy of the state regarding corporations.*" The rule is especially ap- plicable and applied with the severest strictness where the pro- posed partnership contemplates an enterprise clearly outside of the corporate purposes.*" Corporations can not enter into valid partnership agreements ; and it has been said that such agree- , ments made by a corporation, even with the assent of all the Co., 49 Ohio St. 137, 30 N. E. 279, 15 Tram Co. v. Bancroft, 16 Tex. Civ. L. R. A. 145, 34 Am. St. 541 ; Bank App. 170, 40 S. W. 837. V. Standard Wagon Co., 65 Ohio St. ^^ Sabine Tram Co. v. Bancroft, 16 559, 63 N. E. 1124; Geurinck v. Al- Tex. Civ. App. 170, 40 S. W. 837. cott, 66 Ohio St. 94, 63 N. E. 714; ss Aurora State Bank v. Oliver, 62 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Standard Mo. App. 390. Wagon Co., 6 Ohio N. P. 264 ; Boyd ^^ Insurance Policies, In re 7 Pa. V. American Carbon Black Co., 182 Dist. 17, 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 284; Calvert Pa. St. 206, 37 Atl. 937; Mallory v. v. Idaho Stage Co., 25 Ore. 412, 36 Hananer Oil Works, 86 Tenn. 598, 8 Pac. 24. S. W. 396; Sabine Tram Co. v. Ban- ^^ Aurora State Bank v. Oliver, 62 croft, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 170, 40 S. W. Mo. App. 390. 837 ; Charlton v. Newcastle &c. R. Co., ^^ Oscillating Carousal Co. v. Mc- 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1096, 7 Wkly. Rep. Cool (N. J. Eq.), 35 Atl. 585. 731. »»Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 10 8* Fechteler V. Palm Bros., 133 Fed. Gray (Mass.) 582, 71 Am. Dec. 681. 462, 66 C. C. A. 336 ; B-utler v. Ameri- See Commonwealth v. Smith, 10 Al- can Toy Co., 46 Conn. 136; Sabine len (Mass.) 448, 87 Am. Dec. 672. § 194 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 200 stockholders, may be annulled by the state. But a person con- tracting with such a partnership with knowledge of the cor- porate powers has been held to have dealt with the corporation and its pretended partner as joint owners of the property.'^ Sev- eral corporations engaged in manufacturing cotton-seed oil, were held to have no power to enter into a contract of partnership, by which the several properties and machinery were to be turned over to a committee selected by such corporations, and to be managed and operated by the committee for the common benefit, the profits and losses to be shared in agreed proportions.*^ The fact that one corporation owns the greater part of the stock of another corporation, and the same person is president of both cor- porations, does not make them partners.^^ Neither is the partner- ship relation created by the lease of the business and property of a corporation for a term of years for a rental equal to a fourth of the net profits.'* § 194. Theory that corporations may enter into partner- ship — Uniform Partnership Act. — Under the Uniform Part- nership Act, a corporation may be a partner.'^ There are also cases which lay down the rule that a corporation may, under certain circumstances be justified in entering into a partnership arrangement for the purpose of better conserving its objects and for the protection of its property.®^ And in California a cor- poration was held to have the power to enter into a contract with an individual to engage in a certain venture, profits and losses to be divided equally between them, where the entire management 91 Huguenot Mills v. Jempson, 63 cl. 3; § 6, cl. 1. But this may not S. Car. 363, 47 S. E. 687, 102 Am. St. give every corporation power to en- 673. ter into a particular partnership. 92 Mallory v. Hananer Oil- Works, s^ i„ re Hamilton, 1 Fed. 800. See 86 Tenn. S98, 8 S. W. 396. generally, Bullock v. Hubbard, 23 Cal. 93 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Meadors, 495, 83 Am. Dec. 130 ; Raymond v. 104 Tex. 469, 140 S. W. 427. Putnam, 44 N. H. 160; Smith v. 9*McTigue V. Arctic Ice Cream Wright, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 113; In re Supply Co., 20 Cal. App. 708, 130 Pac. Warner, 7 Nat. Bank Reg. 47; Mul- 165. Hns V. Miller, 1 Lov/er Can. J. 121; 95 Uniform Partnership Act, § 2, ^ Mallon v. Craig, 3 Ont. 541. 201 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS § 194 of the enterprise was entrusted to the corporation."' So, not- withstanding the strict rules that generally obtain, it was held by the Supreme Court of Alabama that where a railroad and bank- ing company, chartered for such ■ purposes, in excess of its cor- porate purposes and in violation of its charter, entered into a part- nership with an individual to operate a steamboat, it was liable to an injured passenger, on the theory that an exemption from liability in such a case would be a license to corporations to do wrong to others, and that while it exceeded its charter powers, its duties and responsibilities to a passenger were the same as if the business had been authorized and legal.®* But the Supreme Court of Georgia, in an action by an injured passeiiger on the same steamboat and against the same defendant, held that there could be no recovery for the reason that the corporation had no power to form the partnership.'^ An arrangement by which a railroad company operated steamboats in connection with its line was upheld by the same court. ^ But an agreement between steamboat lines to pool their earnings and after payment of all expenses to divide the net earnings in certain proportions, has been held not to create a partnership.^ The creditors of an in- solvent firm, one of the members being a corporation, formed a partnership for the purpose of taking the insolvent stock and property and disposing of it to the best advantage. In an action by one of the partners for an accounting it was held that the fact that the corporation had no power to become a member of an ordinary partnership, did not render the particular arrange- ment so illegal as to warrant a dismissal of the bill.^ Sometimes the power of a corporation to enter into a paptiier- ship may not be raised or questioned by a defendant in an action where the corporation could properly be joined with an Indi- an Bates V. Coronado Beach Co., 109 i Graham v. Macon &c. R. Co., 120 Cal. 160, 41 Pac. 855. See Allen v. Ga. 757, 49 S. E. 75. Woonsocket Co., 11 R. I. 288. 2 White Star Line v. Star Line &c., 98 Central R. &c. Co. v. Smith, 76 141 Mich. 604, 105 N. W. 135, 113 Am. Ala. 572, 52 Am. Rep. 353n. St. 551. 99 Gunn V. Central R. Co., 74 Ga. ^ Kelly v. Biddle, 180 Mass. 147, 61 509. N. E. 821. § 195 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 202 vidual or another corporation.* A corporation can not be held liable as a partner, in the absence of allegations or proof of char- ter powers on its part to enter into such relation.^ An agreement between a corporation and an individual that the latter should become the manager of an opera house and receive for his serv- ices a certain sum per week, and a percentage of the profits at the end of the season, and requiring him to pay one-half of the yearly- rental, and a bonus of a certain sum to the corporation, and re- serving the right to remove him if his services were unsatisfac- tory, was held not sufficient to create a partnership, and gave the individual no power to control or share in the transactions of the corporation.® Transactions between two corporations having the same managing officers were held not to constitute such corpora- tion's partners.'' § 195. Corporation held liable as a partner. — The corpora- tion may, in a proper case, be held liable as if it were a partner; where necessary to prevent injustice,* or, it seems, the corpora- tion itself be permitted to recover on a partnership agreement.® Some cases have upheld such contract relations where it was to the best interest of the corporation, and on the other hand con- tracts thus entered into have been enforced, in some instances even where the partnership agreement was not upheld but where it was necessary to prevent injustice.^" * French v. Donohue, 29 Minn. Ill, also Breinig v. Sparrow, 39 Ind. App. 12 N. W. 354. 455, 80 N. E. 37; Nims v. Mt. Her- sWhite V. Pecos Land & Water mon Boys' School, 160 Mass. 177, 35 Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 634, 45 S. W. ■ N. E. 776, 22 L. R. A. 364, 39 Am. 207. St. 467; Manhattan Brass &c. Co.' v. «Markowitz v. Greenwall Theatri- Sears, 45 N. Y. 797, 6 Am. Rep. 177; cal Circuit Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 75 Allen v. Woonsocket Co., 11 R. I. S. W. 74, 317 (revd. .97 Tex. 479, 288. 79S. W. 1069,65L. R. A. 302). » Cameron v. First Nat. Bank 7 Paris Mercantile Co. v. Hunter, 74 (Tex.), 34 S. W. 178. See also Hack- Ark. 615, 86 S. W. 808. ett v. Multnomah R. Co., 12 Ore. 124, 8 Cleveland Paper Co. v. Courier 6 Pac. 659, S3 Am. Rep, 327 ; Wilson Co., 67 Mich. 152, 34 N. W. 556; v. Carter Oil Co., 46 W. Va. 469, 33 French v. Donohue, 29 Minn. Ill, 12 S. E. 249. N. W. 354 ; Johnson v. Weed &c. Mfg. "> Butler v. American Toy Co., 46 Co., 103 Wis. 291, 79 N. W. 236. See Conn. 136; Marine Bank v. Ogden, 29 203 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS | 196 The law sometimes imposes on a corporation a partnership liability. A corporation may, in furtherance of the object of its creation, contract with an individual, though the effect of the contract may be to impose upon it the liability of a partner. It seems that as to third persons this liability as a partner is, fre- quently imposed, though it was not the intention of the corpora- tion to become one, and even though a partnership could not have been fdrmed.^^ The rule preventing a corporation from entering into a contract of partnership, does not prevent the law from imposing on a corporation the liability of a partner as to third persons under a contract made by it in furtherance of the objects of its creation.^^ So, a contract made by a corporation in a part- nership relation which was not illegal will bind it where third persons have been induced to expend money on the faith of such contract.^* While a corporation can not legally enter into a part- nership, yet where it had done so it was held that it must account to the other partner who had fully performed all the obligations of his part of the contract.^^ § 196. Corporation held liable as partner — Illustrations. — A corporation and an individual having assumed the relation of partners, and transacted business as such, were held to have the right to recover on an obligation made to them in their partner- ship name, on the theory that they had a joint right of action, and the description of them as partners might be regarded as surplus- age.^^ And a corporation and an individual were held entitled to 111. 248; Conkling v. Washington Uni- v. Gray, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 471 ; Allen versity, 2 Md. Ch. 497; Nims v. Mt v. Woonsocket Co., 11 R. I. 288. Hermon Boys' School, 160 Mass. 177, ii- Cleveland Paper Co. v. Courier 35 N. E. 776, 22 L. R. A. 364, 39 Am. Co., 67 Mich. 152, 34 N. W. S56. St. 467; Kelly v. Riddle, 180 Mass. 12 Breinig v. Sparrow, 39 Ind. App. 147, 61 N. E. 821 ; New York .&c. Ca- 455, 80 N. E. 37. nal Co. V. Fulton Bank, 7 Wend. (N. ^^ greinig v. Sparrow, 39 Ind. App. Y.) 412; Manhattan Brass &c. Co. v. 455, 80 N. E. 37. Sears, 45 N. Y. 797, 6 Am. Rep. 177; "Kelly v. Diddle, 180 Mass. 147, Leggett V. Hyde, 58 N. Y. 272, 17 61 N. E. 821. Am. Rep. 244; Rider Life Raft Co. v. is Wilson v. Carter Oil Co., 46 W. Roach, 97 N. Y. 378; CatskiU Bank Va. 469, 33 S. E. 249. See Sabine § 196 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 204 share in the earnings of a joint enterprise." So, where a corpo- ration leased its works to an individual for a definite time, and reserved a part of the profits as rent, it was held liable as a part- ner.^' While an agreerftent between railroad companies for the interchange of traffic, with other tickets and other rates, may not constitute a partnership, yet it was assumed in such case that if the agreement was not a partnership, it was sufficient to constitute one company the agent of the other to make contracts.^* The fact that railroad companies have no power to enter into partnership agreements, was held not to relieve one of the companies from contractual liability to third persons.^® After a partnership agreement between a corporation and certain individuals has been fully executed, the corporation will not be permitted to repudiate the arrangement and share in the distribution of the firm assets under bankruptcy proceedings.^" A corporation organized to acquire, develop and sell lands and water-rights, as a more con- venient agency for carrying out agreements between the corpo- rators, was held to constitute a partnership, and the entire capital stock of the corporation was treated as partnership assets.^^ While a corporation has no power to enter into contracts of part- nership, yet where such a contract has been entered into and exe- cuted by the other party equity will compel it to account for what is due him under the contract.^" And while a corporation may have no power to bind itself as a partner, yet it may bind itself to share in the profits of contracts it is authorized to perform with any one from whom it receives adequate consideration.'" A con- tract pf a corporation by which it employed a person to manage Tram Co. v. Bancroft, 16 Tex. Civ. i» Harrill v. South Carolina &c. R. App. 170, 40 S. W. 837; French v. Co., 135 N. Car. 601, 47 S. E. 730. Donohue, 29 Minn. Ill, 12 N. W. 354. 20 Wallerstein v. Ervin, 112 Fed. 124, 18 Hackett v. Multnomah R. Co., 12 50 C. C. A. 129. Ore. 124, 6 Pac. 659, S3 Am. Rep. 327. 21 Shorb v. Beaudry, 56 Cal. 446. " Catskill Bank v. Gray, 14 Barb. 22 Boyd v. American Carbon Black (N. Y.) 471. Co., 182 Pa. St. 206, 37 Atl. 937. See 18 Gill V. Manchester &c. R. Co., L. Geurinck v. Alcott, 66 Ohio St. 94, 63 R. 8 Q. B. 186, 42 L. J. Q. B. 89, 28 N. E. 714. L. T. 587, 21 W. R. 525. 23 Mestier v. Chevalier Pavement Co., 108 La. 562, 33 So. 520. 205 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS § 197 and conduct and work at the business in which it was engaged, was held not to create a partnership, though such manager was to receive an interest in the profits in addition to a salary.^* A cor- poration may be estopped from asserting its want of power to enter into partnership/^ Thus, a bank doing business with and receiving deposits from a partnership consisting of an individual and a corporation, was held estopped to deny the validity of the partnership.-'' And any person making a contract with or becom- ing indebted to such ^ partnership with knowledge, will not be heard to assert such want of power on the part of the corpora- tion/^ A corporation and an individual were held to have the right to recover upon obligations made to them in their firm § 197. Corporation as co-owner not held liable as partner. — Notwithstanding the rule that prevents a corporation from entering into partnerships, it is not prohibited from becoming a co-owner of property either with an individual or another corpo- ration. A corporation may become a co-owner with an individual or corporation within the scope of its corporate powers.^' On this theory it was held improper to exclude evidence because it tended to prove that a corporation had made a contract of part- nership which it had no power to make, but where such evidence in fact would show that the plaintiff and the corporation were merely co-owners to certain property.'" In one case cited it was 2* Belch V. Big Store Co., 46 Wash. v. Ervin, 112 Fed. 124, SO C. C. A. 1, 89 Pac. 174. 129. 25 Cameron v. First Nat. Bank ^s French v. Donohue, 29 Minn. Ill, (Tex.), 34 S. W. 178; Johnson v. 12 N. W. 354; New York &c. Canal Weed &c. Mfg. Co., 103 Wis. 291, Co. v. Fulton Bank, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 79 N. W. 236. 412. See also Huguenot Mills v. 28 Willey V. Crocker &c. Nat. Bank, Jempson, 68 S. Car. 363, 47 S. E. 687, 141 Cal. ,508, 72 Pac. 832, 75 Pac. 102 Am. St. 673. 1061. 29 Calvert v. Idaho Stage Co., 25 27 Wilson V. Carter Oil Co., 46 W. Ore. 412, 36 Pac. 24; Hackett v. Mult- Va. 469, 33 S. E. 249; Kelly v. Bid- nomah R. Co., 12 Ore. 124, 6 Pac. 659, die, 180 Mass. 147, 61 N. E. 821 ; In 53 Am. Rep. 327. re Ervin, 109 Fed. 135; Wallerstein so Calvert v. Idaho Stage Co., 25 Ore. 412, 36 Pac. 24. § 198 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 206 held that a corporation might be a joint owner with an individual of a ferry and that such individual could maintain an action for an accounting.^ ^ In an early California case it was said that the books did not afford an instance in which the right to hold prop- erty as tenants in common, either with another corporation or a natural person, was denied to corporations.^^ § 198. Tenants in common as partners. — Tenants in com- mon may be partners in conducting business on the latld without affecting the legal status of the land.^^ Where tenants in com- mon of land conducted mining operations on the land, leased part of it for tnining, cultivated part of it as farm lands and one listed it for taxation in the name of both and made concessions for a railroad right of way, such acts do not necessarily show a part- nership in the land itself, although there may be one in its use.^* § 199. Authority of agent to make his principal a member of a partnership. — Generally, authority to act as agent con- fers no authority to form a partnership in the name of the prin- cipal with a third person.^^ An agent of a minor to manage a plantation and employ laborers, has no authority to form a plant- ing partnership with one of the laborers.^® An agent appointed to rent land or do whatever he pleased with it, can not bind his principal as a partner in a partnership in the use of the land.^'' An agent having authority to hold in possession, control, sell and assign real estate has no authority to enter into a partnership for his principal.^^ But a principal ratifying the unauthorized acts of his agent in holding him out as a partner, is liable as a partner.'* 31 Hackett v. Multnomah R. Co., 12 ss Mcintosh v. Kelly, 31 La. Ann. Ore. 124, 6 Pac. 659, 53 Am. Rep. 327. 649. 32 De Witt V. San Francisco, 2 Cal. ^7 Providence Machine Co. v. Brown- 289. ing, 72 S. Car. 424, 52 S. E. 117. 33 Helton V. Guinn, 76 Fed. 96; Dey- 38 Guy y, Rosewater, 18 Colo. App. erle v. Hunt, SO Mo. App. 541. 1, 69 Pac. 271. stHoIton V. Guinn, 76 Fed. 96. 39 Williams v. Butler, 35 111. 544. 35 Wright V. Boynton, 37 N. H. 9, 72 Am. Dec. 319. 207 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS § 200 § 200. Partners not qualified to take part in firm business requiring license. — In order to conduct certain professions and businesses persons must be legally qualified or licensed. Ex- amples of such professions are the practice of law, medicine, den- tistry and pharmacy. An example of business is pawnbroking. The rule is that a contract made in the course of the trade or pro- fession by an unlicensed person who is following a trade or profession required to be licensed, can not be enforced by such person if the purpose of the law was to protect the pub- lic from its own ignorance, and the lack of skill of those who might engage in such calling.^" Where persons legally qualified or licensed to do a certain business enter into a partnership with one who is not so qualified or licensed the partnership is not illegal, if the legally qualified persons are to conduct the business.^^ This phase of the subject is more important in England than in this country.*^ Where one of two attorneys composing a firm was unlicensed, it was held the firm could not recover on a contract.*^ The same rule was applied where one member of a firm of attor- neys failed to pay a license tax required by law.** The general rule is that license to one member of a partnership to sell intoxi- cating liquors, does not authorize his copartners to make sales.*' *" Elliott Contracts, § 267; Levi- where statute required all to be li- son V. Boas, 150 Cal. 185, 88 Pac. 825, censed (dictum). 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 575 and note. *BLong v. State, 27 Ala. 32; Shaw *iHarland v. Lilienthal, S3 N. Y. v. State, 56 Ind. 188; State v. Mc- 438; Arden v. Tucker, 4 Barn. & Ad. Connell, 90 Iowa 197, 57 N. W. 707; 815; Turner v. Reynall, 14 C. B. (N. Lovejoy v. Commonwealth, 13 Ky. L. S.) 328. 976; Commonwealth v.' Hall, 8 Grat. *2 See Lindley Partnership (8th ed.) ," ( Va.) 588 ; Plisson v. Skinner, 5 Terr, pp. 115, 126. L. R. 391. See, however, Barnes v. ■*3 Hittson V. Browne, 3 Colo. 304. Commonwealth, 2 Dana (Ky.) 388, •** Mclver V. Clarke, 69 Miss. 408, where sales by the unlicensed partner 10 So. 581. Contra: Harland v. Lili- for the joint benefit of himself and enthal, 53 N. Y. 438 ; Arden v. Tucker, the licensee were allowed, and Web- 4 Barn. & Ad. '815. See Schnaier v. ber v. Williams, 36 Maine 512, which Navarre Hotel &c. Co., 182 N. Y. 83, allows him to sell under the licensed 74 N. E. 561, 70 L. R. A. 722, 108 Am. partner's direction. See also Garrett- St. 790, where court said that if one Williams Co. v. Watkins, 84 Vt. 299, of firm of plumbers was licensed there 79 Atl. 387, Ann. Cas. 1913 A, 84€n. could be recovery for services except § 201 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 208 § 201. Delectus personarum — Choice o£ partners. — Part- nership being a relation of trust, confidence and mutual agency, it follows that it must be founded on contract and that no person can become a partner except by the consent of all the others. This is true at the formation of the relation, and thereafter, and one partner at no time can introduce a third person into the firm without the consent of all the others.*' The Uniform Partner- ship Act provides that "No person can become a member of a partnership without the consent of all the partners."*^* So jeal- ously does the law guard this right of delectus personarum that the attempt to transfer the right of one partner without the other's consent terminates the partnership.*'' If one partner at- tempts to transfer his interest without the consent of the others, all that the transferee obtains is the right to a set- tlement of the partnerships, not a right, to take part in the going business.*^ A partner can not even by his will leave to a devisee or executor the right to enter into and carry on the partnership business as a partner.*^ There is an ap- parent exception to the rule under discussion, though not really one. Consent to the admission into the going firm of a new part- ner or of an assignee or personal representative after the death of a partner may be given in the original partnership agree- ment.^* And acceptance of a partner's assignee may sometimes *6 Story Partnership, § 5 ; Morrison Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 522 (revd. 20 V. Austin State Bank, 213 111. 472, 72 Johns. 611) ; Moddewell v. Keever, 8 N. E. 1109, 104 Am. St. 225; Love v. Watts & S. (Pa.) 63; Carter v. Ro- Payne, 73 Ind. 80, 38 Am. Rep. Ill ; lard, 53 Tex. 540. See § 591 infra (on Freligh v. Miller, 16 -La. Ann. 418 ; dissolution) . Gray v. Gibson, 6 Mich. 306; Free- ^»Wild v. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. man v. Bloomfield, 43 Mo. 391; Fil- 129, 7 Atl. 295, 57 Am. Rep. 552; ley V. Walker, 28 Nebr. 506, 44 N. W. Pearce v. Chamberlain, 2 Ves. 33; 737; Marquand v. New York Mfg. Fox v. Hanbury, Cowp. 445. Co., 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 525. BoMeaher v. Cox, 37 Ala. 201; Ro- 46a Uniform Partnership Act, § 18 senstiel v. Gray, 112 111. 282; Love v. (g). Payne, 73 Ind. 80, 38 Am. Rep. Ill; *'■ See § 591 and ch. 18 on change of Wild v. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 129, 7 membership. Atl. 295, 57 Am. Rep. 552 ; McGrath v. *8 Noonan v. Nunan, 76 Cal. 44, 18 Cowen, 57 Ohio St. 385, 49 N. E. 338 ; Pac. 98; Kingman v. Spurr, 7 Pick. Ex parte Garland, 10 Ves. 110. (Mass.) 235; Nicoll v. Mumford, 4 209 WHO MAY BE PARTNERS § 201 be inferred from silence or failure to dissent."^ In the case of mining partnerships"^ and joint stock companies^^ there is no delectus personarum, but the assignee or transferee of a member of the association acquires his interest. 51 Jones V. O'Farrel, 1 Nev. 354. ss See ch. 32 infra. 52 See § 152 ante. 14 — Row. ON Paetn. — Vol. 1 CHAPTER VIII PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION SECTION 210. How relation is formed. 211. Articles of partnership. 212. Verbal contract. 213. Implied contract. 214. Mutual assent. 215. Consideration. 216. Examples of agreements held to constitute a partnership. 217. Cases in which relation was not created. 218. Creation of partnership for dealing in real estate — Verbal agreement — Statute of frauds. SECTION 219. Cases distinguished — Sow con- tract may be taken out of statute. 220. Partnership agreements be- tween carriers. 221. Parties to executory partner- ship agreement. 222. Partnership agreement induced by fraud. 223. When relation begins. 224. Duration of relation. 225. Renewal or continuation. § 210. How relation is formed. — A partnership is created by a voluntary agreement of the parties express or impHed.^ In order to constitute a partnership contract all the essentials of any other contract, as to competent parties, consideration, subject- ^ Dunham v. Loverock, 158 Pa. 197, 27 Atl. 990, 38 Am. St. 838; Rush v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 319, rehearing denied Id. 689 ; Bartelt v. Smith, 145 Wis. 31, 1^9 N. W. 782, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 1195n. See also Lapenta v. Lettieri, 72 Conn. m, 44 Atl. 730, 77 Am. St. 315 ; May- field V. Turner, 180 111. 332, 54 N. E. 418 ; Briggs v. James H. Rice Zo., 83 111. App. 618 ; Jones v. Stever, 154 Mo. App. 640, 136 S. W. 16; Simmons v. Ingram, 78 Mo. App. 603; Martin V. Baird, 175 Pa. St. 540, 34 Atl. 809; Causler v. Wharton, 62 Ala. 358; Haycock v. Williams, 54 Ark. 384, 16 S. W. 3; Morgan v. Farrell, 58 Conn. 413, 20 Atl. 614, 18 Am. St. 282; Bushnell v. Consolidated Ice M. Co., 138 III. 67, 27 N. E. 596; Miller V. Hughes, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 181, 10 Am. Dec. 719; Halliday v. Bride- well, Z6 La. Ann. 238; Ingals v. Fer- guson, 59 Mo. App. 299; Groves v. Tallman, 8 Nev. 178; Wilson's Exrs. v. Cobb's Exrs., 28 N. J. Eq. 177; Dawson v. Pogue, 18 Ore. 94, 22 Pac. 637, 6 L. R. A. 176; In re Gibb's Es- 210 211 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION § 211 matter and meeting of the minds of the parties, must appear.^ It never is formed by operation of law.* The so-called partnership by estoppel is not an exception to this rule. A true partnership inter se is not formed by estoppel, but persons who have been held out as partners may be liable to third persons as if they were partners. Thus the relation of father and son,* husband and wife," attorney and client,* or the joint prosecution of a law suit,^ does not give rise to a partnership relation between such parties, in the absence of any agreement to that effect. One can not be made a member of a partnership without his consent, express or implied.' § 211. Articles of partnership. — ^The better and probably the customary method of forming a partnership is by a written agreement as to the terms and conditions of the partnership, signed by the parties. Such formal written instruments are called articles of partnership. By these articles the parties to a certain extent fix their rights, duties and liabilities, and provide for the commencement, duration and termination of the relation. It is better in forming a partnership that- such articles be drawn up and the rights of the parties fixed by them as definitely as pos- sible and many opportunities for controversy thus removed, though formal articles are not essential to the creation of the tate, 157 Pa. 59, 27 Atl. 383, 22 L. R. (N. Y.) 346, 73 N. Y. St. 428, Z7 N. A. 276; Cocke v. Evans' Heirs, 9 Y. S. 751; Butler Sav. Bank v. Os- Yerg. (Tenn.) 287; Setzer v. Beale, borne, 159 Pa. St. 10, ,28 Atl. 163, 39 19 W. Va. 274 ; Holgate v. Downer, 8 Am. St. 665 ; Dunham v. Loverock, Wyo. 334, 57 Pac. 918. 158 Pa. St. 197, 27 Atl. 990, 38 Am. 2 Rush V. First Nat. Bank (Tex. St. 838 ; In re Gibb's Estate, 157 Pa. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 319, rehearing St. 59, 27 Atl. 383, 22 L. R. A. 276; denied Id. 609. In re Hedge's Appeal, 6Z Pa. St. 273. 3 Bushnell v. Consolidated Ice Mach. * Phillips v. Phillips, 49 111. 437. Co., 138 in. 67, 27 N. E. 596; Bishop ^Ingals v. Ferguson, 59 Mo. App. v. Georgeson, 60 111. 484; Phillips v, 299. Phillips, 49 111. 437; Metcalf v. Red- « Willis v. Crawfprd, 38 Ore. 522, mon, 43 111. 264; Freeman v. Bloom- 63 Pac. 985, 64 Pac. 866, 53 L. R. A. field, 43 Mo. 391 ; Ingals V. Ferguson, 904. 59 Mo. App. 299 ; Wilson's Exrs. v. '' Wilson's Exrs. v. Cobb's Exrs., 28 Cobb's Exrs., 28 N. J. Eq. 177; Cen- N. J. Eq. 177. tral City Sav. Bank v. Walker, 66 N. « Coolidge v. Taylor, 85 Vt. 39, 80 Y. 424; Heye v. Tilford, 2 App. Div. Atl. 1038. § 212 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 212 relation. Where each party is to give his entire time, contribute equally to capital and share equally in profits and losses, a brief memorandum may be sufficient. But if they contribute unequally, are to share unequally in profits, if some are to receive compensa- tion for services or interest, or the rights of some are restricted as between themselves, then full articles are desirable. Generally, articles of partnership should state the nature and place of business and the firm name; the time of beginning and the dura- tion of the partnership ; the contribution of each to the capital of the firm; the share of each in profits and losses; the powers of each partner in the conduct of the business ; and provide for its dissolution and winding up. In special cases many other matters are included. The ordinary rules of construction of contracts apply to the construction of articles of partnership, and that sub- ject will be discussed in a later chapter.® Partnership articles are not intended to define all the rights and duties of the partners inter se, but many of these must be determined by the general rules of law. Some suggestive forms of articles of partnership will be found in the chapter on forms. § 212. Verbal contract. — It is not essential to the exist- ence of a partnership that the agreement of the parties c^-eating the relation should be in writing,^" for an oral partnership agree- ment is ordinarily as binding as a written one.^^ Naturally, a pa- rol agreement for a partnership to last more than a year is invalid, under the Statute of Frauds.^^ But where immediately after making the contract the parties begin to perform it, they have 8 See post § 386. real estate. See also Ruggles v. Buck- 10 Simmons v. Ingram, 78 Mo. App. ley, 153 Fed. 950, 86 C. C. A. 154; 603 ; Bartelt v. Smith, 145 Wis. 31, 129 Huggins v. Huggins, 117 Ga. 151, 43 N. W. 782, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 1195n; S. E. 759; Jones v. Davies, 60 Kans. 1 Lindley Partnership, p. 80; 1 Bates 309, 56 Pac. 484, 72 Am. St. 354. Partnership, § 281; Levi v. Karrich, "Weinstein v. Welden, 80 Misc. 13 Iowa 344; Rumsey v. Briggs, 139 348, 142 N. Y. S. 406. N. Y. 323, 34 N. E. 929; Meriden Nat. "Wilson v. Ray, 13 Ind. 1; Wahl Bank v. Gallaudet, 120 N. Y. 298, 24 v. Barnum, 116 N. Y. 87, 22 N. E. 280, N. E. 994. See § 218, on verbal agree- 5 L. R. A. 623. ment to create partnership for sale of 213 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION § 213 created a partnership at will, under which the rights of the par- ties are determined by the terms of agreement except as to the time of termination, for it may be terminated by either party at any time.^* If the parol contract is for an undertaking which may b,e performed within the year it is absolutely binding, and neither party has the right to dissolve at will without being liable to the other in damages.^* § 213. Implied contract. — The agreement may be either express or implied. ^^ The actual intent of the parties usually gov- erns.^° However, the relation is implied as between the parties to the contract and as to liability to third parties, in cases where they have had a community of interest in property and have shared profits and losses, and have acted as partners, whether or not they really intended eo nomine to become partners.^' The application of the rule of a partnership, or partnership liability, created by implied Contract, is perhaps most frequent, and is best illustrated in case of persons who assumed to be incorporated but did not form even a de facto corporation.^^ Generally, where there is an agreement to place money, eifects, labor and skill or some or all of them, in a lawful business and divide the profits 13 Sanger v. French, 157 N. Y. 213, Collins, 3 Nev. 260 ; Dunham v. Love- Si N. E. 979; Wahl v. Barnum, 116 rock, 158 Pa. St. 197, 27 Atl. 990, 38 N. Y. 87, 22 N. E. 280, S L. R. A. 623; Am. St. 838; In re Gibb's Estate, 157 Smith V. Tarlton, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) Pa. St. 59, 27 Atl. 383, 22 L. R. A. 336 ; Jordan v. Miller, 75 Va. 442 ; 276 ; Providence Mach. Co. v. Brown- Treat v. Hiles, 68 Wis. 344, 32 N. W. ing, 72 S. Car. 424, 52 S. E. 117; 517, 60 Am. Rep. 858; Mackay v. Holme v. Hammond, L. R. 7 Ex. 218, Rutherford, 13 Jur. 21, 6 Moore P. C. 41 L. J. Ex. 157, 20 W. R. 747. 413, 13 Jur. 21, 13 Eng. Reprint 743. le See § 89 ante. " Smith V. Tarlton, 2 Barb. Ch. (N, "1 Lindley Partnership, p. 84; Ja- Y.) 336. cobs v. Shorey, 48 N. H. 100, 97 Am. 15 Savannah Rail &c. Co. v. Sabel, Dec. 586; McFarlane v. McFarlane, 145 Ala. 681, 40 So. 88; Plunkett v. 82 Hun (N. Y.) 238, 31 N. Y. S. 272, Dillon, 4 Houst. (Del.) 338; Bowen 63 N. Y. St. 589; Emerson v. Du- 'v. Rutherford, 60 111. 41, 14 Am. Rep. rand, 64 Wis. Ill, 24 N. W. 129, 54 25; Phillips v. Phillips, 49 111. 437; Am. Rep. 593. Halliday v. Bridewell, 36 La. Ann. is Eaton v. Walker, 76 Mich. 579, 238; Central City Sav. Bank v. 43 N. W. 638, 6 L. R. A. 102; Cen- Walker, 66 N. Y. 424 ; Chase v. Bar- tral City Sav. Bank v. Walker, 66 N. rett, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 148; Sargent v. Y. 424. See § 231 infra. ■§ 214 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 214 and bear the losses in certain specified proportions, a partnership is formed.^" § 214. Mutual assent. — Mutual assent of the parties to a partnership agreement is as necessary as in any other contract. To establish the existence of a partnership agreement, it must appear that the parties have assented to all the propositions and conditions included in the agreement sought to be proved.^" Thus one who seeks to show a partnership between himself and others must show not only his own assent but the assent of each one whom he seeks to hold as a partner and it is not suffi- cient to show that some of the parties regarded one as a partner who had never assented to that relation.^^ This is the rule if the assent of one partner was induced by "undue influence"^* or if one party believes himself a partner, the others not having as- sented.^' A partnership is not created by an offer unaccepted on terms by the party to whom it was made,^* or by an accept- ance by an unauthorized agent, ^° although an acceptance by such an agent may be ratified.^® Thus, if the agreement is so indefinite in important particulars, such as the amount of capital to be contributed, the business to 'be undertaken" or the duties of the partners, that the court can not determine with certainty on what the minds of the par- ties met, the agreement will not be enforced.^^ In some cases 10 Nicholson v. Kilbury (Wash.), 23 phillips v. Phillips, 49 111. 437; 145 Pac. 189. Setzer v. Beale, 19 W. Va. 274. 2»Chapin v. Cherry, 243 Mo. 375, 2*Metcalf v. Redmon, 43 111. 264; ■147 S. W. 1084; Rush v. First Nat. Bennett v. Pulliam, 3 111. App. 185; Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. Farrow v. Bresler, 108 Mich. 564, 66 319, 609. N. W. 492; Moscowitz v. Sassulsky, 21 Phillips V. Phillips, 49 111. 437; 141 App. Div. 763, 126 N. Y. S. 513. Baher v. Baher, 161 111. App. 430; 25 Miles v. Wann, 27 Minn. 56, 6 Atwood V. Meredith, 37 Miss. 635 ; N. W. 417. Magovern v. Robertson, 59 Hun 627, 2e Williams v. Butler, 35 111. 544. 14 N. Y. S. 114, 37 N. Y. St. 441 (aff. 27 Goldsmith v. Sachs, 17 Fed. 726, 129 N. Y. 636, 29 N. E. 1031). See 8 Sawy. (U. S.) 110; Savannah Rail Halvorson v. Bowes, 22 Manitoba 447 ; &c. Co. v. Sabel, 145 Ala. 681, 40 So. Channel v. Fassitt, 16 Ohio 166. 88; Morris v. Peckham, 51 Conn. 128; 22 Faver v. Bowers (Tex. Civ. Chapin v. Cherry, 243 Mo. 375, 147 S. App.), 33 S. W. 131. W. 1084; Doan v. Rogan, 79 Ohio St 215 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION § 215 the parties may have called themselves partners, but as the agree- ment to which they assented did not actually create the relation, they are not such in law.^' The converse of this proposition is also true, that if the par- ties did not think they were, forming a partnership, or even de- clare that they are not, but the agreement to which they assented makes them partners in law, then they are liable as partners.^" It has also been held that lack of knowledge by a client of the eflfect of a written instrument prepared by his attorney, may pre- vent it from creating a partnership.^" § 215. Consideration. — As in the case of all contracts, there must be a consideration for the contract whereby the part- nership relation is formed. This element may, however, be sup- plied by the mutual promises of the respective parties or their contributions of either property, labor or skill toward the part- nership business.^^ Taking part in the business and thus render- ing himself liable to third parties as a partner may be a suffi- cient consideration as to the one who contributes no capital.^^ It was held that where one of the partners in a sawmill busi- ness was required to take all of the orders for lumber and per- 372, 87 N. E. 263 ; Watson v. Bayfiss, tilizer Co. v. Reynolds, 79 Ala. 497 ; 71 Wash. 499, 128 Pac. 1061 ; In re Holdridge v. McKewen, 107 Ark. 368, Vince (1892), 2 Q. B. 478, 61 L. J. Q. ISS S. W. 113; Trayes v. Johns, 11 B. 836, 67 L. T. Rep. 70. Colo. App. 219, 52 Pac. 1113; Lane v. 28 Gulf City Shingle Mfg. Co. v. Lodge, 139 Ga. 93, 76 S. E. 874; Byrd Boyles, 129 Ala. 192, 29 So. 800; Oli- v. Fox, 8 Mo. 574; Mitchell v. O'Neal, ver V. Gray, 4 Ark. 425; Sailors v. 4 Nev. 504; Emery, v. Wilson,, 79 N. Nixon-Jones Printing Co., 20 111. App. ' Y. 78; Coleman v. Eyre, 45 N. Y. 38; 509; Livingston V. Lynch, 4 Johns. Ch. Doan v. Rogan, 79 Ohio St. 372, 87 (N. Y.) 573 ; Halvorson v. Bowes, 22 N. E. 263 ; BresHn v. Brown, 24 Ohio Manitoba 447. St. 565, 15 Am. Rep. 627; Belcher v. 2=>City Nat. Bank v. Stone, 131 Conner, 1 S. Car. 88; Yosfv. Critcher, Mich. 588, 92 N. W. 99; Beecher v. 112 Va. 870, 72 S. E. 594; Kimmins Bush, 45 Mich. 188, 7 N. W. 785, 40 v. Wilson, 8 W. Va. 584; Holgate v. Am. Rep. 465. ' Downer, 8 Wyo. 334, 57 Pac. 918. ,30Bolles V. O'Brien, 59 So. 133, 63 ^2 Emery v. Wilson, 79 N. Y. 78; Fla. 342, 354. Guccione v. Scott, 21 Misc. 410, 47 N. 31 McKinnon v. McKinnon, 56 Fed. Y. S. 475 (aff.d. 33 App. Div. 214, 53 409, S C. C. A. 530; Alabama Fer- N. Y. S. 462). § 215 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 216 form the duties involved in filling them, this was a sufficient consideration on his part to make him a partner, though the other partner was to buy all the lumber which the mill produced.*^ To allow the use of one's name is sufficient consideration.®* But where there is merely the promise of one person that another shall share in the profits of an undertaking, and the other neither furnishes anything nor does anything, the agreement is void.^® It has been held that no partnership was in fact formed, notwith- standing the parties agreed to purchase a tract of land "in part- nership" when one of the parties did nothing on her part, contrib- uted nothing, and risked nothing, since-there^was no consideration to support the contract.^^ Where one agreed that another could become his partner in a certain transaction by paying him half the amount of money he had expended, and such person gave him a worthless check which was not accepted as absolute payment, the parties did not become partners, nor was the original venturer bound by a pay- ment made to his alleged partner who had not paid his share.^^ The assumption of liability for debts of the firm may be a con- sideration for special rights or an increased share in profits to one partner.^^ A surrender of one partner's right to withdraw from the firm and his continuance therein, may be a considera- tion for the agreement of his copartners that he shall have half the profits and half the net assets on dissolution.^" An agreement whereby one is to pay a person established in business a sum of money to admit him into partnership or pre- ss Smith V. Padrosa, 139 Ga. 484, 17 N. W. 668, 110 N. W. 669, 7 L. R. A. S. E. 639. (N. S.) 945, 121 Am. St. 822. 3*Breslin v. Brown, 24 Ohio St. 3^ Stundon v. Dahlenberg, 184 Mo. 565, IS Am. Rep. 627; McCord v. App. 381, 171 S. W. 37. Field, 27 U. C. C. P. 391. 38 McKinnon v. McKinnon, 56 Fed, ssTrayes v. Johns, 11 Colo. App. 409, 5 C. C. A. 530; Lyle v. Howard, 219, 52 Pac. 1113; Frothingham v. 64 S. W. 144, 24 Ky. L. 143; Clift v. Seymour, 118 Mass. 489; Mitchell v. Barrow, 108 N. Y. 187, 15 N. E. 327. O'Neale, 4 Nev. 504. 3" Melville v. Kruse, 69 App. Div. 3'5 Norton v. Brink, 75 Nebr. 566, 106 211, 74 N. Y. S. 826 (affd. 174 N. Y. 306, 66 N. E. 965). 217 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION § 216 mium, is valid and enforcible.^" If the partnership is terminated sooner than expected, either by fraud or failure of considera- tion, the ordinary laws of contracts apply, as to the recovery of all or part of the premium." If there is no fraud, but the part- nership is terminated by death or otherwise, sooner than ex- pected, it has usually been held that there is no right to a return of the premium unless provided for in the partnership agree- ment.*^ If the premium was obtained through fraud, it may be recovered by taking the partnership accounts, or rescission of the contract and suit for money paid.** § 216. Examples of agreements which have been held to constitute a partnership. — In a preceding chapter when con- sidering the tests of partnership, naturally there was a discus- sion of some agreements which either did or did not constitute a partnership. The discussion here is practically a continuation of the former, except that the examples given are considered with reference to no particular test. Among contracts which have been held to create partnerships are the following: An agree- ment whereby the owners of unimproved real estate are to give a builder an undivided third interest in the property in considera- tion of his assistance in the improving and marketing of that property,** a written contract which provided that the two par- ties were "to option coal and timber lands" and secure necessary renewals; one to furnish money to offset the other's services, the profits to be divided equally on sale, less option money, and each to have authority to sell,*^ an association of persons to carry on business for mutual benefit, though their shares are rep- resented by transferable certificates, and though the title to the *o Walker v. Harris, 1 Anstr. 245. P. 78; Ferns v. Carr, 28 Ch. Div. 409; 41 Smith V. Everett, 126 Mass. 304; Farr v. Pearce, 3 Madd. 74. Capen v. Barrows, 1 Gray (Mass.) *3 Ex parte Turquand, 2 M. D. & D. Z16; Tournade v. Hagedorn, 5 Thomp. 339; Bury v. Allen, 1 Coll. 589. & C. (N. Y.) 288. ** Campbell v. Northwest Eckington *2 English Partnership Act, § 40; Imp. Co., 229 U. S. 561, 57 L. ed. 1330, Taylor v. Hare, 1 Bos. & P. (N. S.) 33 Sup. Ct. 796. 260; Whincup v. Hughes, L. R. 6 C. ^^Krebs v. Blankenship, IZ W. Va. 539, 80 S. E. 948. § 216 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 218 property was taken in the name of a third person as agent,*" a contract where two persons were to purchase lumber land, each contributing time, money and labor, and dividing equally profits and losses, each having the power to act for the other in employ- ing and paying labor and selling lumber, and each intending to become partners,*^ an agreement between two parties to deal in tax titles as a business, one to furnish the money and the titles to be taken in his name, and he to receive ten per cent, on his in- vestment out of the profits, the remaining profits being equally divided between him and the other party, who managed the business.** In one Colorado case it was held that under the circumstances a contribution of money to an adventure for re- ducing certain mine slag, was not a loan, but a contribution to capital which made him a partner.*® In California, under the code, it is held that an agreement of two persons to carry on a definite business, and to divide the profits and losses of such business creates a partnership, although one party has the power to veto purchases made by the other.^" ' Two persons who associate themselves together^, 'purchase realty for use in the business, making part payments from the profits and rent and agreeing that the real property shall be part of the partnership assets, are partners under the California code, though one partner has advanced a large sum to make a payment on the real estate.^^ So, in Maryland, where a firm en- tered into an arrangement with an employe, by which he was to be known as a partner, was authorized to transact the firm's business on the stock exchange, of which he was a member, and could sign checks, and was given a contingent interest in profits, he was held a partner in fact, although he received a regular salary and contributed no capital.^^ And in New York, it was *s Williams v. Inhabitants of Mil- so Doudell v. Shoo, 20 Cal. App. 424, ton, 215 Mass. 1, 102 N. E. 355. 129 Pac. 478. " Edwards v. Zuck, 171 Mich. 29, " Doudell v. Shoo, 20 Cal. App. 424, 136 N. W. 1122. 129 Pac. 478. *8 Oriental Realty Co. v. Taylor, 69 =2 Hemsley v. McKim, 119 Md. 431, Wash, lis, 124 Pac. 489. 87 Atl. 506. 4!> Richardson v. Keely (Colo.), 142 Pac. 167. 219 CREATION^ AND DURATION OF RELATION § 216 held that parties who, as heirs, devisees and legatees owned a ferry franchise, boats and docks, and allowed the ferry business to continue which their ancestors and testators had conducted, and each received a share of the profits each year, were partners.°^ As a general rule where two or more persons enter into a busi- ness arrangement under which they have a community interest in the property used in such business, and also in the profits aris- ing therefrom, they are regarded as partners.^* "Joint ownership of property, use of it in a business, sharing of profits and division of net proceeds upon dissolution, constitute the part owners part- ners in the business, and liable for its losses as well as benefi- ciaries of its profits, in the absence of a specific agreement defin- ing by express terms the status of the part owners."^^ Thus, where the parties agree that one shall furnish the capital and the building, the other manage the purchases and sales for a drug department, such department to be charged with rent and the other expenses of conducting it and the net profits or losses to be divided among the parties in certain proportions, this has been held to constitute a partnership.^^ Acts whereby the parties seek to avoid partnership liability, such as concealing the fact that a partnership exists or obscuring the purposes for which the par- ties associate themselves together, are of no avail when the fact that a partnership does exist is once established. Thus, where parties associated themselves together to deal in lumber land, one to furnish the capital and the other to render services in conducting such business, the profits to be divided between them after paying interest on the money advanced by the first party, it was held that a partnership was created, notwithstanding the parties did not make public the fact of their business connection, 53Bogardus v. Reed, 160 App. Div. McMichael, 12 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 176; 294, 145 N. Y. S. 597. Cothran v. Marmaduke, 60 Tex. 370 ; 64 Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. 637, 16 Dow v. Dempsey, 21 Wash. 86, 57 Pac. So. 601, 27 L. R. A. 126, 43 Am. St. 355. 217; Lockwood v. Doane, 107 111. 235; =5 Forbes v. Thorpe, 209 Mass. 570, Ryder v. Wilcox, 103 Mass. 24; 95 N. E. 955. Southern Fertilizer Co. v. Reames, 105 =» Leber v. Dietz, 22 Misc. (N. Y.) N. Car. 283, 11 S. E. 467; Jones v. 524, 49 N. Y. S. 1002. § 216 LAW OF TARTNERSHIP 220 but instead concealed it/' It has been held that an agreement between landowners to sell timber off theit land,'* to sell land/" or an agreement by one to furnish money necessary for the manufacture of an article patented by the other/" an agreement whereby one party is to make estimates and furnish iron for bridges, and the other to supply additional material and work and solicit orders,*^ or an agreement whereby two attorneys take certain designated cases together, and agree to pay the costs and divide the profits,"^ constitutes a partnership when the essential elements are present. It has also been held that where the tes- timony showed that the defendant was to furnish rhoney to buy mules, and that the plaintiff was to furnish the feed and care for them and help sell them, and that they were then to divide the profits, it was sufficient to uphold a finding that a partnership existed."^ It must constantly be borne in mind that a "partner- ship is a fact^a fact sometimes made out like other facts, from circumstances as well as by direct evidence."^* If it appears to have been the purpose of the parties to enter into the relation of partners, all subterfuges of either, resorted to in order to evade liability for possible losses while securing certainty of the ad- vantages to be derived from the relation, must be disregarded."^ If the real party in interest in organizing a partnership, for business reasons procured another to sign the articles in his place, both he and the signer were bound by the agreement, and Avere liable for the subscription.** Where one party to a part- s' Ruggles V. Buckley, 158 Fed. 950, es Jones v. Stever, 154 Mo. App. 640, 86 C. C. A. 154. 136 S. W. 16. =s Tanner v. Hughes, 21 Ky. L. 77, eijn re Neasmith, 147 -Fed. 160, 11 SO S. W. 1099. C. C. A. 402; Fechteler v. Palm, 133 69 Cronkrite v. Trexler, 187 Pa. St. Fed. 462, 66 C. C. A. 336; Ruggles v. 100, 41 Atl. 22. Buckley, 158 Fed. 950, 86 C. C. A. 154. so Illinois Malleable Iron Co. v. The foregoing has special reference to Reed, 102 Iowa 538, 71 N. W. 423. those cases in which there is no ^1 Clinton Bridge &c. Iron Works v. agreed statement of facts. First Nat. Bank, 103 Wis. 117, 79 N. es Johnson v. Carter, 120 Iowa 355, W. 47. 94 N. W. 850. 152 Southworth V. People, 183 111. 621, ecTorbe v. Strauss, 155 Wis. 518, 56 N. E. 407. 144 N. W. 184, rehearing denied Id. 1136. 22l CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION § 217 nership agreement to buy and sell real property was to furnish fifteen thousand dollars purchase price, or as much thereof as was necessary, the contract was not invalid because of indefinite- ness.*^ § 217. Cases in which relation was not created. — Since the existence of a partnership is a question of fact to be proved there must be evidence which establishes a partnership relation. In the absence of evidence to establish this fact the parties can not be held as partners.'^ All the elements necessary to constitute a partnership contract must be present. Thus, where one merely hired the use of another hotel from day to day and agreed to pay therefor a sum equal to one-third of the gross receipts and gross earnings, it was held that no partnership existed since the parties were not mutual agents. The one who owned the build- ing had nothing whatever to do with the business conducted in it.''° It has also been held that where there is a total lack of evi- dence to show that there was an agreement between the parties by which they would share in the profits, or that there was any understanding as to the proportion in which such profits should be shared, and where the evidence of the party to the agreement who sought to establish the partnership indicated that he hijnself had no idea, much less an intention, of bearing any loss, no part- nership was shown.''" An interest in profits which arise through use of office space does not establish a partnership.''^ Where a contract provided that one who had applied for letters patent, assigned a half interest in such patent to another, who was to 67 Floyd V. Kicklighter, 139 Ga. 133, ^o La Cotts v. Pike, 91 Ark. 26, 120 76 S. E. 1011. S. W. 144, 134 Am. St. 48. In the 88 See Harris v. Sassier, 67 Tex. 383, above case the instrument relied on to 3 S. W. 316. show the partnership agreement was a 69 Beecher v. Bush, 45 Mich. 188, 7 deed. This deed was held to make the N. W. 785, 40 Am. Rep. 465. To the parties tenants in common, and not effect that there must be a mutual partners. The case holds that there agency, see Norton v. Brink, 75 Nebr. must be something more than a joint 566, 106 N. W. 668, 110 N. W. 669, ownership of property to constitute a 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 945, 121 Am. St. partnership, 822. " Hately v. Kiser, 162 111. App. 542. § 217 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 222 pay the expenses of procuring the patents, they were common owners, not partners.'^ Where one agreed to raft another's logs to a saw-mill and give him half of the price received, which was already fixed, no partnership was formed/^ Neither does the fact that one looks to the profits of a business, in which he has no interest and under another's management, for payment of a per- sonal debt make the former a partner with the latter. The amount due is merely a personal debt, and remains such if not paid out of the profits.'* None of the following agreements created partnerships, it was held: Where an individual who advanced money to help carry out a construction contract was to receive one-third the profits, but hiad no control over the work,'^ whereby one party was to furnish money to purchase horses," where an employe of a proprietor retiring from business was to pay all expenses, and receive the balance of the income of the business over a specified sum per month,''' where three persons associated to sell stock and one was to furnish office rent and serv- ices, another advertising and printing and a third services in sales, advertising and correspondence and they were to divide net profits,'* a contract to purchase real estate, each to pay a propor- tionate part of the price, and acquire a specified interest,'' an agreement that one would purchase ground and furnish money for the construction of four houses thereon, while the other party was to superintend the construction, and they would divide profits when the houses were sold.'" Under joint and several contracts between two ice companies and car companies, whereby the ice companies were to furnish 72 Williams v. Knibbs, 213 Mass. ''^ Miles v. Miles (Iowa), ISO N. 534, 100 N. E. 666. ''« Coody v. Shawver (Tex. Civ. 73 Collier v. De Jernett, 1 Ala. App. App.), 161 S. W. 935. 588, 56 So. 101. W. 21. 7* Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hibou, 92 's Wade v. Hornaday, 92 Kans. 293, Miss. 234, 46 So. 73, 18 L. R. A. (N. 140 Pac. 870. S.) 975. See, however, Webb v. 7o Gamble v. Loffler, 28 S. Dak. 239, Hicks, 123 N. Car. 244, 31 S. E. 479. 133 N. W. 288; MacPherson v. Hard- " Post v. New York, 148 N. Y. S. ing, 40 App. D. C. 404. 568. so Miller v. Pepperling, 185 Mo. App. 222, 170 S. W. 328. 223 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION § 217 ice for refrigerator cars, and under which they were accustomed to divide the business, each furnishing to the cars on the railroad track nearest their plant, and buying ice from the other ice com- pany if short, the ice companies were not partners.^^ One can not be charged as a partner of his bankrupt brother under the South Dakota code where the business was conducted in the name of the brothers as partners, but the one brother had in- vested no capital, merely worked for the bankrupt on a salary, and there was no agreement to share profits and losses, for under the code there must be a carrying on of business together and a division of profits.*^ A contract by which one was to sell automobiles for another and receive half the profits on sales, does not make them partners/* The holders of certificates in a speculating pool who were to share in the profits of money invested by the promoter of the pool and providing for the drawing out of their money upon ten days' notice, were not partners with the manager and promoter, but were held merely to have loaned him money.** An agreement whereby two attorneys agree to conduct a certain litigation for a client, the client to pay the attorney's fees and other necessary costs, the attorneys to divide the fees, does not constitute the attorneys partners.*' Nor does an association of dredgers whereby they fix prices' and divide up work constitute a part- nership.** Where three brokers had offices together, each paying a share of the expenses, and doing business in his own name, but dividing commissions with the others if they assisted in making a sale, they were not partners as to i sale made by one with the assistance of the others." A bailment was created, not a partner- ship, where the owner of cattle delivered them to another to 81 EI Paso Ice & Refrigerator Co. ss Willis v. Crawford, 38 Ore. 522, V. Consumers' Ice & Cold Storage Co. 63 Pac. 985, 64 Pac. 866, S3 L. R. A. (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 S. W. 551. 904. 82 In re Gibson, 191 Fed. 665. ^^ Potter v. Morris &c. Dredging 83 Studebaker Corporation of Amer- Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 422, 46 Atl. 537. ica V. Dodds, 161 Ky. 542, 171 S. W. 87 Culbertson v. Sheridan, 93 Kans. 167. 268, 144 Pac. 268. 8* In re Norris, 190 Fed. 101. § 218 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 224 keep for a specified term of years, the increase to be divided, the original herd returned, a certain amount of shrinkage to be borne by the owner, and loss above that by both in fixed proportions, the owner to pay the taxes.®* The fact that the parties to a con- tract of mandate agreed to divide the profits does not make it a contract of partnership.^® Where the defendant, owner of a farm, employed his brother as agent to sell the farm, and the plaintiff to advertise it in return for a commission, the plaintiff to turn over to the brother answers to the advertisement, the brother of the landowner and the plaintiff were not partners, and the plaintiff could sue for his commission alone.®" Where one contracts for the sale of goods to be resold by him, usually it is held not a partnership but a sale, even if profits are shared as a commission.®^ § 218. Creation of partnership for dealing in real estate — Verbal agreement — Statute of frauds. — It has been a mooted question whether a partnership can be created by parol for the purpose of buying and selling lands for profit. It is now quite generally accepted as the established doctrine that such an agree- ment is not within the statute. A partnership of this kind, like any other contract of partnership, is an agreement to share in the profit and loss of certain business transactions, and may be formed for the purpose of buying and selling land generally, or it may be limited to a speculation upon a single venture.®^ The 88 Simmons v. Shaft, 138 Pac. 614, si Dr. Koch Vegetable Tea Co. v. 91 Kans. 553. It must be understood Malone (Tex. Civ. App.), 163 S. W. that the two preceding sections have 662. See Einstein v. Gourdin, 4 nothing to do with estoppel. One Woods (U. S.) 415, Fed. Cas. No. may be estopped to deny the partner- 4320. * 'v' ship and be held liable as if he were ^^ Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cat. 479, 30 a partner. The mere fact that one is Pac. 605, 16 L. R. A. 74Sn, 29 Am. St. estopped to deny the partnership does 133 ; Jones v. Patrick, 140 Fed. 403 ; not make him a partner inter se. Van Housen v. Copeland, 180 111. 74, 89 Bluefields S. S. Co. v. Lala Fer- 54 N. E. 169 (afifg. 79 111. App. 139) ; reras Cangelosi S. S. Co., 133 La. 424, Speyer v. Desjardins, 144 111. 641, 32 -^ 63 So. 96. N. E. 283, 36 Am. St. 473; Mallon v. - 90 Dodge v. Childers, 167 Mo. App. Buster, 121 Ky. 379, 89 S. W. 257, 123 448, 151 S. W. 749, Am. St. 201 ; Garth v. Davis, 120 Ky. 225 CREATION AND DXJR-^TION OF RELATION § 218 rule, as stated in a leading case on this question^^ to the effect that the existence of such a partnership can be shown by general evidence, without the necessity of a written agreement, has been generally followed, and, although there are some decisions to the contrary, it may now be said to be the prevailing rule upon that subject. The cases proceed upon the theory that the real estate of a partnership is treated and administered in equity or between partners and for all the purposes of the partnership, as personal 106, 85 S. W. 692, 117 Am. St. 571 ; Vaught V. Hogue, 32 Ky. L. 1061, 107 S. W. 757; Morgart v. Smouse, 103 Md. 463, 63 Atl. 1070, 115 Am. St. 367, 7 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1140; Stitt V. Rat Portage Lumber Co., 98 Minn. 52, 107 N. W. 824; Rice v. Par- rott, 76 Nebr. 501, 107 N. W. 840, 111 N. W. 583 ; Buckley v. Doige, 188 N. ^Y. 238, 80 N. E. 913, 11 Am. Se Eng. Ann. Cas. 263; Rauch v. Donovan, 126 App. Div. (N. Y.) 52, 110 N. Y. S. 690; Pounds v. Egbert, 117 App. ^ Div. (N. Y.) 756, 102 N. Y. S. 1079; Miller V. Ferguson, 107 Va.i249, 57 S. E. 649, 122 Am. St. 840, 13 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 138; Floyd v. Duffy, 68 W. Va. 339, 69 S. E. 993, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 883n. See also note in 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 427. See generally on subject of this section, 2 Columbia Law Review, p. 461. 83 Dale V. Hamilton (1846), 5 Hare 369. While Dale v. Hamilton, 5 Hare 369, is to some extent shaken by the case of Caddick v. Skidmore (1851), 2 DeG. & J. 52 (an agreement to be- come partners in a mine), it is still recognized as authority. See also Gray V. Smith (1889), 43 L. R. Ch. Div. 208, 59 L. J. Ch. 145, 38 W. R. 310; Essex V. Essex, 20 Beav. 442; Bunnel v. Taintor, 4 Conn. 568; Kilbourn v. Latta, 5 Mack. (D. C.) 304, 60 Am. Rep. ZIZ; Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 30 Pac. 605, 16 L. R. A. 745, 29 Am. St. 133; Black v. Black, 15 Ga. 445 ; Holmes v. McCray, 51 Ind. 358, 19 Am. Rep. 735 ; Richards v. Grin- nell, 63 Iowa 44, 18 N. W. 668, 50 Am. Rep. 727; Pennybacker v. Leary, 65 Iowa 220, 21 N. W. 575; Marsh v. Davis, 33 Kans. 326, 6 Pac. 612 ; Fall River Whaling Co. v. Borden, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 458; Fountain v. Men- ard, 53 Minn. 443, 55 N. W. 601, 39 Am. St. 617 ; Fersonette v. Pryme, 34 N. J. Eq. 26 ; Chester v. Dickerson, 54 N. Y. 1, 13 Am. Rep. 550; Bissell v. Harrington, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 81; Traphagen v. Burt, 67 N. Y. 30 ; Bab- cock V. Read, 99 N. Y. 609, 1 N. E. 141 ; Gibbons v. Bell, 45 Tex. 417. See note to McCormick's Appeal, 98 Am. Dec. 197. See also cases cited in the preceding note. Contra: Butts v. Cooper, 152 Ala. 375, 44 So. 616; Everhart's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 349; Smith V. Burnham, 3 Sumn. (U. S.) 435, Fed. Cas. No. 13019: Walker v. Herring, 21 Grat. (Va.) (.78, 8 Am. Rep.'616; Bird v. Morrison, 12 Wis. 138; Langley v. Sanborn, 135 Wis. 178, 114 N. W. 787; Scheuer v. Cochem, 126 Wis. 209, 105 N. W. 573, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 427; McMillen v. Pratt, 89 Wis. 612, 62 N. W. 588 (holding verbal contract for the pro- motion of a partnership to purchase standing timber within the statute). IS — Row. ON Paktn. — Vol. 1 218 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 226 property and partnership assets."* Thus by the great weight of authority a parol partnership agreement to deal in real estate is valid and not void as within the statute of frauds,°° although in a number of jurisdictions such an agreement is held void under 9* McClintock v. Thweatt, 71 Ark. 323, IZ S. W. 1093 ; Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 30 Pac. 605,' 16 L. R. A. 745, 29 Am. St. 133 ; Meagher v. Reed, 14 Colo. 335, 24 Pac. 681, 9 L. R. A. 455 ; Bunnel v. Taintor, 4 Conn. 568 ; Van Housen v. Copeland, 180 111. 74, 54 N. E. 169; Speyer v. Desjardins, 144 111. 641, 32 N. E. 283, 36 Am. St. 473; Morrill v. Colehour, 82 III. 618; Holmes v. McCray, 51 Ind. 358, 19 Am. Rep. 735 ; Pennybacker v. Leary, 65 Iowa 220, 21 N. W. 575; Richards V. Grinnell, 67, Iowa 44, 18 N. W. 668, 50 Am. Rep. 727; Garth v. Davis, 120 Ky. 106, 85 S. W. 692, 117 Am. St. 571 ; Trowbridge v. Wetherbee, 11 Al- len (Mass.) 361; Fountain v. Menard, S3 Minn. 443, 55 N. W. 601, 39 Am. St. 617; Newell v. Cochran, 41 Minn. 374, 43 N. W. 84 ; King v. Barnes, 109 N. Y. 267, 16 N. E. 332; Babcock v. Read, 99 N. Y. 609, 1 N. E. 141; Chester v. Dickerson, 54 N. Y. 1, 13 Am. Rep. 550; Flower v. Barnekoff, 20 Ore. 132, 25 Pac. 370, 11 L. R. A. 149; Howell v. Kelly, 149 Pa. St. 473, 24Atl. 224; Bruce v. Hastings, 41 Vt. 380, 98 Am. Dec. 592; Dale v. Ham- ilton, 5 Hare 369. See also Darrow v. Calkins, 154 N. Y. 503, 49 N. E. 61, 48 L. R. A. 299, 61 Am. St. 637 (affg. 6 App. Div. (N. Y.) 28, 39 N. Y. 527). 0= Dale V. Hamilton, 5 Hare 369, 16 L. J. Ch. 126, 11 Jur. 163; McElroy v. Swope, 47 Fed. 380; Brown v. Spen- cer, 163 Cal. 589, 126 Pac. 493; Bates V. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 30 Pac. 605, 16 L. R. A. 745, 29 Am. St. 133; Doudell V. Shoo, 20 Cal. App. 424, 129 Pac. 478; Meagher v. Reed, 14 Colo. 335, 24 Pac. 681, 9 L. R. A. 455; Smith v! Padrosa, 139 Ga. 484, 11 S. E. 639; Robinson v. Horner, 176 Ind. 226, 95 N. E. 561 ; Holmes v. McCray, , 51 Ind. 358, 19 Am. Rep. 735 ; Keller V. Fitzgerell, 249 111. 451, 94 N. E. 926; Van Housen v. Copeland, 180 111. 74, 54 N. E. 169 (affg. 79 111. App. 139; Speyer v. Desjardins, 144 111. 641, 32 N. E. 283, 36 Am. St. 473; ■ Richards v. Grinnell, 63 Iowa 44, 18 N. W. 668, 50 Am. Rep. 727; Jones V. Davies, 60 Kans. 309, 56 Pac. 484, 72 Am. St. 354; Goodwin v. Smith, 144 Ky. 41, 137 S. W. 789; Garth v. Davis, 120 Ky. 106, 27 Ky. L. 505, 85 S. W. 692, 117 Am. St. 571; Foun- tain V. Menard, 53 Minn. 443, 55 N. W. 601, 39 Am. St. 617; Newell v. Cochran, 41 Minn. 374, 43 N. W. 84; Hirbour v. Reeding, 3 Mont. IS; Buckley v. Doig, 188 N. Y. 238, 80 N. E. 913, 11 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 263; Babcock V. Read, 99 N. Y. 609, 1 N. E. 141 ; Traphagen v. Burt, 67 N. Y. - 30; Chester v. Dickerson, 54 N. Y. 1, 13 Am. Rep. 550; Larkin v. Martin, 46 Misc. (N. Y.) 179, 93 N. Y. S. 198; Bailey v. Weed, 36 App. Div. ,^ (N. Y.) 611, 55 N. Y. S. 253; Os- tranderv. Snyder, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 378, 57 N. Y. St. 289, 26 N. Y. S. 263 ; Clark v. Mitchell, 35 Nev. 447, 130 Pac. 760, 134 Pac. 448; Falkner v. Hunt, IZ N. Car. 571; Thompson v. McKee, 43 Okla. 243, 142 Pac. 755, L. R. A. 1915 A, 521 and note ; Flower V. Barnekoff, 20 Ore. 132, 25 Pac 370, 11 L. R. A. 149; Moran v. Mc- Devitt (R. I.), 83 Atl. 1013; Hardin 227 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION § 218 the statute of frauds.''^ Although a partnership in land may be proved by parol evidence, yet an agreement by one of the parties to retire and assign his share in the partnership assets is an agree- ment to assign an interest in land."^ So, also, an oral contract between the members of a copartnership to convey firm realty from one to the other is within the statute.*^ An agreement to place the title to property which one party owns, in a partnership which was to be formed in order to develop the land and sell it at a profit, is for the sale of land and within the statute.®* V. Hardin, 25 S. Dak. 601, 129 N. W. 108; Burgwyn v. Jones, 113 Va. 511, 75 S. E. 188, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 120, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, S64n; Case v. Seger, 4 Wash. 492, 30 Pac. 646; Archibald v. McNerhanie, 29 Can. Sup. Ct 564; Leslie v. Hill, 25 Ont. L. Rep. 144, 20. Ont. Week. Rep. 490 (affd. 28 Ont. L. Rep. 48). See also Floyd V. Duffy, 68 W. Va. 339, 69 S. E. 993, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 883n. ^8 Smith V. Burnham, 3 Sumn. (U. S.) 435, Fed. Cas. No. 13019. To same effect, Rowland v. Boozer, 10 Ala. 690; Gray v. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616, disapproved in Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 30 Pac. 605, 16 L. R. A. 745, 29 Am. St. 133 ; Young v. Wheeler, 34 Fed. 98, from C. C. Dist. Colo. Contra: Meagher v. Reed, 14 Colo. 335, 24 Pac. 681, 9 L. R. A. 455 ; Cad- dick V. Skidmore, 2 DeG. & J. 52, 27 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 153, 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1185, 6 Week. Rep. 119, 13 Mor. Min. Rep. 383; note 16 L. R. A. 745; Brown v. Grady, 6 B. C. 190; Raub V. Smith, 61 Mich. 543, 28 N. W. 676, 1 Am. St. 619; Nester v. Sullivan, 147 Mich. 493, 111 N. W. 85, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1106 (modified in 147 Mich, 508, 111 N. W. 1033) ; Bird V. Morrison, 12 Wis. 138; Scheuer v. Cochem, 126 Wis. 209, 105 N. W. 573, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 427; Langley v. Sanborn, 135 Wis. 178, 114 N. W. 787; Huntington v. Burdeau, 149 Wis. 263, 135 N. W. 845, in which, however, it was held that where all transactions were so far completed that nothing was necessary save for the court to ascertain the amount of money due from one party to the other, the void contract will be treated as fully executed arid not within the statute. Under the civil code of Lou- isiana such agreement must be in writing. Pecot v. Armelin, 21 La. Ann. 667. See also Norton v. Brink, 75 Nebr. 566, 106 N. W. 668, 110 N. W. 669, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 945, 121 Am. St. 822 (with which compare, however. Rice v. Parrott, 76 Nebr. 501, 107 N. W. ?40, 111 N. W. 583). And see Dunphy v. Ryan, 116 U. S. 491, 29 L. ed. 703, 6 Sup. Ct. 486. "Gray v. Smith (1889), L. R. 43 Ch. Div. 208, 59 L. J. Ch. 145, 38 W. R. 310. 38 Brewer v. Cropp, 10 Wash. 136, 38 Pac. 866, "While 'the real estate owned by the partnership is regarded as personal property for some pur- poses, it is an equitable conversion only, and the requirements of the law relating to conveyances of land must be observed in disposing of it." See also Henderson v. Henrie, 68 W. Va. 562, 71 S. E. 172, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 628. 99 Burgwyn v. Jones, 113 Va. 511, 75 § 219 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 228 § 219. Cases distinguished — How contract may be taken out of statute. — While there is apparently conflict arnong the authorities as to whether a verbal partnership may be formed to deal in lands, it is believed that very little conflict in fact exists. On account of different ends sought by the litigants, two lines of authorities have been announced neither of which is necessarily inconsistent with the other. In those cases in which an action is brought for an accounting or for a share of the profits of speculation on resale,^ the oral contract is upheld; but when the action is brought, not to enforce an interest in the profits of the transaction, but in the land itself, and the real estate has not been bought with partnership funds and there are no other circumstances to take the case out of the statute, the parol partnership agreement to deal in lands will be held within the statute.^ In other words, many of the cases, incliiding, several of those cited as holding the agreement valid, hold or concede that an interest in the land itself can not be established by parol,' but that a right to share in the profits resulting from such trans- action may be established by parol.* It is believed that these last cases give expression to the true rule, and that the conflict in the decisions holding that a parol partnership agreement can or can not be entered, into to deal in real estate is more apparent than real, for it may well be that an interest in the land itself can not S. E. 188, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 120, (N. S.) 945; Mancuso v. Rosso, 81 Ann. Cas. 1913 E, S64n. Nebr. 786, 116 N. W. 679. See also i-Bates V. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 30 Nester v. Sullivan, 147 Mich. 493, 111 Pac. 605, 16 L. R. A. 745n, 29 Am. N. W. 85, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1106; St. 133 ; Rice v. Parrott, 76 Nebr. 501, Dodson v. Dodson, 26 Ore. 349, 37 107 N. W. 840, 111 N. W. 583; Nor- Pac. 542. ton V. Brink, 75 Nebr. 566, 106 N. W. » Morton v. Nelson, 145 111. 586, 72 668, 110 N. W. 669, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) N. E. 916; McKinley v. Lloyd, 128 945; Smith v. Putnam, 107 Wis. 155, Fed. 519; Wiley v. Wiley, 115 Md. 82 N. W. 1077, 83 N. W. 288. See 646, 81 Atl. 180, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 789. also Logan v. Brown, 20 Okla. 334, 95 * Wright v. Smith, 105 Fed. 841, 45 Pac. 441, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 298 and C. C. A. 87; Jcjnes v. Patrick, 140 note. Fed. 403; Eaton v. Graham, 104 111. 2 Parsons v. Phelan, 134 Mass. 109; App. 296; In re Everhart's Appeal, Norton v. Brink, 75 Nebr. 56^ 106 106 Pa. St. 349. N. W. 668, 110 N. W. 669, 7 L. R. A. 229 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION § 219 be established by parol; and yet at the same time a partnership agreement relating to the profits or dealing in land for profit can be shown without violating this rule." But the statute does not apply where real estate is bought in connection with the part- nership business and is paid for with firm funds even though title is taken in the name of one partner only." It is also held as a general rule that a contract whereby two or more persons agree to prospect for aild locate mining claims to be held in joint own- ership by the parties is not within the statute, and need not be in writing.'' Part performance of an oral contract of partner- ship in lands otherwise within the statute may take the agreement out of the statute.* The taking possession of the land by the part- nership has been held sufficient part performance to take the con- tract out of the statute." An entry on the books of the partner- ship may be sufficient to comply with the statute.^" A partner may also take by operation of law regardless of the statute of frauds.^^ = Beebe v. Olentine, 97 Ark. 390, 134 S. W. 936; Coward v. Clanton, 79 Cal. 23, 21 Pac. 359; Meagher v. Reed, 14 Colo. 335, 24 Pac. 681, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 455 ; Norton v. Brink, 75 Nebr. 566, 106 N. W. 668, 110 N. W. 669, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 945, 121 Am. St. 822; Rice v. Parrott,' l(s Nebr. 501, 107 N. W. 840, 76 Nebr. 505, 111 N. W. 583; note in 102 Am. St. 238, 239; Wiley v. Wiley, 115 Md. 646, 81 Atl. 180, Ann. Gas. 1913 A, 789. 6 Hodgson V. Fowler, 24 Colo. 278, 50 Pac. 1034; Lucas v. Cooper, 15 Ky. L. 642, 23 S. W. 959; Stitt v. Rat Portage Lumber Co., 98 Minn. 52, 107 N. W. 824. •< Shea V. Nilima, 133 Fed. 209, 66 C. C. A. 263; Moritz v. Lavelle", 17 Cal.. 10, 18 Pac. 803, 11 Am. St. 229; Settembre v. Putnam, 30 Cal. 490; Gore V. McBrayer, 18 Cal. 582 ; Mey- lette V. Brennan, 20" Colo. 242, 38 Pac, 75; Meagher v. Reed, 14 Colo. 335, 24 Pac. 681, 9 L. R. A. 455 ; Murley V. Ennis, 2 Colo. 300; Doyle v. Burns, 123 Iowa 488, 99 N. W. 195 ; Hirbour v. Reeding, 3 Mont. IS. See also Cascaden v. Dunbar, 157 Fed. 62, 84 C. e. A. 566; Jones v. Patrick, 140 Fed. 403. Contra: Craw v. Wilson, 22 Nev. 385, 40 Pac. 1076. 8 McKinnon v. McKinnon, 56 Fed. 409, 5 C. C. A. 530, 14 U, S. App. 433 ; Chase v. Angell, 148 Mich. 1, 108 N. W. 1105, 118 Am. St. 568; Huntington v. Burdeau, 149 Wis. 263, 135 N. W. 845. Here contract was in effect fully executed. 9 Tillis v! Folmar, 145 Ala. 176, 39 So. 913, 117 Am. St. 31, 8 Ann. Cas. 78. ^o National Union Bank v. National Mechanics' Bank, 80 Md. 371, 30 Atl. 913, 27 L. R. A. 476, 45 Am. St. 350. 11 Gorder v. Pankonin, 83 Nebr. 204, 119 N. W. 449, 131 Am. St.' 629. § 220 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 230 § 220. Partnership agreements between carriers. — In cases involving the hability of carriers, the question often arises as to whether connecting carriers are partners, and are to be held liable as such on their contracts of carriage. If several connect- ing carriers have made themselves partners in the transportation business, each will be liable for the negligence or breach of con- tract of any of the others, in performing a contract for the transportation of goods over the connecting lines.^^ The same liability arises if they have jointly undertaken the carriage of goods.^* Where the contract was carried out by carriers acting in each other's behalf, they were held partners in England.^* In order to create a partnership between connecting carriers, which will make each liable for a loss anywhere on 'the line, there must, as a general rule, be more than merely taking part in a through shipment, issuing a through bill of lading, or imposing or sharing in a through freight rate. Thus the facts that a through shipment of live stock was made, by which the shipment must pass over several lines of road before reaching its destination; that one en- tire charge was fixed and was collected by the last carrier, which also furnished feed, and collected for the feed furnished by it, and the other carriers, and that a person was allowed free trans- portation over each line to care for the stock, are not sufficient to show either a partnership or a joint undertaking, when the coritract of the initial carrier limited liability to its own line, and the other carriers were required by a state statute to transport the freight of connecting railroads.^* The same rule was applied where the goods were shipped on through bills of lading; the last 12 Wilson V. Louisville &c. R. Co., 90 Am. Dec. 252; Wilson v. Louis- 103 App. Div. 203, 92 N. Y. S. 1091 ; viUe & N. R. Co., 103 App. Div. 203, International &c. R. Co. v. Tisdale, 92 N. Y. S. 1091. 74 Tex. 8, 11 S. W. 900, 4 L. R. A. " Gill v. Manchester &c. R. Co., 42 S4S ; Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Jarrell, L. J. Q. B. 89, L. R. 8 Q. B. 187, 28 38 Tex. Civ. App. 425, 86 S. W. 632. L..T. 587. See note 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 861. is Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Baird, 75 Tex. 13 Independence Mills Co. v. Bur- 256, 12 S. W. 530; Ft. Worth &c. R. lington &c. R. Co., 72 Iowa 535, 34 N. Co. v. Johnston, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 24, W. 320, 2 Am. St. 258; Sisson v. 23 S. W. 827. Cleveland & T. R. Co., 14 Mich. 489, 231 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION | 220 carrier's line did not extend to the place of shipment; and such carrier issued an expense bill on the arrival of the goods for the freight charges called for by the bill of lading, and after the car came through and the expense bill had been presented, the carrier ■demanded more freight." There are some earlier cases in the same state in which it was said that a partnership or joint under- taking might be inferred from the issuance of a through bill of lading, the payment of a through freight rate to one carrier, and the shipment in a special through car/'^ Merely an agreement between connecting carriers for the division in certain propor- tions of the through freight rate does not make them liable as partners to shippers f^ nor does an agreement for through trans- portation over connecting lines at an agreed freight rate;^^ nor a traffic arrangement for a division of receipts or the profits of the transportation.^" However, there are other cases in which carriers have been held liable as partners, or as joint under- takers, when there was very little distinction between them and the cases just cited. Thus, where carriers unite to form a through freight line known as the "Atlantic Coast Despatch," issue through bills of lading, and collect the whole freight, which is di- vided among the carriers in proportion to their respective mileage, they become partners, each liable for a loss on any part of the through line.^^ Partnership, it is held, may be inferred where two railway companies forming a continuous line have the same freight agent at the point of connection, the same train despatcher and other employes, and the route over which a shipment is to be made is under the supervision of a common traveling freight ■ " Ft. Worth &c. R. Co. v. Johnston, lina C. R. Co., 89 N. Car. 311, 45 Am. 5 Tex. Civ. App. 24, 23 S. W. 827. Rep. 687. '^'' Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Creath, i^ Chesapeake &c. R. Co. v. Stock, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. (Willson) 109; 104 Va. 97, 51 S. E. 161. International &c. R. Co. v. Tisdale, ^o 'vvilson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 74 Tex. 8, 11 S. W. 900, 4 L. R. A. 103 App. Div. 203, 92 N. Y. S. 1091. 545. 21 Rocky Mount Mills v. Wilming- "Hot Springs R. Co. v. Trippe, 42 ton & W. R. Co., 119 N. Car. 693, 25 Ark. 465, 48 Am. Rep. 65 ; Merrick v. S. E. 854, 56 Am. St. 682. Gordon, 20 N. Y. 93 ; Phifer v. Caro- § 221 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 232 agent.^° But the fact that each carrier carries the cars of the other having a common name over its road without breaking bulk, each fixing its own rates, does not establish partnership liabiHty where there is no joint expense, loss or profit, except that when a loss can not be located as having occurred on any par- ticular road, each carrier bears its pro rata share. ^^ Where a railway company and a company operating transfer tracks to a stockyards have an arrangement whereby the transfer company for a switching charge, took the cars from the railway com- pany's track and hauled them to the stockyards and collected the freight, which it turned over to the railroad company, no part- nership is created.^* Where carriers have so conducted their business as to become partners as to shippers, one of them can not prevent liability for loss on any part of the through line by stip- ulating in the bill of lading that it is liable only for loss on its own line.^® In closing this section, it should perhaps be added by way of caution that the Interstate Commerce Law with its amend- ments and Act of Congress of March 4, 1915, make some changes in the law in regard to liability of connecting carriers. § 221. Parties to executory partnership agreement. — The parties to a mere executory agreement to form a partnership are not liable as partners until the partnership is formed.^" This rule 22 Illinois C. R. Co. V. Jones, 87 which is the test of partnership. Miss. 489, 39 So. 493. Hence the importance of distinguish- es Irvin V. Nashville C. &c. R. Co., ing between actual and contemplated 92 111. 1Q3, 34 Am. Rep. 116. partrierships. Persons who are only 2* Carter v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 146 contemplating a future partnership or Iowa 201, 125 N. W. 94. who have only entered into an agree- 23 Rocky Mount Mills v. Wilming- ment that they will at some future ton &c. R. Co., 119 N. Car. 693, 25 S. time become partners, can not be con- E. -854, 56 Am. St. 682 ; Galveston &c. sidered as partners before the arrival R. Co. V. Houston (Tex. Civ. App.),, of the time agreed upon. It is not 40 S. W. 842; Atchison &c. R. Co. v. always easy to determine whether an Grant, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 674, 26 S. agreement amounts to a contract of W. 286. See also Alcorn v. Adams partnership or only to an agreement Express Co., 148 Ky. 352, 146 S. W. for a future partnership. If the par- 747, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 858 and note, ties to the agreement have begun to 26 "It is the carrying on of a busi- carry on business, although prema- ness, not an agreement to carry it on, turely, they will be partners. But the 233 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION 221 applies to conditional agreements where the partnership is not to begin until a certain time has arrived, or a certain contingency taken place.^^ As is said in some cases, the partnership must be launched and before that time, the only remedy between the par- ties for a refusal to perform the agreement is in equity for spe- cific performance, or at law for damages.^^ An agreement to enter into a partnership according to articles to be drawn later does not create a partnership.^® An option given one to become a partner in a present partnership does not make him a partner un- til he exercises the option.^" An agreement whereby one party was to give an option on property and do certain work, and the other parties were to lease the property, erect a building and after deducting advances, make him a partner, did not create a present partnership.^^ If one party dies before the time fixed to begin the partnership or fails to perform a condition precedent, a partnership will never be created.^^ Performance of preliminary conditions may be premature action of one, unless ac- quiesced in by the others, will not af- fect them." Lindley Partnership (8 ed.), p. 16. See Taylor v. Nelson (Cal. App.), 147 Pac. 1189. 27 Drennen v. London Ass. Co., 113 U. S. 51, 5 Sup. Ct. 341, 28 L. ed. 919; Reboul V. Chalker, 27 Conn. 114; Johnston v. Eichelberger, 13 Fla. 230 ; Wilson V. Wilson, 6 Idaho 597, 57 Pac. 708; Metcalf v. Redmbn, 43 111. 264; Haskins v. Burr, 106 Mass. 48; Dow V. State Bank, 88 Minn. 355, 93 N. W. 121 ; Atkins v. Hunt, 14 N. H. 205; Westwood v. Cole, 66 Misc. S3, 120 N. Y. S. 884; Mosier v. Parry, 60 Ohio St. 388, 54 N. E. 364 ; Irwin v. Bidwell, 72 Pa. St. 244; Buzard v. McAnulty, 11 Tex. 438, 14 S. W. 138; O'Marrow v. State (Tex. Cr. App.), 147 S. W! 252; State v. Mendenhall, 24 Wash. 12, 63 Pac. 1109; Hoile v. York, '27 Wis. 209;- Holgate v. Downer, 8 Wyo. 344, 57 Pac. 918; Dickinson v. Valpy, 10 B. & C. 128; Osborne v. Julion, 3 Drew. 596, 26 L. J. Ch. 6, 4 W. R. 767. 28 Latta V. Kilbourn, 150 U. S. 524, Zl L. ed. 1169, 14 Sup. Ct. 201; Meagher v. Reed, 14 Colo. 335, 24 Pac. 681, 9'L. R. A. 455; Doyle v. Bailey, 75 111. 418; Gray v. Gibson, 6 Mich. 300; Yance v. Blair, 18 Ohio 532, 51 Am. Dec. 467. 29 Syers v. Syers, 1 App. Cas. 174. ^^ Sabel V. Savannah Rail &c. Co., 135 Ala. 380, ZZ So. 663; Bruner v. Moore (1904), 1 Ch. 305; Ex parte Davis, 4 DeG., J. & Sm. 523 ; Gabriel V. Evill, 9M. & W. 297, Car. & M. 358; Howell v. Brodie, 6 Bing. N. Cas. 44. 31 Eastman v. Dunn, 83 Atl. 1057, 34 R. I. 416. 32 Metcalf V. Redmon, 43 111. 264; Dow V. State Bank, 88 Minn. 355, 93 N. W. 121. y § 222 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 234 waived,^^ but- waiver must clearly appear and will not be as- sumed/* Where parties agreed orally to form a partnership and began business and acted in a firm name, but finally could not agree on the articles of partnership, it was held there was no partner- ship actually existing entitling one party to an accounting.^^ However, partnership liability as to third persons, arising at a time prior to the signing of partnership articles, may be shown where the parties by their acts, declarations and dealings, caused such third persons to deal with them as partners.^' § 222. Partnership agreement induced by fraud. — It was seen in preceding sections in this chapter that in order to make a person a member of a partnership he must have consented to the relation. . Undoubtedly, where the consent of a party to a partnership agreement was secured by fraud or duress, it is voidable as between the parties,^' and one entering into such an agreement, may on discovering the fraud, rescind the contract and recover the money contributed to the partnership fund. As the relations between persons contemplating a partnership are confidential, and each is then held to the exercise of the utmost good faith,'' it has been held that a partnership contract may be rescinded even for innocent misrepresentation which would not justify the rescission of a contract of sale and purchase.'* 33 First Nat. Bank V. Cody, 93 Ga. 290; Davis v. Evans, 39 Vt. 182; 127, 19 S. E. 831. Cook v. Carpenter, 34 Vt. 121, 80 Am. 3* Johnston v. Eichelberger, 13 Fla. Dec. 670. 230; Bird v. Hamilton, Walk. Ch. st pogg v. Johnston, 27 Ala. 432, 62 (Mich.) 361. Am. Dec. 771; White v. Smith, 63 35 Martin v. Baird, 175 Pa. St. 540, Ark. 513, 39 S. W. 555 ; Hynes v. 34 Atl. 809. Stewart, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 429; 3° Cain Lumber Co. v. Standard Troster v. Dann, 83 Misc. 399, 145 Dry-Kiln Co., 108 Ala. 346, 18 So. N. Y. S. 56; Maddeford v. Aust- 882 ; First Nat. Bank v. Cody, 93 Ga. wick, 1 Sim. 89, 2 Eng. Ch. 89, 57 127, 19 S. E. 831 ; Morrill v. Spurr, Eng. Reprint 512 (affg. 2 Myl. & K. 143 Mass. 257, 9 N. E. 580; Atkins v. 279). Hunt, 14 N. H. 205 ; Hartman v. ss gee §§ 341, 381 infra. Woehr, 18 N. J. Eq. 383 ; National 39 Powell v. Cash, 54 N. J. Eq. 218, Bank v. Ingraham, 58 Barb., (N. Y.) 34 Atl. 131 (affd. 55 N. J. Eq. 826, 41 235 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION § 222 It is not even necessary that pecuniary loss be shown in order to entitle one to release from the contract creating confidential re- lation, entered into with one who abused that confidence even slightly at the formation of the contract/" However, one may, with full knowledge of the facts, ratify a partnership agreement entered into because of fraud,*^ and thus lose the right of rescis- sion, or he may waive the right to rescind, and sue for dam- ages.*^ Where the fraud was as to the purchase-price of the goods, he need not rescind but may enforce against his partner his right to contribute only his proportion of the actual cost of the stock,^^ or if he has paid his proportion as represented by the defrauding -partner, can recover from the latter the differ- ence between the amount paid and the proportional part of the actual cost of the goods to the copartner, irrespective of the fact that the goods were worth more than the price represented.** Nor does the sale of his interest by a defrauded partner bar his action against the defrauding partner for deceit.*^ The fact that one was induced by fraud to enter into a partnership agreement, does not affect his liability to third parties who relied on the fact of his holding out as a partner.*® Atl. 1115); Rawlins v. Wickham, 7 1048; Kimmins v. Wilson, 8 W. Va. Gifford 355, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 990, 65 584; Adam v. Newbigging, 13 App. Eng. Reprint 954 (affd. 3 DeG. & J. Cas. 308, 57 L. J. Ch. 1066. 304, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 278, 60 Eng. Ch. *i St. John v. Hendrickson, 81 Ind. 237, 44 Eng. Reprint 1285). 350; Fuller v. Atwood, 13 R. I. 316; 40 Fogg V. Johnston, 27 Ala. 432, 62 Riddel v. Smith, 10 L. T. Rep, 561, 12 Am. Dec. 771 ; Howell v. Harvey, S W. R. 899. Compare Rambo v. Pat- Ark. 270, 39 Am. Dec. 376; Cohoon terson, 133 Mich. 655, 95 N. W. 722. V. Fisher, 146 Ind. 583, 44 N. E. 664, *2 Cohoon v. Fisher, 146 Ind. 583, 45 N. E. 787, 36 L. R. A. 193 ; Hynes 44 N. E. 664, 45 N. E. 787, 36 L. R. A. V. Stewart, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 429; 193; Vennum v. Palmer, 123 III. App. Powell V. Cash, 54 N. J. Eq. 218, 34 619; Rice v. Culver, 32 N. J. Eq. 601. Atl. 131 (affd. 55 N. J. Eq. 826, 41 *» pjckett v. Wren (Mo. App.), 174 Atl. 1115) ; Harlow v. La Brum, 151 S. W. 156. N. Y. 278, 45 N. E. 859 (affg. 82 Hun ** Pickett v. Wren (Mo. App.), 174 292, 31 N. Y. S. 487) ; Troster v. S. W. 156. Dann, 145 N. Y. S. 56, 83 Misc. 399; *5 Pickett v. Wren (Mo. App.), 174 Fuller V. Atwood, 13 R. I. 316; Beene S. W. 156. V. Rotan Grocery Co., 50 Tex. Civ. *« Oil Well Supply Co. v. Metcalf, App. 448, 110 S. W. 162; Caplen v. 174 Mo. App. 555, 160 S. W. 897. Cox, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 297, 92 S. W. § 223 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 236 § 223. When relation begins. — The time, at which the re- lation of partnership begins is usually specified by the agreement which creates the partnership, and the relation begins at the speci- fied time.*' If any time must elapse or anything must be done before the right to share profits accrues, the parties are not part- ners until the time has elapsed or the act has been done.*' There- fore it may be stated generally that a partnership begins when the right to share profits accrues.*^ If no time for commence- ment is specified by the partnership agreement, or no condition intervenes, the relation begins at once, as of the date of the agreement.^" It was. held in one case that when a bid had been accepted and a bond had been furnished to guarantee the construction of cer- tain public work by three associates who had agreed to furnish capital and jointly undertake the work, there was a partnership, although there was no written agreement, and one of the parties had not furnished his share of the money.^^ If the business is be- gtm under the contract or it is apparent that the relation was in- tended to commence immediately after the signing of articles, the fact that one partner has not fully complied with his agreement nor paid in his part of the capital, does not render him less a part- ner. '^^ As was seen in a former section relative to agreements contemplating the formation of a partnership in future, partner- ship liability under such an agreement does not arise until the time fixed by the agreement, or the happening of the contingency which is to determine its beginning.'^ *^ National Bank v. Jennings Trust iams, 1 Ohio (1 Ham.) 84; Petrakion Co., 44 111. App. 285. v. Arbelly, 26 N. Y. S. 731, 23 Civ. 48 Dow V. State Bank, 88 Minn. 355, Proc. R. 183; Williams v. Jones, 5 93 N. W. 121 ; Valentine v. Hickle, B. & C. 108. 39 Ohio St. 19. 01 McCabe v. Sinclair, 66 N. J. Eq. 49 Whitehill V. Schickle, 43 Mo. 537. 24, 58 Atl. 412. so Floyd V. Kicklighter, 139 Ga. 133, =2 Southern White-Lead Co. v. 76 S. E. 1011 ; Phillips v. Nash, 47 Ga. Haas, IZ Iowa 399, 33 N. W. 657, 35 218 ; Kerrick v. Stevens, 55 Mich. 167, N. W. 494 ; Hartman v. Woehr, 18 N. 20 N. W. 888 ; Austin v. Williams, 2 J. Eq. 383. Ohio (2 Ham.) 64; Aspinwall v. Will- 63 See § 221 ante. 237 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION § 224 § 224. Duration of relation. — The period of duration of a partnership is often fixed by the partnership agreement, and as a general rule, the partnership terminates at the expiration of the specified time."* If it is so stipulated, the partnership con- tinues till the expiration of the fixed term, even though one part- ner dies."' If no specific time is fixed for the termination of the relation, the partnership ends when the transaction or venture for which it was organized is concluded."" Thus, a partnership for operating a hotel, leased to a partner for a specified time, is to continue during the term of the lease."^ Where two parties agree together merely to buy a pearl at a certain time for their joint benefit if bought at that time, and then fail to make the pur- chase, one of them who bought the pearl at a later time need not account to the other for the profit."' If a partnership is to continue during the will of the partners, it may be terminated at any time at the pleasure of either partner."® Under the English Partnership Act, if no time is fixed for the duration of a partner- ship, it becomes a partnership at will.°° A partnership agreement for preserving eggs "one year and so much longer as the parties may mutually desire," providing for the erection of a building, does not limit the partnership to a single investment in eggs, but provides for a continuing business.^^ Where a partnership for mining and trading engaged men to work for one year to be - B* Dawson v. Boisseau, Man. Unrep. 6® Harris v. Umsted, 79 Ark. 499, Cas. (La.) 185 ; Morrill v. Weeks, 70 96 S. W. 146. N. H. 178, 46 Atl. 32. ==> Ruth v. Flynn, 26 Colo. App. 171, 55 Brew V. Hastings, 196 Pa. St 222, 142 Pac. 194; Fooks v. Williams, 120 46 Atl. 257, 79 Am. St. 706; Alexan- Md. 436, 87 Atl. 692; Fletcher v. der V. Lewis, 47 Tex. 481. Reed, 131 Mass. 312 ; Stitt v. Rat S8 Pearce v. Ham, 113 U. S. 585, 28 Portage Lumber Co., 98 Minn. 52, L. ed. 1067, 5 Sup. Ct. 676; Gates v. 107 N. W. 824; Whipple v. Stuart, 26 Fraser, 6 111. App. 229; Richards v. Mont. 219, 66 Pac. 941; Sanger v. Baurman, 65 N. Car. 162; Roberts v. French, 157 N. Y. 213, 51 N. E. 979. Nunn (Tex. Civ. App.), 169 S. W. "so English Partnership 1890, § 26 1086. (1), § 32. " Zimmerman v. Harding, 227 U. si Baxter v. Rollins, 90 Iowa 217, 57 S. 489, 57 L. ed. 608, 33 Sup. Ct. 387. N. W. 838, 48 Am. St. 432. § 225 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 238 paid by a share of profits, this was an implication that the part- nership was intended to last a year."'' § 225. Renewal or continuation. — It has been held that where the term of a partnership expired and the parties agreed to a renewal, though not formally, it was renewed for the orig- inal term.®^ If the partnership is prolonged, by express or tacit consent, beyond the time specified in the articles, but with no new articles, the relation between the partners is still governed by the articles,®* at least so far as applicable to a partnership at will."" After such continuation the relation can be terminated only by notice.''" The fact that the business is not fully settled at the expiration of the term may have the result of- continuing the relation until settlement."^ The Uniform Partnership Act provides :"* "When a partnership for a fixed term or particular undertaking is continued after the termination of such term or particular undertaking without any express agreement, the rights and duties of the partners remain the same as they were at such termination, so far as is consistent with a partnership at will. A continuation of the business by the partners or siSch of them as habitually acted therein during the term, without any set- tlement or liquidation of the partnership affairs, is prima facie 62 Potter V. Moses, 1 R. I. 430. See 284, 61 L. J. Ch. 5, 65 L. T. Rep. (N. also Cole v. Moxley, 12 W. Va. 730; S.) 782; Neilson v. Mossend Iron Co., Baxter v. Rollins, 90 Iowa 217, 57 N. 11 App. Cas. 298. W. 838, 48 Am. St. 432. Compare esjurgens v. Ittmann, 47 La. Ann. King V. Accumulative L. Fund &c. 2£7, 16 So. 952 ; Parsons v. Hayward, Assur. Co., 3 C. B. (N. S.) 151, 2 4 DeG., F. & J. 474, 8 Jur. (N. S.) Jur. (N. S.) 1264, 27 L. J. C. P. 57, 924, 65 Eng. Ch. 368, 45 Eng. Reprint 91 E. C. L. 151. 1267. 63 Dickinson v. Bold, 3 Desaus. (S. e^McGill v. Dowdle, 33 Ark. 311; Car.) 501. Spencer v. Jones, 92 Tex. 516, 50 S. 6* Robertson v. Miller, Fed. Cas. W. 118, 71 Am. St. 870. See Metz No. 11926, 1 Brock. (U. S.) 466; Ste- v. Commercial Bank, 45 S. Car. 216, phens V. Orman, 10 Fla. 9 ; Frederick 23 S. E. 13 ; Shapard Grocery Co. v. V. Cooper, 3 Iowa 171; Sangston v. Hynes, 3 Ind. T. 74, 53 S. W. 486; Hack, 52 Md. 173; Mifflin v. Smith, J. Harzburg v. Southern R. Co., 65 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 165; Bradley v. S. Car. 539, 44 S. E. 75. Chamberlin, 16 Vt. 613. 68 Uniform Partnership Act, § 23, 65 Daw V. Herring (1892), 1 Ch. 239 CREATION AND DURATION OF RELATION § 225 evidence of a continuation of the partnership." This is practically a declaration of the general law as commonly understood. The Uniform Partnership Act also provides :®° "A conveyance by a partner of his interest in the partnership does not of itself dissolve the partnership, nor, as against the other partners in the absence of agreement, entitle the assignee, during the continuance of the partnership, to interfere in the management or administration of the partnership business or affairs, or to require any informa- tion or account of partnership transactions, or to inspect the partnership books; but it merely entitles the assignee to receive, in accordance with his contract, the profits to which the assign- ing partner would otherwise be entitled." 69 § 27 (1). CHAPTER IX PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY ON DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION SECTION 230. Partnership liability of corpo- rators before complete or- ganization. 231. Incorporation defective. 232. Capital stock not paid. 233. Failure to file certificate of in- corporation. 234. Increase of capital stock with- out filing certificate. 235. Failure to comply with statu- tory requirements — Effect. 236. Extent of stockholders' liabil- ity under statutes. 237. Stockholders of de facto cor- porations not liable — Cer- tificates conclusive. 238. Estoppel of creditor contract- ing with corporation. 239. Incorporation incomplete — Il- lustrations of liability. 240. No effort to incorporate — Part- nership liability. 241. Adventurers not liable as part- ners. 242. Partnership liability as be- tween associates themselves. SECTION 243. Ineffectual organization — When creditor may ignore. 244. Partnership liability of pro- moters and corporators. 245. Conflicting theories of part- nership liability of corpo- rators. 246. Pretended officers liable as partners. Partnership liability where in- corporation is for unauthor- ized business. Corporation organized under void or unconstitutional law. 249. Corporation is organized in one state to do business in another state. Liability for ultra vires acts. Partnership liability imposed by statute. 252. Partnership liability imposed by charter. Effect of dealing with a corpo- ration under belief that it was a partnership. Liability as partners — Burden of proof. 247. 248. 250. 251. 253. 254. § 230. Partnership liability of corporators before com- plete organization. — Persons who undertake to organize a corporation may be personally liable for all debts contracted on behalf of the intended corporation, with their consent, either ex- press or implied, until the corporation is brought into being either as a de facto or a de jure organization. They are some- 240 241 LIABILITY ON DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION § 230 times held liable as joint contractors/ But many courts have held that the co-adventurers are liable as partners if the corporation is not legally formed.^ Where a body of associates intend to be- come incorporated, but incur liabilities before they have perfected the organization, they will generally be liable as partners.^ In order to charge each associate as a partner, it must be shown that he was so acting at the time the contract in controversy was made, or that upon some consideration he agreed to be bound with the others.* Even where one member of such an association, acting for and on the authority of the others, incurs liability in his own name, or executes his individual note as evidence of such an in- debtedness, not under seal, the obligee may go behind him and hold the other members of the association, on the principle that enables a person contracting with an agent to hold the undis- closed principal.^ A statute imposing a general, joint and sev- eral liability for all the corporate debts has been held to create a liability as partners, to the same extent as if there had been no incorporation.'' Where persons contract debts or incur liabilities in the name of a projected corporation, but before all acts neces- sary to bring the corporation into existence have been performed, they may be held liable as partners.'^ But in order to hold in- corporators liable as partners because of lack of legal organiza- tion, it must be shown that they were so acting at the time the contract sued upon was made, or that there was an agreement that all should be liable.* And it has been held that a person who becomes a stockholder after an ineffectual attempt to incorporate, can not be held liable as a partner for the debts of the pretended corporation, when he took no part in its organization or manage- iMcFall V. McKeesport &c. Ice Bank v. Landon, 45 N. Y. 410. See Co., 123 Pa. St. 259, 16 Atl. 478. Snook's Petition, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 566. 2 Kaiser v. Lawrence Sav. Bank, ^ Planters' Bank v. Bivingsville E6 Iowa 104, 8 N. W. 772, 41 Am. Cotton Mfg.. Co., 10 Rich. L. (S. Rep. 85 ; Puller v. Rowe, 57 N. Y. 23. Car.) 95. s Martin v. Fewell, 79 Mo. 401. ^ Ryland v. HoUinger, 117 Fed. 216, * Fuller V. Rowe, 57 N. Y. 23. 54 C. C. A. 248. s Ferris v. Thaw, 72 Mo. 446 (afifg. « Fuller v. Rowe, 57 N. Y. 23. Sec 6 Mo. App. 279) ; National Unipn DeWitt v. Hastings, 69 N. Y. 518. 16 — Row. ON Partn. — ^VoL. 1 § 231 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 242 ment." As a general rule, the subscribers to the capital stock are liable for debts incurred in the process of organizing the corpora- tion without regard to whether the capital has all been sub- scribed.^" But the liability is not so certain where the creditor knows the. facts and deals with the incomplete corporation with- out intending to hold the corporators individually liable.^^ Where the corporators are liable under this rule, they may not escape liability by a sale and transfer of their interest in the corpora- tion." Under a statute fixing the liability of the corporators in the case of incomplete incorporations, the liability imposed is held to constitute a fund for the benefit of all creditors and one incorporator may not commence proceedings for the appropria- tion of the whole or any part of such fund for his own benefit.^^ It has been held that individual incorporators are not liable for fraudulent representations of an agent in the sale of stock, unless they sanctioned or participated in the act.^* But it has also been held that the acceptance of an assignment of a lease and the as- sumption of obligations thereunder amounted to the incurring of an obligation under a statute which made incorporators person- ally liable upon obligations incurred before one-half the stock was subscribed and at least twenty per cent, of the stock paid in.^^ § 231. Incorporation defective. — Where there is an at- tempt at incorporation under a general law, but there is a failure to comply with the law in some material respect, this is said to be such want of incorporation that exemption from liability is not thereby secured,^° and it is generally held that where a corpora- 9 Stafford Nat. Bank v. Palmer, 47 " Hill v. Jackson Stores, 137 Ga. Conn. 443. See Richardson v. Pitts, 174, 12> S. E. 13. 71 Mo. 128. "Flood v. Busch, 165 Mo. App. " Myers v. Sturgis, 197 N. Y. 526, 142, 146 S. W. 73. 90 N. E. 1162. 15 Zwietusch v. Becker, 153 Wis. " McQuiddy Printing Co. v. Head, 213, 140 N. W. 1056. 7 Ala. App. 384, 62 So. 287; Bond v. i« Kaiser v. Lawrence Sav. Bank, Scott Lumber Co., 128 La. 818, 55 So. 56 Iowa 104, 8, N. W. 772, 41 Am. 468. Rep. 85. 12 John V. Farwell Co. v. Jackson Stores, 137 Ga. 174, IZ S. E. 13. 243 LIABILITY ON DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION § 231 tion is defectively organized, the participants are liable as part- ners for the debts incurred in the corporate name/'^ This prin- ciple has found illustration in cases where the articles of incor- poration were required to be filed in a certain public office, or that certain securities should be deposited in a public place, and the failure to do so was held to render the stockholders liable as part- ners for debts contracted before the strict performance of such requirements/* So where the corporators failed to state in the articles of incorporation the highest amount of indebtedness or liability which the corporation may incur, as required by statute, the stockholders were held individually liable for the corporate debts, although credit was given to the corporation as such/" And where a charter was required to be subscribed by five or more persons, three of whom must be citizens of the state, and duly acknowledged by all, and the charter, or articles of associa- tion, was so informally drawn that the court could not say that it was subscribed by any one, and was acknowledged by the re- quired number, it was held that the company had not become incorporated and that the members we're liable as partners." The failure to publish the required notice of incorporation has been held not sufficient to render the stockholders immune from lia- bility." And a publication of the articles of incorporation in lieu of the statutory notice was held not to exempt stockholders from individual liability,^^ unless the articles of incorporation contain all that is required to be stated in the public notice.^' 17 Central Nat. Bank of Junction Iowa 103, 52 N. W. 106 ; Thornton v. City V. Sheldon, 86 Kans. 460, 121 Balcom, 85 Iowa 198, 52 N. W. 190. Pac. 340; Ellis v. Brand, 176 Mo. 20 Kaiser v. Lawrence Sav. Bank, App. 383, 158 S. W. 705; Aehle v. 56 Iowa 104, 8 N. W. 772, 41 Am. Brand, 176 Mo. 395, 158 S. W. 709. Rep. 85. But see Humphreys v. 18 Harris v. McGregor, 29 Cal. 124; Mooney, 5 Colo. 282. Bigelow V. Gregory, IZ 111. 197 ; Hurt 21 Clegg v. Hamilton &c. Grange V. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310; Abbott v. Co., 61 Iowa 121, 15 N. W. 865; Mar- Omaha Smelting &c. Co., 4 Nebr. shall v. Harris, 55 Iowa 182, 7 N. W. 416. But see Granby Min. &c. Co. v. 509. Richards, 95 Mo. 106, 8 S. W. 246. 22 ciegg v. Hamilton &c. Grange "Heuer v. Carmichael, 82 Iowa Co., 61 Iowa 121, 15 N. W. 865. 288, 47 N. W. 1034, 9 Ry. Corp. L. J. 23 Heuer v. Carmichael, 82 Iowa 274. But see Sw^ney v. Talcott, 85 .288, 47 N. W. 1034, 9 Ry. Corp. L. J. § 231 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 244 Where a charter was issued for incorporation, under the laws of Arizona, but no books were opened, no meetings were called and no stock was subscribed or paid, the incorporators were liable as partners.^* And it has been held that the omission from the articles of incorporation of any of the statutory requirements would render the incorporators personally liable.^^ A stock- holder who became such within the three months allowed for the publication of the notice of incorporation was held personally liable for debts contracted within such time, where there was a failure to give the required notice.^* An association which did business under an unsuccessful attempt to incorporate was held to be a partnership, composed of the directors and of the sujj- scribers to the articles of association."^ Under the Florida statute stockholders are liable as partners where the incorpora- tion is defective.^' But an omission of a statutory requirement by the officer in copying the certificate, was held not to render stock- holders liable."* So the mere failure to keep the books of the corporation in the manner prescribed by statute, was held not to render the stockholders liable for the corporate debts.*" Neither did the failure to post by-laws as required.^^ Where several per- sons unite to form a corporation and obtain a certificate of incor- poration, inaugurate and conduct the business described, and in the assumed corporate name contract debts in the course of the business as corporate liabilities, they will not be held as part- ners by reason of a defective organization.^" Where a statute made stockholders personally liable for failure to take the neces- 274; Thornton v. Balcom, 85 Iowa E. 668. See Gainey v. Gilson, 149 198, 52 N. W. 190. Ind. 58, 48 N. E. 633. 2* Central Nat. Bank v. Sheldon, ssHeinberg v. Thompson, 47 Fla. 121 Pac. 340, 86 Kans. 460. 163, Z7 So. 71. 25 Harris v. McGregor, 29 Cal. 124; 2» Bendall v. Jackson, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. Kaiser v. Lawrence Sav. Bank, 56 183, 1 Pa. Dist. R. 726. Iowa 104, 8 N. W. 772, 41 Am. Rep. soLangan v. Iowa &c. Const. Co., 85. 49 Iowa 317. 26 Clinton Novelty Iron Works v. ^i Mackellar v. Stout, 14 Iowa 359. Neiting, 134 Iowa 311, 111 N. W. 974. S2 Brooke v. Day, 129 Ga. 694, 59 '27 Coleman v. Coleman, 78 Ind. 344 ; S. E. 769. Doty V. Patterson, 155 Ind. 60, 56 N. 245 LIABILITY ON DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION § 232' sary steps for incorporation, it was held that creditors who were also incorporators were estopped from' enforcing the personal liability.^^ A distinction has been made between the cases where, in a suit between a corporation or a stockholder or other indi- vidual, the plea of nul tiel corporation is set up to defeat a lia- bility which the one may have contracted with the other, and a case of a suit against individuals who claim exemption from per- sonal liability on the ground of the other having become a cor- poration. In the latter case a stricter measure of compliance with statutory requirements will be required than in the former.^* Under the Washington statute, a creditor who has dealt with a corporation may not after recovering judgment against the cor- poration charge the stockholders as partners with the same debt, unless he alleges and proves a fraudulent intent.^^ The Iowa statute relating to the individual liability of the stockholders of a defectively organized corporation is held not to apply to persons doing business under a company name, where they made no at- tempt to incorporate and did not assume . any corporate func- tions.^® Under the laws of Arizona, corporators are individually liable where they accept a charter, though they take no further steps to complete the corporate organization.'^ § 232. Capital stock not paid. — According to some stat- utes the corporators are liable as partners for the corporate debts until the entire "capital stock is all paid, and a certificate thereof filed with some designated officer.'® The personal liability of the 33Seaton v. Grimm, 110 Iowa 145, Y. 119; Buflfalo &c. R. Co. v, Gary, 81 N. W. 225. 26 N. Y. 75. 3*Bigelow V. Gregory, IZ 111. 197; ^s American Radiator Co. v. Kin- Kaiser V. Lawrence Sav. Bank, 56 neai, 56 Wash. 210, 105 Pac. 630, 35 Iowa 104, 8 N. W. 772, 41 Am. Rep. L. R. A. (N. S.) 453. 85. See also Harris v. McGregor, 29 ^^ Schumacher v. Sumner Tel. Co. Cal. 124; Mokelumne Hill &c. Min. 161 Iowa 326, 142 N. W. 1034. Co. V. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 424, 73 Am. " Central Nat. Bank v. Sheldon, 86 Dec. 658; Krutz v. Paola Town Co., Kans. 460, 121 Pac. 340. 20 KaniSw 397 ; Granby Min. &c. Co. v. ^^ Jos. Rosenheim Shoe Co. v. Richards, 95 Mo. 106, 8 S. W. 246; Home, 10 Ga. App. 582, 73 S. E. 953; Abbott V. Omaha Smelting &c. Co., 4 Tibballs v. Libby, 87 111. 142; Butler Nebr. 416; Eaton v. Aspinwall, 19 N. v. Walker, 80 111. 345; Norris v. John- § 232 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 246 Stockholders under such statutes may be attacked, although for other purposes a corporation may have acquired a valid organiza- tion;^® but such a statute was held not to render a contract en- tered into on the part of the corporation void, but only substituted the personal liabilities of the stockholders for what had not been paid on the capital stock.*" These statutes have been held to mean that the several stockholders of a corporation are indi- vidually liable until the whole amount of the capital stock shall have been paid in, for any debts of the corporation contracted before that time, and that the subsequent paying in of all the stock will terminate the liability. And on this theory where the whole capital stock was paid after an action was brought by a creditor, it was held that the plaintiff could not proceed to judg- ment.*^ Under a statute making stockholders liable until the entire capital stock was paid, and further providing that it should all be paid within two years, it was held that a creditor was not required to wait until the expiration of the full time before pro- ceeding against a stockholder.*^ The payment of the stock re- quired by these statutes may be either in money or property ; but a transfer to the corporation of worthless inventions was held not to relieve a stockholder from personal liability.*^ The fail- ure to divide the capital stock into shares, although the entire amount is fixed, was held insufficient to relieve the individual members from liability for debts contracted by the corporation.** son, 34 Md. 485 ; Norris v. Wren- ss Baker v. Backus, 32 111. 79. schall, 34 Md. 492 ; Chase's Patent *" Chase's Patent Elev. Co. v. Bos- Elev. Co. V. Boston Tow-Boat Co., ton Tow-Boat Co., 152 Mass. 428, 28 152 Mass. 428, 28 N. E. 300, 9 L. R. N. E. 300, 9 L. R. A. 339. A. 339; First Nat. Bank v. Almy, 117 *i Booth v. Campbell, 37 Md. 522. Mass. 476; Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon ** King v. Duncan, 38 Hun (N. Y.) Petroleum Co., 101 Mass. 385, 111 461. But see Chase v. Lord, 17 N. Mass. 200 ; Carter v. Samuel Hano Y. 1, 6 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 258. Co., 72 N. H. 549, 58 Atl. 243 ; Veeder ^s National Tube-Works v. GilfiUan, V. Mudgett, 95 N. Y. 295; Close v. 124 N. Y. 302, 26 N. E. 538. Potter, 155 N. Y. 145, 49 N. E. 686; ** Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon Petro- Thompson v. Nicolai, 21 Misc. (N. leum Co., 101 Mass. 385, 111 Mass. Y.) 700, 49 N. Y. S. 422; Heinze v. 200; First Nat. Bank v. Almy, 117 South Green Bay &c. Dock Co;, 109 Mass. 476. Wis. 99, 85 N. W. 145. 247 LIABILITY ON DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION § 233 The theory of this liability is that until the stock is divided and certificates issued the stockholders own the stock in common and are all jointly and severally liable for the debts contracted before the stock is divided.*^ But after a distribution of the shares they are only severally liable, in proportion to the shares held by them respectively.*'^ But according to familiar principles stockholders are not to be permitted to set up the want of compliance with statutory requirements in order to escape their personal liability/'' A stockholder who has paid for his stock was held not personally liable to creditors of the corporation, because it carried on busi- ness before the capital stock had all been subscribed, and where it appeared that such stockholder had no notice that the stock had not been subscribed in full, or of any intent to carry on an illegal corporation/^ But this liability for failure to pay the capital stock does not hold an original stockholder liable for failure of others to pay in an increase of stock.*^ The liability of cor- porators who transact business as a corporation before the capital stock has been subscribed as required by law is a liability to the creditors and is not an asset of the corporation.^" § 233. Failure to file certificate of incorporation. — ^The filing of the certificate of incorporation as required by statute in some jurisdictions is regarded as a condition precedent and the failure to file such certificate iii the office as required has been held sufficient to render stockholders personally liable for the corporate debts." Failure to file the required certificate of incorporation *5Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon Petro- N. E. 838; Veeder v. Mudgett, 95 N. leum Co., 101 Mass. 385, 111 Mass. Y. 295. 200. =° Wells V. DuBose, 140 Ga. 187, 78 *6 Burnap v. Haskins Steam-Engine S. E. 715 ; Rozar v. Rosenheim Shoe Co., 127 Mass. 586. Co., 14 Ga. App. 13, 80 S. E. 24. *7McDougald v. Bellamy, 18 Ga. sijones v. Butler, 146 N. Y. 55, 40 411; McDougald v. Lane, 18 Ga. 444; N. E. 633; Jones v. Mail &c. Pub. Hammond v. Straus, 53 Md. 1. Co., 80 Hun (N. Y.) 368, 30 N. Y. S. « American Mirror &c. Co. v. 335, 62 N. Y. St. 61; Christie v. Bulkley, 107 Mich. 447, 65 N. W. 291. Bowne, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 107, 31 N. *9 Sayles v. Brown, 40 Fed. 8 ; Y. S. 390, 63 N. Y. St. 805. Griffeth V. Green, 129 N. Y. 517, 29 •§ 234 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 248 was held sufficient to make the incorporator liable as partner." Under a statute requiring the making of a sworn certificate, it was held that a certificate acknowledged but not sworn to was not a sufficient compliance to relieve the stockholders from personal liability.^^ The failure to file with the secretary of state and with the clerk of the circuit court the duplicate affidavits as required ■by the statute will make stockholders personally liable.^* The cer- tificate of payment of the entire capital stock, when filed in ac- cordance with the statute, is held to be conclusive evidence for the purpose of exempting stockholders from liability for debts thereafter contracted.°° But it seems that it ought not to be more than prima facie evidence/' Where a statute required a certifi- cate to be filed in every county where the corporation did business, and it was shown that the required certificate had not been filed in one county where the corporation did business, this was held prima facie evidence that no certificate had been filed.^' § 234. Increase o£ capital stock without filing certificate. —Where a corporation organized under a special charter in- creased its capital stock under a general statute, this was held to be such a re-incorporation under the general law that a failure to pay the full amount of such increased capital, and to file a cer- tificate as required by the general law, as to render the sub- scribers to the increased stock individually liable for the subse- quent debts of the corporation.^^ And by this was meant that each stockholder was liable to cofporate creditors in a sum equal to the stock taken by him, although he had paid in full for his stock.^® But the fact of the issue of new stock and the failure to file the required certificate, was held not to revive the. individual liability of the holders of the original stock, who had not sub- =2 New York Nat. Exch. Bank v. ^^ gtedraan v. Eveleth, 6 Met. Crowell, 177 Pa. St. 313, 35 Atl. 613. (Mass.) 114. 53 Hardman v. Sage, 124 N. Y. 25, =e Veeder v. Mudgett, 95 N. Y. 295. 26 N. E. 354. 67 Maher v. Carman, 38 N. Y. 25. s* Heinberg v. Thompson, 47 Fla. ss Tibballs v. Libby, 87 111. 142. 163, 37 So. 71. 59 Butler v. Walker, 80 111. 345. -249 LIABILITY ON DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION § 235 scribed for any of the increased stock."" Under a Maryland stat- ute it was held that until all the increased stock was paid in, the members were severally liable for the corporate debts.*^ § 235. Failure to comply with statutory requirements — Effect. — A general statute was held to have a retroactive effect to the extent of making directors and stockholders liable for the debts of a corporation organized under a special charter before its passage, where the capital stock was not fully paid."^ So such statutes have been held to have an extraterritorial effect, and have been held en forcible by the courts of other states than those in which they were enacted.®* But in the absence of a stat- ute requiring the payment in full of the capital stock, or of any definite part thereof, there is no personal liability on the part of stockholders for beginning business and contracting, debts before the payment of the capital stock."^ A statute validating charters irregularly acknowledged was held to be valid and did not im- pair the obligation contracts.*' In enforcing this personal liabil- ity a distinction has been made between corporations attempted to be organized under general laws and those created by special charters."'' Statutes making stockholders personally liable for corporate debts for failure to comply with such statutory re- quirements in the organization, are held to relate only to defects in the organization, and not to apply to errors arising from the subsequent conduct of the corporate business."* And this lia- 60 Sayles v. Brown, 40 Fed. 8; Grif- 94 Tenn. 123, 28 S. W, 668, 26 L. R. feth V. Green, 129 N. Y. 517, 29 N. A. 509, 45 Am. St. 700. E. 838. "^ Bigelow v. Gregory, IZ 111. 197 ; 61 Booth V. Campbell, Z7 Md. 522. Granby Min. &c. Co. v. Richards, 95 62 Gulliver v. Roelle, 100 111. 141; Mo. 106, 8 S. W. 246; Abbott v. Black V. Womer, 100 111. 328. Omaha Smelting &c. Co., 4 Nebr. 416. 6* Flash V. Conn, 16 Fla. 428, 26 68 Brinkley Car Works &c. Co. v. Am. Rep. 721. See Sayles v. Brown, Curfman, 136 Iowa 476, 114 N. W. 12. 40 Fed. 8. Stockholders not individually liable 65 Thornton v. Balcom, 85 Iowa 198, on obligation contracted within three 52 N. W. 190; Sweney v. Talcott, 85 months from the date of the cer- lowa 103, 52 N. W. 106. tificate of incorporation during whic!i 66 Shields V. Cliffton Hill Land Co., time the certificate could be published § 236 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 250 bility of stockholders can not be enlarged by a failure to keep the corporate books correctly.®" § 236. Extent of stockholders' liability under statutes. — The extent or the amount of the stockholders' liability under the statutes mentioned" in the preceding sections is said to be meas- ured by the par value of the stock held by each, and is in no way affected by the amount of the capital stock that may at any time remain unpaid.'" Thus under a New York statute a stockholder, although his stock was fully paid, was held liable to an amount equal to his stock for all debts contracted while he owned the stock, until the capital stock was fully paid up and the certicate thereof duly filed.'^ And so where a corporation began business upon a less sum than that named in the charter, and afterward became insolvent, the solvent stockholders were held bound to make up the deficiency for the benefit of creditors, that were held liable as partners.'^ But the same court afterward held that in such case the solvent stockholders were not bound to make up the defi- ciency of insolvent stockholders for the benefit of corporate cred- itors.'^ And in a case where the stock was not subscribed for up to the minimum amount fixed by the charter, and none was paid in, and the corporation organized, elected themselves officers, began business, contracted debts up to and beyond the nominal capital, they were held to have committed a legal fraud, and were liable to creditors to make good such minimum capital.'* But the fact that the required capital was paid in was held not suffi- cient to exonerate the stockholders, where the required certificate was not made and recorded within the prescribed time.'^ While stockholders are made liable by statute as original and principal under the statutes : Lowden Sav. ''^ Haslett v. Wotherspoon, 1 Strob. Bank v. Neiting, 147 Iowa 119, 124 Eq. (S. Car.) 209. N. W. 185. ' 73 South Carolina Mfg. Co. v. Bank, 69 Kiggins V. Munday, 19 Wash. 6 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 227. 233, 52 Pac. 855. ^4 Burns v. Beck, 83 Ga. 471, 10 S. '■o Rogers v. Gross, 67 Minn. 244, E. 121. 69 N. W. 894 ; Norris v. Johnson, 34 '» Plass v. Housman, 49 Hun 610 Md. 485. 2 N. Y. S. 235, 17 N. Y. St. 671. 71 Eaton V. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y. 119. 251 LIABILITY OTC DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION § 237 debtors, substantially as though they were partners, still the lia- bility of each is limited to a sum equal to the stock held by him." So where two persons own stock jointly, not as partners, neither can be held for more than one-half of the stockholder's liability/^ And the stockholders' personal liability in banks, extends only to the obligations ordinarily incident to the banking business.'^' § 237. Stockholdeirs of de facto corporations not liable — Certificates conclusive. — The individual members of a cor- poration can not be charged with the value of goods sold and de- livered to the corporation on the ground that they were not legally incorporated by reason of noncompliance with certain statutory requirements, when the certificate of incorporation was regular on its face and was authenticated in such manner as to be, by statute, evidence of the existence of the corporation. As against such a certificate the validity of the corporation can not be im- peached by proving, as against the certificate, that certain pre- requisites of the law had not been complied with.''" A creditor who has contracted with a de facto corporation in its corporate capacity, and within the scope of its assumed powers, can not deny the corporate existence for the purpose of holding the stockholders liable as partners.*" Where there was a good-faith attempt to organize a corporation but the articles of association were not filed with the clerk of the county of the corporation's domicile, it was held that persons dealing with the corporation as such, can not object to the irregularity in its organization, in or- 78 Coleman v. White, 14 Wis. 700, Stafford Nat. Bank v. Palmer, 47 80 Am. Dec. 797. Conn. 443 ; Planter &c. Bank v. "Markell v. Ray, 75 Minn. 138, 17 Padgett, 69 Ga. 159; Doty v. Patter- N. W. 788. son, 155 Ind. 60, 56 N. E. 668; Sentell '•8 Kiggins V. Munday, 19 Wash. 233, v. Hewitt, SO La. Ann. 3, 22 So. 970 52 Pac. 855. First Nat. Bank v. Almy, 117 Mass 79Laflin &c. Powder Co. v. Sin- 476; Trowbridge v. Scudder, 11 Cush sheimer, 46 Md. 315, 24 Am. Rep. 522. (Mass.) 83; Fay v. Noble, 7 Cush 80 Snider v. Troy, 91 Ala. 224, 8 So. (Mass.) 188, 1 Cumming's Cas. 420 658, 11 L. R. A. 515, 24 Am. St. 887. New York Iron Mine v. First Nat, See also Los Angeles Holiness Band Bank, 39 Mich. 644; Merchants' &c V. Spires, 126 Cal. 541, 58 Pac. 1049; Bank Co. v. Stone, 38 Mich. 779; Humphreys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. 282; Kleckner v. Turk, 45 Nebr. 176, 63 S 237 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 252 der to charge the directors as partners.^^ But this rule has been held not to apply where the governing statute expressly provided, or clearly indicated, that the stockholders should receive no pro- tection from their organization unless the requirements of the statute have been fully complied with.*^ Where a supposed cor- poration is doing business as a de facto one, the stockholders can not be held liable as partners, although there have been irregulari- ties, omissions and mistakes in organizing the corporation.*' Stockholders were held not personally liable because the arti- cles of incorporation, published as the statutory notice, did not show the terms of which the amount of stock authorized, should be paid in, where the notice given showed that the corporation would start business with a certain issue of stock.^* Where the organization of a corporation had been apparently effected and the secretary of state had returned the charter, with a certificate stating that it had been filed in his office as required, persons who became stockholders in such corporation, under the belief that a legal corporation existed and without any notice of any vice in its charter, were held not liable as partners for the corporate debts.*° A statute making directors and officers personally liable in case the indebtedness of the corporation should exceed the amount of N. W. 469; Stout v. Zulick, 48 N. J. ican Mirror &c. Co. v. Bulkley, 107 L. 599, 7 Atl. 362; Second Nat. Bank Mich. 447, 65 N. W. 291; Richards V. Hall, 35 Ohio St. 158; Rutherford v. Minnesota Sav. Bank, 75 Minn. V. Hill, 22 Ore. 218, 29 Pac..546, 17 196, 17 N. W. 822; Ferris v. Thaw, L. R. A. 549, 29 Am. St. 596. 72 Mo. 446; Kleckner v. Turk, 45 SI Newcomb-Endicott Co. v. Fee, Nebr. 176, 63 N. W.- 469; Larned v. 167 Mich. 574, 133 N. W. 540. Beal, 65 N. H. 184, 23 Atl. 149; Smith 82Garnett v. Richardson, 35 Ark. v. Colorado &c. Ins. Co., 14 Fed. 144; Boyington v. Van Etten, 62 Ark. 399. 63, 35 S. W. 622 ; Eisfeld v. Kenworth, 83 Seaton v. Grimm, 110 Iowa 145, 50 Iowa 389; Marshall v. Harris, 55 81 N. W. 225; McRee v. Quitman Oil Iowa 182, 7 N. W. 509; Kaiser v. Co. (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 487. Lawrence Sav. Bank, 56 Iowa 104, 8 s*Brinkley Car Works &c. Co. v. N. W. 772, 41 Am. Rep. 85 ; Singer Curfman, 136 Iowa 476, 114 N. W. 12. V. Given, 61 Iowa 93, 15 N. W. 858; ss American Salt Co. v. Heiden- Heald v. Owen, 79 Iowa 23, 44 N. W. heimer, 80 Tex. 344, IS S. W. 1038, 210; Walton v. Oliver, 49 Kans. 107, 26 Am. St. 743. 30 Pac. 172, 33 Am. St. 355; Amer- 253 LIABILITY ON DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION § 238 its capital stock, was held not to apply on a strict construction to corporations de facto/® To constitute a corporation de facto so as to exempt the members from liability as partners, there must be a charter or law under which the corporation could exist with the powers it assumes to exercise, and a colorable compliance with the requirements of the law, together with user of the rights claimed thereunder.®^ A banking company with articles provid- ing for doing a general business which banks are authorized to do, and which did conduct such a business, was held to be a cof- poration sufficient to charge its stockholders with the statutory liability imposed on them as such.*® Neither stockholders nor officers and directors of a corporation organized under statute for an educational purpose, are liable as partners for the debts of the corporation.®* In a collateral suit, one may not assail the existence of a corporation and seek to hold the stockholders as partners who were doing business under the name of a factitious corporation.*" § 238. Estoppel of creditor contracting with corporation. — On the question of the right of a creditor to hold stockholders individually liable where they have contracted with the corpora- tion as such, the principle of estoppel has more or less weight."^ This doctrine of estoppel and the right of a creditor to sue the stockholders as partners, was stated by the Alabama court thus : "Maintenance of such suit involves judicial nullification of fran- chises and powers enjoyed and exercised by a de facto corpora- tion, as a distinct entity recognized by the law, acquiesced in by the state ; defeats the corporate character of the contract, changes the relation from that of stockholders to that of partners ; substi- ssKohlsaat V, Gay, 126 111. App. 4; 89VVatton v. Cruce (Okla.), 143 Gay V. Kohlsaat, 223 111. 260, 79 N. Pac. 11S2; Brown v. Cruce (Okla.), E. n. 143 Pac. 1154. 87 Brown V. Atlanta R. Co., 113 Ga. ooQ'Kell v. Chama Valley Lands 462, 39 S. E. 71 ; Brooke v. Day, 129 &c. Co., 181 Mo, App. 466, 168 S. W. Ga. 694, 59 S. E. 769. 887. 88 Hamilton Nat. Bank v. American *i Thornton v. Balcom, 85 Iowa 198, Loan &c. Co., (A Nebr. 67, 92 N. W. 52 N. W. 190. See also Abbott v. 189. Omaha Smelting &c. Co., 4 Nebr. 416. § 238 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 254 tutes other and new parties to the contract, and effects the impo- sition of an enlarged liability, which they did not assume, but in- tended to avoid, so understood by the creditor, when he contracted the debt with the corporation as such. The contract is valid and binding on the corporation, which the creditor trusted. No in- justice is done him, for all his rights and remedies are preserved by the principle that the corporation and the shareholder are estopped from denying its legal existence, as against him. It will not answer to say that he is not repudiating, but enforcing, the contract. He repudiates the party — the corporation — with which he made the contract, and seeks its enforcement against parties who never entered into contractual relations with him."°^ Many cases hold that persons who have dealt with a corporation as such will not thereafter be permitted to hold the stockholders person- ally liable as partners, although statutory requirements have not been complied with and there was not in fact a legal organiza- tion."^ A de facto existence for a considerable time will relieve 92 Snider v. Troy, 91 Ala. 224, 8 So. 658, 11 L. R. A. 515, 24 Am. St. 887. See also Cory v. Lee, 93 Ala. 468, 8 So. 694; Whitney v. Wyman, 101 U. S. 392, 25 L. ed. 1050; Gart- side Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 22 Fed. 197; Mokelumne Hill &c. Min. Co. V. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 424, 73 Am. Dec. 658; Brooke v. Day, 129 Ga. 694, 59 S. E. 769; Planters' &c. Bank v. Padgett, 69 Ga. 159; Merchants' &c. Bank v. Stone, 38 Mich. 779 ; Vanne- man v. Young, 52 N. J. L. 403, 20 Atl. 53 ; Stout v. Zulick, 48 N. J. L. 599, 7 Atl. 362; Fox v. McComb, 63 Hun 630, 17 N. Y. S. 783, 44 N. Y. St. 178; Raisbeck v. Oesterricher, 4 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 444, 55 How. Pr. 516; Methodist &c. Church v. Pickett, 19 N. Y. 482; Second Nat. Bank v. Hall, 35 Ohio St. 158 ; Mer- riman v. Magiveny, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 494; American Salt Co. v. Heidenheimer, 80 Tex. 344, 15 S. W. 1033, 26 Am. St. 743; Harrod v. Hamer, 32 Wis. 162. 93 Whitney v. Wyman, 101 U. S. 392, 25 L. ed. 1050 ; Stutz v. Handley, 41 Fed. 531 ; Owensboro Wagon Co. V. Bliss, 132 Ala. 253, 31 So. 81, 90 Am. St. 907; Cory v. Lee, 93 Ala. 468, 8 So. 694 ; Snider v. Troy, 91 Ala. 224, 8 So. 658, 11 L. R. A. 515, 24 Am. St. 887; Sparks v. Woodstock Iron &c, Co., 87 Ala. 294, 6 So. 195; Boiling V. Le Grand, 87 Ala. 482, 6 So. 332; In re Spring Valley Water Works Co., 17 Cal. 132; Mokelumne Hill &c. Min. Co. V. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 424, IZ Am. Dec. 658; Bates v. Wilson, 14 Colo. 140, 24 Pac. 99; Humphreys V. Mooney, S Colo. 282; Planters' &c. Bank v. Padgett, 69 Ga. 159; Rozar V. Rosenheim Shoe Co., 14 Ga. App. 13, 80 S. E. 24; Butler Paper Co. v. Cleveland, 220 111. 128, 11 N. E. 99, 110 Am. St. 230; Bushnell v. Con- solidated &c. Mach. Co., 138 111. 67, 255 LIABILITY ON DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION 238 Stockholders from individual liability because of failure to ob- serve statutory requirements, as against creditors contracting with it in such capacity, and relying upon the corporate credit."^ 27 N, E. 596; Tarbell v. Page, 24 111. 46; Cross v. Pinckneyville Mill Co., 17 111. 54; Curtis v. Tracy, 169 111. 233, 48 N. E. 399, 61 Am. St. 168 (affg. 62 111. App. 49); First Nat. Bank V. Dovetail &c. Gear Co., 143 Ind. 534, 42 N. E. 924; Crowder v. Sul- livan, 128 Ind. 486, 28 N. E. 94, 13 L. R. A. 647; Seaton v. Grimm, 110 Iowa 145, 81 N. W. 225; Park v. Zwart, 92 Iowa 37, 60 N. W. 220; First Nat. Bank v. Davies, 43 Iowa 424; Cole v. Great Bend Land &c. Co., 8 Kans. App. 860, 54 Pac. 920; Clark V. Richardson, 17 Ky. L. 514, 31 S. W. 878; Portland &c. Tpk. Co. v. Bobb, 88 Ky. 226, 10 S. W. 794, 10 Ky. L. 796; Walton v. Riley, 85 Ky. 413, 3 S. W. 60S; Anderson v. Thompson, 51 La. Ann. 727, 25 So. 399; Sentell v. Hewitt, SO La. Ann. 3, 22 So. 970; Love v. Ramsey, 139 Mich. 47, 102 N.. W. 279; American Mirror &c. Co. v. ,Bulkley, 107 Mich. 447, 65 N. W. 291 ; Gow v. Collin &c. Lumber Co., 109 Mich. 45, 66 N. W. 676; Merchants' &c. Bank v. Stone, 38 Mich. 779; Johnson v. Okerstrom, 70 Minn. 303, IZ N. W. 147; Finnigan v. Noerenberg, 52 Minn. 239, 53 N. W. 1150, 18 L. R. A. 778, 38 Am. St. 552; Christian v. Bowman, 49 Minn. 99, 51 N. W. 663; Webb v. Rockefel- ler, 195 Mo. 57, 93 S. W. 772, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 872; First Nat. Bank v. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 15, 93 S. W. 761 ; Reinhard v. Virginia &c. Min. Co., 107 Mo. 616, 18 S. W. 17, 28 Am. St. 441; Granby Min. &c. Co. v. Rich- ards, 95 Mo. 106, 8 S. W. 246; Lamed V. Beal, 65 N. H. 184, 23 Atl. 149; Vanneman v. Young, 52 N. J. L. 403, 20 Atl. 53; Stout v. Zulick, 48 N, J. L. 599, 7 Atl. 362; Raisbeck v. Oester- richer, 4 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 444, SS How. Pr.,516; Holmes v. GilH- land, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 568; People v. Commissioners, 175 N. Y. 516, 67 N. E. 1088 (affg. 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 242, 81 N. Y. S. 20) ; Lancaster V. Amsterdam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y. 576, 35 N. E. 964, 24 L. R. A. 322n ; Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y. 205, 28 N. E. 64S, 13 L. R. A. 854; Welch V. Importers' &c. Bank, 122 N. Y. 177, 25 N. E. 269; Jessup v. Carnegie, 80 N. Y. 441, 36 Am. Rep. 643; De Witt V. Hastings, 69 N. Y. 518; Nelson v. Luling, 62 N. Y. 645 ; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Pendleton, 55 Hun S79, 9 N. Y. S. 46, 29 N. Y. St. 891 ; Sea- cord V. Pendleton, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 579, 9 N. Y. S. 46, 29 N. Y. St. 891 ; Wilson Cotton Mills v. Randleman Cotton Mills, 115 N. Car. 475, 20 S. E. 770; Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co. V. Owen, 133 Pac. 193, Zl Okla. 616; Patterson v. Franklin, 176 Pa. St. 612, 35 Atl. 205 ; Allegheny Nat. Bank V. Bailey, 147 Pa. St. Ill, 23 Atl. 439; Albright v. Lafayette &c. Sav. Assn., 102 Pa. St. 411; Becket v. Uniontown &c. Loan Assn., 88 Pa. St. 211 ; Tennessee &c. Lighting Co. v. Massey (Tenn.), 56 S. W. 35; Merriman v. Magiveny, . 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 494; American Salt Co. v. Heidenheimer, 80 Tex. 344, 15 S. W. 1038, 26 Am. St 743 ; Mitchell v. Jen- sen, 29 Utah 346, 81 Pac. 165 ; Marsh V. Mathias, 19 Utah 350, 56 Pac. 1074 ; Clausen v. Head, 110 Wis. 405, 85 N. W. 1028, 84 Am. St. 933. 8*Hogue v. Capital Nat. Bank, 47 Nebr. 929, 66 N. W. 1036. § 239 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 256 Thus a judgment against an imperfectly organized corporation by a creditor who contracted with it as such, will estop him from thereafter recovering against the members individually as if they were" partners on the ground of defective organization.®^ So a creditor who participated in the organization of a corporation, and sold goods to it as a corporation before its organization was completed was estopped to deny the corporation's legal existence to charge the promoters as partners.®" The same rule applies to one who contracted to purchase stock of a supposed corporation and he can not rescind his contract, and recover from his asso- ciates as partners.®^ If persons dealing with a de facto corpora- tion did not know whether it was a corporation or a partnership, they can not hold the directors as partners on the ground that they believed they were dealing with a partnership.®* But in some states it is held that the fact that creditors dealt with and extended credit to a corporation as such does not estop them from enforc- ing the personal liability of the stockholders for failure to comply with the statute.®* ,§ 239. Incorporation incomplete — Illustrations of liability. — Corporators and stockholders have been held liable as partners where the organization was incomplete by reason of the failure to comply with some statutory requirement, under certain circum- stances as shown in the following illustrations : Publishing the articles of association which did not contain all the requirements 95 Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Fergu- ^s Newcomb-Endicott Co. v. Fee, son, 49 Nebr. 109, 68 N. W. 370, 59 167 Mich. 574, 133 N. W. 540. Am. St. 522; Richards v. Minnesota ^^Heinberg v. Thompson, 47 Fla. Sav. Bank, 75 Minn. 196, l^l N. W. 163, Z7 So. 71; Rhodes v. Hinds, 79 822; Shoun v. Armstrong (Tenn. Ch. App. Div. "It is the general rule that a con- veyance to a partnership by its firm name which does not include the name of any of the partners does not vest irl it any legal title because the partnership is not recognized in law as a person. Because the deed is void at law, it by no means follows that the same rule applies in equity. The appellees allege in their amended complaint that the individual mem- bers of the firm were the purchasers of the land at the execution sale, and that by mistake of the draftsman the name of the firm, instead of the names of the persons who composed the firm, was written in the deed. It is a fundamental principle of equity that it regards and treats that as done which in good conscience ought to be done, * * * and it would be inequitable to deny appel- lees the relief prayed for [reforma- tion]." Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. God- bold, 92 Ark. 63, 121 S. W. 1063, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 282n, 135 Am. St. 168. See also Emmet v. Dekle, 132 Ga. 593, 64 S. E. 682; Frost v. Wolf, n Tex. 455, 14 S. W. 440, 19 Am. St. 761 ; Harris v. Bryson, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 532, 80 S. W. 105 ; Stam- baugh v.. Smith, 23 Ohio St. 584 ;. § 265 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 294 mortgage to the partner or partners thus named,"'^ who will hold the title in trust for the entire firm membership.'''' This impor tence of the partnership name likewise extends, under the com- mon law, to the bringing of action by or against the firm,''* but New Vienna Bank v. Johnson, 47 Ohio St. 306, 24 N. E. 503, 8 L. R. A. 614; Kelley v. Bourne, IS Ore. 476, 16 Pac. 40. ^A firm may, as agent, execute a deed to realty in its partnership name. McCuUoch County Land & Cattle Co. v. Whiteford, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 314, SO S. W. 1042; Townshend v. Goodfellow, 40 Minn. 312, 41 N. W. 1056, 3 L. R. A. 739n, 12 Am. St. 736; Walker v. Miller, 139 N. Car. 448, 52 S. E. 125, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157, 111 Am. St. .805. See further, TuUer v. Leaverton, 143 Iowa 162, 121 N. W. 515, 136 Am. St. 756. And compare Grant v. Ban- nister, 160 Cal. 774, 118 Pac. 253. '1 Menage v. Burke, 43 Minn. 211, 45 N. W. 155, 19 Am. St. 235. See also Cole v. Mettee, 65 Ark. 503, 47 'S. W. 407, 67 Am. St. 945; Wood- ward V. McAdam, 101 Cal. 438, 35 Pac. 1016 ; Bernstein v. Hobelraan, 70 Md. 29, 16 Atl. 374; Schumpert v. Dillard, Pinson & Co., 55 l^Iiss. 348; Walker v. Miller, 139 N. Car. 448, 52 S. E. 125, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157, 111 Am. St. 80S; Holmes v. Jarrett, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 506; Moreau v. Saf- farans, 3 Sneed. (Tenn.) 595, dl Am. Dec. 582 ; Sherry v. Gilmore, 58 Wis. 324, 17 N. W. 252. So, it has been held that under a conveyance of property to "B. & Bro.," copartners, B. had the legal title and could con- vey the complete legal title thereto, leaving his copartners to their rem- edy for an accounting for proceeds. Wright V. Brooks, 47 Mont. 99, 130 Pac. 968. ^2 Schumpert v. Dillard, Pinson & Co., 55 Miss. 348. See further in this connection, Chicago Lumber Co. v. Ashworth, 26 Kans. 212. ^s "That a partnership can not sue or be sued in its partnership name in a circuit court of the United States without alleging the' citizenship of its individual members is well settled." Bruett v. F. C. Austin Drainage Ex- cavator Co., 174 Fed. 668. "It is ele- mentary that in suits at law, by or against a copartnership, all the part- ners must be named as plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be." As to this proposition, "the authorities (where, as in this state the common law obtains) are practically unani- mous." Kalamazoo Trust Co. v. Mer- rill, 159 Mich. 649, 124 N. W. 597. "It is well settled by the authorities that in a suit to collect a debt due a partnership firm all the partners in interest, except dormant partners, are necessary parties plaintiff," Allen v. Fleck, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 507, 118 S. W. 176. See further, Reid v. Mc- Leod, 20 Ala. 576; Phillips v. Holmes, 165 Ala.- 250, 51 So. 625; Simmons v. Titche, 102 Ala. 317, 14 So. 786; Moore v. Burns, 60 Ala. 269; Tomp- kins v. Levy, 87 Ala. 263, 6 So. 346, 13 Am. St. 31 ; Leola Lumber Co. v. Bozarth, 91 Ark. 10, 120 S. W. 152; Ingham Lumber Co. v. Ingersoll, 93 Ark. 447, 125 S. W. 139; Gilman v. Cosgrove, 22 Cal. 356; Harrison v. McCormick, 69 Cal. 616, 11 Pac. 456; Roberts v. Rowan, 2 Harr. (Del.) 314; Metal Stamping Co. v. Crandall, Fed. Cas. No. 9493c; Richardson v. Smith, 21 Fla. 336; Jones v. Watson, 295 FIRM NAME § 265 not, apparently, to transfers of personalty,'^* nor fully to judg- ments by or against the partnership/^ Further the use of the 63 Ga. 679; DeLeon v. Heller, 11 Ga. 740; Page v. Brant, 18 111. 38; Ives V. Muhlenburg, 135 111. App. 517; Davis V. Hubbard, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) SO; Hughes v. Walker, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) SO; Holland v. Butler, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 2SS; Livingston v. Harvey, 10 Ind. 218; Pollock v. Dun- ning, 54 Ind. 115 ; Armstrong v. Rob- inson, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 412; Barber v. Smith, 41 Mich. 138, 1 N. W. 992; Smith V. Canfield, 8 Mich. 493 ; Black- well V. Reid, 41 Miss. 102; Lewis v. Cline (Miss.), 5 So. 112; McCartey V. Kittrell, 55 Miss. 253; Revis v. Lamme, 2 Mo. 207; Mitchell v. Rail- ton, 45 Mo. App. 273; Conrades & Co. V. Spink, 38 Mo. App. 309; Wil- son V. Yegen Bros., 38 Mont. 504, 100 Pac. 613; Faulkner v. Whitaker, IS N. J. L. 438 ; Tomlinson v. Burke, 10 N. J. L. 295 ; M'Credy v. Vanne- man, 3 N. J. L. 870; Burns v. Hall, 3 N. J. L. 539; Crandall v. Denny* 2 N. J. L. 137; Seely v. Schenck, 2 N. J. L. 75; Union Wine Co. v. Green, 62 Misc. (N. Y.) 551, 115 N. Y. S. 921 ; Crawford v Collins, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 269, 30 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 398; Bentley v. Smith, 3 Caines (N. Y.) 170; Smith V.Hoover, 39 Ohio St. 249; Haskins v. Alcott, 13 Ohio St. 210; Dunham v. Shindler, 17 Ore. 256, 20 Pac. 326 ; Kamm v. Harker, 3 Ore. 208; Porter v. Cresson, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 257; Martin v. Kelly, Cheves L. (S. Car.) 215; Marshal v. Hill, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 101; Frank v. Ta- tum, 87 Tex. 204, 25 S. W. 409; Tun- stall V. Wormley, 54 Tex. 476; Bur- den v. Cross, ZZ Tex. 685; Amarillo Commercial Co. v. Chicago &c. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 377; Houghton V. Puryear, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 383, 30 S. W. 583; Behan v, Long (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 380 Pate V. Bacon, 6 Munf. (Va.) 219 Scott V. Dunlop, 2 Munf. (Va.) 349 Olson V. Veazie, 9 Wash. 481, Zl Pac. 677, 43 Am. St. 855. Contra : John- son V. Smith, Morris (Iowa) lOS, And compare Spaulding v. Godbold, 92 Ark. 63, 121 S. W. 1063, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 282n, 135 Am. St. 168; Clayburg v. Ford, 3 III. App. 543; Cook V. Canny, 96 Mich. 398, 55 N. W. 987; Carpenter v. Greenop, 74 Mich. 664, 42 N. W. 276, 4 L. R. A. 241, 16 Am. St. 662; Davis v. Kline, Id Mo. 310; Frisk v. Reigelman, 75 Wis. 499, 43 N. W. 1117, 44 N. W. 766, 17 Am. St. 198. It has been held that a firm may sue in its partnership name where the defendant does not object that the individuals composing the firm are not parties. Daniels v. Roanoke R. &c. Co., 158 N. Car. 418, 74 S. E. 331. See also Brewer v. Abernathy, 159 N. Car. 283, 74 S. E. 1025. '* "A partnership, as such, can at law be the vendee in a bill of sale or other conveyance of personal prop- erty." Hendren v. Wing, 60 Ark. 561, 31 S. W. 149, 46 Am. St. 218. See also Brunson v. Morgan, 16 Ala. 593 ; Chicago Lumber Co. v. Ashworth, 26 Kans. 212; Byam v. Bickford, 140 Mass. 31, 2 N. E. 687; Kellogg v. Olson, 34 Minn. 103, 24 N. W. 364. ^5 "Bringing the action in the firm name does not render the judgment void, but is a mere defect or irregu- larity which is waived, unless due ob- jection be made thereto before judg- ment." Frisk V. Reigelman, 75 Wis. 499, 43 N. W. 1117, 44 N. W. 766, 17 Am. St. 198. See further, Spaulding 266 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 296 firm name is, ordinarily, prima facie evidence of the existence of a partnership and that the transaction is had in its behalf/® It has been held, however, that there is no presumption that the firm name includes more than one.''^ § 266. Unfair competition by use of firm name. — The gen- eral rules as to unfair competition apply to the use of a partner- ship name by those not members of the partnership, that is, if it . is used to deceive the public in order to pass off the goods or busi- ness of one person as and for that of another, there is a right of action for damages for unfair competition. Thus the partners have the absolute right to use their names as a firm designation, if done honestly, even if other persons are conducting a partner- ship under a similar style, and although there will be some inci- ' dental interference with and injury to the business of the older ,firm.''* There is no right whereby persons can acquire a mo- nopoly in the use of their names in business/* But if a new firm Mfg. Co. V. Godbold, 92 Ark. 63, 121 S. W. 1063, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 282n, 135 Am. St. 168; DeLeon v. Heller, n Ga. 740; Clayburg v. Ford, 3 111. App. 543 ; Ives v. Muhlenburg, 135 111. App. 517; Anderson v. Wilson, 142 Iowa 158, 120 N. W. 677; Davis v. Kline, Id Mo. 310 ; Conrades v. Spink, operates in a partnership of the non- trading class." Scheie v. Wagner, 163 Ind. 20, 71 N. E. 127. Nor ap- parently does such presumption exist in the case of a promissory note in- dorsed in the partnership name by one of the members of a firm of attor- neys. Worster v. Forbush, 171 Mass. 38 Mo. App. 309. And compare 423, 50 N. E. 936. Crandall v. Denny, 2 N. J. L. 137; Scott v. Dunlop, 2 Munf. (Va.) 349. 76 Fuller V. Scott, 8 Kans. 25; Mitchell V. Whaley, 29 Ky. L. 125, 92 S. W. 556; Evans v. Watts, 192 Pa. St. 112, 44 Wkly. Notes Cas. 185, 43 Atl. 464; Richardson v. Erckens, 53 App. Div. (N. Y.) 127, 65 N. Y. S. 872 (affd. 169 N. Y. 588, 62 N. E. 1100). And see Armstrong v. Rob- inson, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 412; People v. Croton Aqueduct Board, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 316, 6 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 42, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 240; Welsh v. Morris, 81 Tex. 159, 16 S. W. 744, 26 Am. St. 801. "No such presumption " Robinson v. Magarity, 28 111. 423. But see Fulton v. Maccracken, 18 Md. 528, 81 Am. Dec. 620. ' 7* Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U. S. 169, 41 L. ed. 118, 16 Sup. Ct. 1002; In re Richards, 206 Fed. 932; Rogers v. Rogers, 53 Conn. 121, 1 AtL807, 5 Atl. 675, 55 Am. Rep. 78 ; Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co., 144 N. Y. 462, 39 N. ,E. 490, 27 L. R. A. 42, 43 Am. St. 769; Meneely v. Meneely, 62 N. Y. 427, 20 Am. Rep. 489. •'^ Stuart V. F. G. Stewart Co., 91 Fed. 243, ZT, C. C. A. 480; Pillsbury v. Pillsbury-Washburn Flour-Mills Co., '^^7 FIRM NAME § 266 uses a name, even that of its own members, dishonestly, so as to pass off its goods as those of an older firm and thus acquire ben- efit from the older firm's reputation, there is ground for injunc- tion against such use and damages to the older firm for injuries suffered from such unfair competition.''** Thus a firm composed of persons named Waterfill and Frazier can not brand whisky made by them as "Waterfill and Frazier" where another firm had used such designation for twenty years before the latter com- menced business, and had a wide reputation in that name, espe- cially since the latter firm began business under the name of "J. M. Waterfill & Co.," and then changed it.^" Where an inventor of patented grates, formerly connected with a corporation organ- ized to manufacture and sell his grates, formed a partnership for the manufacture of a different grate patented by him, the part- nership might advertise the grates as manufactured under letters patent issued to the inventor if it was stated that the partnership was distinct from the corporation, but there was no right to the use of the words "Hot Blast Grates" which had been used as a trade name by the corporation, nor to use words similar in the name of the partnership or its advertising in such manner as to mislead the .public.^^ Where a partner in whose name a business was conducted sold his interest to his partner and began the con- duct of an entirely different business in a different part of the city under the old firm name, the purchasing partner was held to have a right to damages for the use of the name but not to in- junction against the selling partner entering business again un- der that name.*^ Retiring partners who have organized a corpo- ration have no right to use the old firm name in such a manner as 64 Fed. 841, 12 C. C. A. 432 ; Robin- Am. St. 263 ; Lee v. Haly, L. R. S Ch. son V. Storm, 103 Tenn. 40, 52 S. W. 155, 22 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 251. 880; Holloway v. Holloway, 13 Beav. soprazier v. Bowling (Ky.), 39 S. 209, 51 Eng. Reprint 81. W. 45, 18 Ky. L. 1109. 79aBissell Chilled Plow Works v. si Gordon Hollow Blast Grate Co. T. M. Bissell Plow Co., 121 Fed. 357; v. Gordon, 142 Mich. 488, 105 N. W. Wyckoff V. Howe Scale Co., 110 Fed. 1118. 520 ; American Waltham Watch Co. ^^ F. T. Blanchard Co. v. Simon, V. United States Watch Co., 173 Mass. 104 Va. 209, 51 S. E. 222. 85, IZ N. E, 141, 43 L. R. A. 826, 72 § 267 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 298 \ to indicate that the corporation is a continuation of the part- nership.^* A partner in the firm of "Brand & Smith," which transferred its assets and good will to a corporation, who began a new business as "William Smith & Bro.," is not entitled to en- join the corporation from using the name "Brand & Smith" on the ground of misleading the public.®* The successor to a whole- sale firm doing a shoe business under a trade name is not entitled to use such name in the retail shoe business as successor to such firm, since the latter is a different and distinct business.*" The firm name as a part of the good will,*° the right of one partner to sign the firm name*^ and the right to the firm name on dissolu- tion will be treated subsequently.*® § 267. Scope of partnership in general. — The scope of a 'partnership is necessarily largely determined by the partnership contract, but not altogether. The extent of the joint undertak- ing and not the partnership agreement, has been held to be the true determinator of the scope of a partnership.** Ordinarily, the scope of the partnership will be ascertained by the court from a consideration of the agreement, the undertaking, the circum- stances and the intention of the parties.®" In order to show the scope of a partnership, there may be shown evidence of the com- mon and usual dealings of persons engaged in the same business in the same locality.®^ Previous dealings and acts of the partners may be considered in determining the scope of a partnership busi- ness.®^ Ordinarily, a partnership to buy and sell merchandise may not receive and undertake to collect notes.®* Nor can a 83Fite V. Borman (Tenn.), 57 S. ssKyle v. Griffin (W. Va.), 85 S. E. W. 129. 559; Krebs v. Blankenship, IZ W. 8* Smith V. Brand, 67 N. J. Eq. 529, Va. 539, 80 S. E. 948. 58 Atl. 1029. soWestcott v. Gilman (Cal.), 150 85 Nolan Bros. Shoe Co. v. Nolan, Pac. 777 ; Kyle v. Griffin (W. Va.),85 131 Cal. 171, 63 Pac. 480, 53 L. R. A. S. E. 559. 384, 82 Am. St. 346. si Smith v. Collins, 115 Mass. 388. 86 See § 329. 92 Cayton v. Hardy, 27 Mo. 536, 87 See § 427. 9S Hogan v. Reynolds, 8 Ala. ,59. 88 See § 593 et seq. 299 FIRM NAME § 268 fanning partnership carry on a store for the sale of merchan- dise.'* To change the gauge of a narrow-gauge railroad and to operate it, is not within the scope of a partnership agreement to reorganize the company owning the road and to issue new bonds to bondholders."' In an action for money loaned to a partner- ship, the defense can not be set up that it was not being conducted according to the articles of copartnership.®^ A milling business may include the buying of wheat to be ground at the mill.®' A partnership in real estate and note brokerage, presumptively has not the power to deal in real estate on its own account, but merely to negotiate sales and purchases for others.®* And it has been held that it is not within the scope of a partnership of lawyers for one partner to perform gratuitous services.®® § 268. General powers of partnership as a whole. — Most powers of a partnership are exercised through one partner as agent. There are many things which a partnership, from its na- ture, can not do, being held in most states not a legal entity, nei- ther an individual nor a fictitious legal person. There are other things which require the consent of all the partners to do them. Generally, the powers of a partnership are largely determined by the scope of its business. A trading or commercial partnership has many powers which are not appurtenant to a nontrading partnership,^ A partnership may, within the limits of its scope, act as agent.^ It may become a partner in another firm.* A part- nership may, with the consent of all the partners, become guar- s' Humes v. O'Bryan, 74 Ala. 64. S. E. 645, 29 L. R. A. 496, 51 Am. St. 85 Browning v. Kelly, 124 Ala. 645, 108. 27 So. 391 (modifying on rehearing i See § 151 ante. 113 Ala. 420, 21 So. 928). 2 Jackson v. Porter, 8 Mart. (N. S.) 98 Moore v. May, 177 Wis. 192, 94 (La.) 200; Eggleston v. Boardman, N. W. 45. 7H Mich. 14 ; Deakin v. Underwood, 97 Folk V. Wilson, 21 Md. 538, 83 21 Minn. 98, 33 N. W. 318, 5 Am. St. Am. Dec. 599. 827; McCuUoch County Land &c. Co. »8 Davis V. Darling, 80 Hun 299, v. Whitfort, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 314, 30 N. Y. S. 321, 62 N. Y. St. 48. 50 S. W. 1042. 99 Davis V. Dodson, 95 Ga. 718, 22 s gee § 192 ante. § 269 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 300 antor or surety for the payment of the debt of another.* It is held a partnership can not be a guardian." It may not act as ad- ministrator or executor.® A partnership may rent its realty.'' It may give its note for the debt of a former partnership in which all the members of the firm were partners,* or mortgage its prop- erty to pay the debts of another.' Different firms may make a valid agreement among themselves and all their members that the individual account of one partner with the other firm, shall be treated as a firm account against his firm, the contract being made in good faith, not against law or public policy, and none of the parties under a disability.^* A trading partnership such as one for buying and selling cattle, may borrow money for business purposes.^^ A partnership may in the firm name execute a valid undertaking to indemnify a sheriff on the levy of an execution in an action by the partners in a partnership matter, ^^ or may exe- cute as surety an undertaking in attachment.^^ A partnership can not make an affidavit, and an affidavit signed in the firm name by one partner is void.^* At common law it was once held a part- nership could not make a deed.^° It has been seen that in many jurisdictions a partnership may sue in the firm name,^® that in others it can not.^' § 269. Partnerships as parties to deeds. — A conveyance of real estate by or to a partnership should not generally be made in the firm name. All the partners should join in a conveyance of partnership real property, but it has been held that a less number than all may execute the conveyance upon authority from the * Allen V. Morgan, 5 Humph. " Smith v. Collins, 115 Mass. 388. (Tenn.) 624. ^^gchoregge v. Gordon, 29 Minn. s De Mazar v. Pybus, 4 Ves. Jur. 367, 13 N. W. 194. 644, 31 Eng. Reprint 332. " Tessier v. Crowley, 17 Nebr. 207, 6 See § 174 ante. 22 N. W. 422 ; Grollman v. Lipsitz, 43 7 Williams V. Shelden, 61 Mich. 311, S. Car. 329, 21 S. E. 272. 28 N. W. 115. " Gaddis v. Durashy, 13 N. J. L. 8 Greiss v. Wilkop, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 324. 481, S Ohio Cir. Div. 544. is Drake v. Brander, 8 Tex. 351. 3 Allen V. Morgan, 24 Tenn. (5 " See § 265 ante. Humph.) 624. 17 See § 265 ante. .10 Davis V. Dodge, 30 Mich. 267. 301 FIRM NAME § 269 other partners," A partnership can not, as such, in most states at least be the grantee of the legal title to lands, and a conveyance to a partnership should contain their individual names in full, with a recital that they are partners doing business under their firm name.^' But where the firm name is made up of the surnames of the several partners, the effect has been held to vest the title in all whose surnames appear.^" A deed to persons named, described as constituting a partnership, conveys a legal title to such persons as tenants in common, subject to partnership equities.''^ But a deed to a partnership may be given effect as a contract to convey .^^ It is proper for all the members of a partnership, though their names do not appear in the firm name and style, to join in a conveyance of land acquired under a conveyance to the partnership ; and it is not necessary, though desirable, that the deed should recite that these persons constituted the partnership.^* And a deed to a part- nership in the firm name passes at least an equitable title. ^* A few cases hold that a deed to a partnership in its firm name con- veys nothing, as it does not contain the name of a grantee. ^° In some jurisdictions it has been held that a deed by a partnership in the firm name conveys title^* and it has been held that a deed 18 McGahan v. Bank, 156 U. S. 218, 71 ; Newton v. McKay, 29 Mich. 1 ; 39 L. ed. 403, IS Sup. Ct 347. Orr v. How, SS Mo. 328 ; Murray v. 19 Silverman v. Kristuf ek, 162 111. Blackledge, 71 N. Car. 492 ; Kelley v. 222, 44 N. E. 430. Bourne, IS Ore. 476, 16 Pac. 40 ; Bald- 20 Cole V. Mette, 6S Ark. 503, 47 S. win v. Richardson, 33 Tex. 16; Morse W. 407, 67 Am. St. 945. And it is v. Carpenter, 19 Vt. 613; Sherry v. held that naming a partnership as Gilmore, 58 Wis. 324, 17 N. W. 252. grantee does not render the convey- 22Dunlap v. Green, 60 Fed. 242, 8 ance void, and parol evidence is ad- C. C. A. 600 ; Kyle v. Roberts Exr., 6 missible to identify the partners who Leigh (Va.) 495. are the true grantees. Walker v. *^ Lyman v. Gedney, 114 111. 388, 29 Miller, 139 N. Car. 448, 52 S. E. 125, N. E. 282, SS Am. Rep. 871. 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157 and note, 111 2* Daniels v. Roanoke R. &c. Co., Am. St. 80S. See also Menage v. 158 N. Car. 418, 74 S. E. 331. See Burke, 43 Minn. 211, 45 N. W. 155, cases cited in note 89, § 284 infra. 19 Am. St. 235 ; Morse v. Carpenter, ^s Silverman v. Kristuf ek, 162 111. 19 Vt. 613. 222, 44 N. E. 430 ; Riffel v. Ozark 21 Blanchard v. Floyd, 93 Ala. 53, Land &c. Co., 81 Mo. App. 177. 9 So. 418; McCauley v. Fulton, 44 26 Long v. Slade, 121 Ala. 267, 26 Cal. 3S5 ; Printup v. Turner, 65 Ga. So. 31 ; Ferguson v. Hanauer, 56 Ark. § 270 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 302 by a partnership in the firm name conveys nothing.^^ The Uni- form Partnership Act makes a. very marked change in the rules governing the holding and conveyance of real estate by partners. It provides that any estate in real property may be acquired in the partnership name and that title so acquired can be conveyed only in the partnership name, that a conveyance to a partnership in the partnership name, even without words of inheritance, conveys the entire estate of the grantor unless a contrary intention ap- pears.^^ Other rules as to the conveyance of partnership real estate under such act are treated in a subsequent chapter.^^ § 270. Assumption by firm of partner's individual debts. — By mutual consent of all the members of a solvent partnership, the firm may assume on sufficient consideration the individual debts of a partner whether contracted during the existence of the partnership or prior thereto and may sell or mortgage the firm property for such purpose, if the debts are bona fide, and the transaction is in good faith even though the firm assets are de- creased and thereby a detriment to creditors is worked.^* But to 179, 19 S. W. 749; McKee v. Covalt, R. A. 535; Goudy v. Werbe, 117 Ind. 71 Kans. 772, 81 Pac. 475; Baldwin v. 154, 19 N. E. 764, 3 L. R. A. 114; Richardson, 33 Tex. 16. Winslow v. Wallace, 116 Ind. 317, 17 27 Jordan v. Phillips, 126 Ala. 561, N. E. 923, 1 L. R. A. 179 ; In re Stew- 29 So. 831. art, 62 Iowa 614, 17 N. W. 897; 28 Uniform Partnership Act, § 8 Woodmansie v. Holcomb, 34 Kans. (3) (4). 35, 7 Pac. 603; Jones v. Lusk, 2 Met. 2» See § 305, ch. 11. (Ky.) 356; Wild v. Erath, 27 La, ^0 See generally case note, 29 L. R. Ann. 171 ; Hamilton v. Hodges, 30 A. 681. Case v. Beauregard, 99 U. La. Ann. 1290; Coakley v. Weil, 47 S. 124, 25 L. ed. 371 ; Teague v. Lind- Md. 277; Osborn v. Osborn, 36 Mich. sey, 106 Ala. 266, 17 So. 538 ; Reynolds 48 ; Schmidlapp v. Currie, 55 Miss. V.Johnson, 54 Ark. 449, 16 S.W. 124; 597, 30 Am. Rep. 530; Reyburn v. Kennedy &c. Lumber Co. v. Taylor, Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365, 16 S. W. 592, 96 Cal. xvii, 31 Pac. 1122; Sickman 27 Am. St. 350; Sexton v. Andersen, V. Abernathy, 14 Colo. 174, 23 Pac. 95 Mo. 373, 8 S. W. 564; Bartlett v. 447; Ellison v. Lucas, 87 Ga. 223, 13 Smith, 1 Nebr. (Unofif.) 328, 95 N. S. E. 445, 27 Am. St. 242; Young v. W. 661; Larbig v. Peck, 174 N. Y. Clapp, 147 111. 176, 32 N. E. 187, 35 '513, 66 N. E. 1111; Bernheimer v. N. E. 372; Ladd v. Griswold, 9 111. 25, Rindskopf, 116 N. Y. 428, 22 N. E. 46 Am. Dec. 443; Purple v. Earring- 1074, 15 Am. St. 414; Menagh v. ton, 119 Ind. 164, 21 N. E. 543, 4 L. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 Am. Rep. 303 FIRM NAME 270 establish the validity of such an assumption the consent of all the partners" and a valid consideration therefor^^ must be shown. It is, of course, sufficient consideration if the debt was originally for the benefit of the firm.^^ Some cases hold that in order to enforce the obligation of the firm, the creditor must show a no- vation, and extinguishment of the old debt.^* Some cases do not hold novation necessary.^^ The general rule that if a firm is in- solvent, firm property can not be applied to the debts of indi- vidual partners, for such is a fraud upon the firm creditors.^" However, there are some decisions which hold that if the firm is merely insolvent, but there is no actual fraud, and a good consid- 683; Kirby v. Schoonmaker, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 46, 49 Am. Dec. 160; Miller v. Estill, S Ohio St. 508, 67 Am. Dec. 305 ; Siegel v. Chidsey, 28 Pa. St. 279, 70 Am. Dec. 124 ; Pepper v. Peck, 17 R. I. 55 ; Carver Gin &c. Co. V. Bannon, 85 Tenn. 712, 4 S. W. 831, 4 Am. St. 803; Tompkins v. Wood- yard, 5 W. Va. 216; Hage v. Camp- bell, 78 Wis. 572, 47 N. W. 179, 23 Am. St. 422; Ex parte Peele, 6 Ves. Jr. 602. siMauldin v. Branch Bank, 2 Ala. 502; Dowd v. Elstner, 23 La. Ann. 656; KroU v. Union Trust Co., 133 Mich. 638, 95 N. W. 735; Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn. 495, 48 N. W. 326, 22 Am. St. 742 ; Tompkins V. Woodyard, 5 W. Va. 216. 32 Merchants Bank v. Thomas, 121 Fed. 306, 57 C. C. A. 377; Ellison v. Lucas, 87 Ga. 223, 13 S. E. 445, 27 Am. St. 242; Goodenow v. Jones, 75 111. 48; Keith v. Fink, 47 111. 272; George v. Wamsley, 64 Iowa 175, 20 N. W. 1; Siegel v. Chidsey, 28 Pa. St. 279, 70 Am. Dec. 124; Huston v. Heyer, 3 Pa. Dist. 533. ^^Teague v. Lindsey, 106 Ala. 266, 17 Sd. 538; Kennedy &c. Lumber Co. V. Taylor, 95 Cal. xvii, 31 Pac. 1122; Wild V. Erath, 27 La. Ann. 171 ; Gwin V. Selby, 5 Ohio St. 96; Coffin's Ap- peal, 106 Pa. 280; Walker v. Ma- rine Nat. Bank, 98 Pa. St. 574; Siegel V. Chidsey, 28 Pa. St. 279, 70 Am. Dec. 124. 3* Merchants Bank v. Thomas, 121 Fed. 306, 57 C. C. A. 374; Wild v. Dean, 3 Allen (Mass.) 579; Osborn V. Osborn, 36 Mich. 48; Bartlett v. Smith, 1 Nebr. (Unofif.) 328, 95 N. W. 661 ; Rice v. Wolff, 65 Wis. 1, 26 N. W. 181; Ex parte Sandham, 4 Deac. & C. 812. 3= Case V. Ellis, 4 Ind. App. 224, 30 N. E. 907; Arnold v. Nichols, 64 N. Y. 117; Zell's Appeal, 111 Pa. St. 532, 6 Atl. 107; Jones v. Bartlett, 50 Wis. 589, 7 N. W. 655. 38 Roop V. Herron, 15 Nebr. 73, 17 N. W. 353; Walsh v. Kelly, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 98, 27 How. Pr. 359; Kirby V. Schoonmaker, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 46, 49 Am. Dec. 160; Nordlinger v. Anderson, 123 N. Y. 544, 25 N. E. '992; Bernheimer v. Rindskopf, 116 N. Y. 428, 22 N. E. 1074, 15 Am. St. 414; Saunders v. Reilly, 105 N. Y. 12, 12 N. E. 170, 59 Am. Rep. 472; Fuller Electrical Co. v. Lewis, 101 N. Y. 674, S N. E. 437. 270 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 304 eration, the firm may make a valid agreement assuming the debts of one partner.'^ It has been said that the question of fraud should be determined from the circumstances of each particular case. 3^ Woodmansie v. Holcomb, 34 St. 511; Siegel v. Chidsey, 28 Pa. Kans. 35, 7 Pac. 603; In re Ed- St. 279, 70 Am. Dec. 124; Pepper v. wards & Wigginton, 122 Mo. 426, Peck, 17 R. I. 55; Marks v. Hill, 25 S. W. 904, 29 L. R. A. 681 ; Bern- IS Grat. ( Va.) 400. heimer v. Rindskopf, 116 N. Y. 428, ^s pisher v. Syfers, 109 Ind. 514, 10 22 N. E. 1074, IS Am. St. 414; Sig- N. E. 306. ler V. Knox County Bank, 8 Ohio CHAPTER XI PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL AND PROPERTY SECTION 275. Definition of "capital" and "property." 276. Partnership property obtained with partnership funds. 277. Property owned by partner used in firm business. 278. Property acquired in exercise of partnership rights. 279. Patents and trade-marks. ■ 280. Partnership property — Uni- form Partnership Act. 281. When real estate is partner- ship property. 282. Intention. 283. Title in partners as individ- uals. 284. Title in firm name. 285. Land purchased by partnership dealing in real estate. 286. When real estate is partner- ship property — Summary. 287. Partnership real estate — Uni- form Partnership Act. 288. Equitable conversion of part- nership realty into personalty — English rule. 289. Equitable conversion ^-^ Amer- ican rule. 290. Equitable conversion — Various statements of American rule — Effect and limits. 291. Interest of partner in firm property. SECTION 292. Interest of partner in firm property further considered. 293. Tenancy in partnership — Uni- form Partnership Act 294. Possession of firm property. 295. Proportionate shares of part- ners. 296. Dower and homestead rights in partnership real estate. 297. Right to exemptions in part- nership property. 298. Insurance of partnership prop- erty^Insurable interest. 299. Insurance — Ownership clause in policy — Transfers by and between partners. 300. Guaranty insurance — Identity of the insured — Partnership. 301. Mortgage of partnership real estate. 302. Mortgage by one partner — No- tice of partnership equities. 303. Mortgage of partner's separate property to secure firm debt. 304. Mortgage of partnership per- sonal property. 305. Conveyance of partnership real estate — Uniform Partnership Act. 306. Taxation of partnership prop- erty. 307. Transfer of property from partnership to partner. § 275. Definition of "capital" and "property."— The cap- ital of a partnership is the sum fixed by the .agreement of the 305 20 — Row. ON Paetn. — Vol. 1 275 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 306 partners to be contributed by them for the purpose of commenc- ing and carrying on the partnership business/ and while title to the capital passes to the firm and is always part and parcel of the firm "property,"^ the latter is not limited to such capital alone but includes everything having a money value, which belongs to the firm. Partnership "capital" is, therefore, a constant quantity; partnership "property," a variable.* In keeping with this doc- trine, the consent of all of the partners is a condition precedent to either the increase or diminution of such capital.* In general the agreement of the partners alone determines of what their capital shall consist, and what shall be the character^ and amount iLindley Partnership, *320; Top- ping V. Paddock, 92 III. 92; Taft v. Schwamb, 80 111. 289. See further, Ball V. Farley, 81 Ala. 288, 1 So. 253; Stafford v. Fargo, 35 111. 481 ; Evans V. Hanson, 42 111. 234; Taylor v. Cof- fing, 18 111. 422; Sexton v. Lamb, 27 Kans. 426; Raymond v. Putnam, 44 N. H. 160; Matter of-Talmage, 161 N. Y. 643, 57 N. E. 1126; Procter v. Procter, 1 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 651, 1 Ohio N. P. 44 ; Brann's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 414 ; Mather's Exr. v. Patter- son, 33 Pa. St. 485 ; Shea v. Donahue, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 160, 54 Am. Rep. 407; Dean v. Dean, 54 Wis. 23, 11 N. W. 239. 2 "The expressions partnership prop- erty, partnership stock, partnership assets, joint stock, and joint estate, are used indiscriminately to denote everything to which the firm, or in other words all the partners compos- ing it, can be considered to be entitled as such." Lindley Partnership, *320; Buie V. Kennedy, 164 N. Car. -290, 80 S. E. 445; Bartelt v. Smith, 145 Wis.' 31, 129 N. W. 782, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 1195n. 3 Lindley Partnership, *320; Hill v. Miller, 78 Cal. 149, 20 Pac. 304 ; Mal- ley V. Atlantic Fire &c. Ins. Co., 51 Conn. 222; Taft v. Schwamb, 80 111. 289; Whitcomb v. Converse, 119 Mass. 38, 20 Am. Rep. 311 ; Nutting v. Ash- croft, 101 Mass. 300 ; Clements v. Jes- sup, 36 N. J. Eq. 569; Smith v. Small, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 223; Hiscock v. Phelps, 49 N. Y. 97; Clark's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 142. *HesHn v. Fay, 15 L. R. Ir. 431; Dicta of Lord Bramwell in Bouch v. Sproule, 12 App. Cas. 385; Crawshay V. Collins, IS Ves. Jr. 218 ; Coldren v. Clark, 93 Iowa 352, 61 N. W. 1045; Stevens v. Yeatman, 19 Md. 480; In re Fulraer's Appeal, 90 Pa. St. 143; Cock V. Evans' Heirs, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 287. 5 Ward V. Thompson, 22 How. (U. S.) 330, 16 L. ed. 249; Hill v. Miller, 78 Cal. 149, 20 Pac. 304; Flagg v. Stowe, 85 111. 164; Wild v. Erath, 27 La. Ann. 171 ; Whiting v. Leakin, 66 Md. 255, 7 Atl. 688 ; Citizens' Fire &c. Co. v. Doll, 35 Md. 89, 6 Am. Rep. 360; Murphy v. Warren, 55 Nebr. 215, 75 N. W. 573; Clements v. Jes- sup, 26 N. J. Eq. 569; Dunnell v. Henderson, 23 N. J. Eq. 174; Ruck- man V. Decker, 23 N. J. Eq. 283; Uhler V. Semple, 20 N. J. Eq. 288; Goldman v. Rosenberg, 116 N. Y. 78, 22 N. E. 259; Jones v. Butler, 87 ,N. 307 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 275 of each partner's contribution thereto." The sounder doctrine seems to be that when partners agree that one or more of their number shall contribute time, skill, or labor to the business of the firm, the contribution of such partner or partners may properly be regarded as a part of the "capital" of the partnerships The contrary view* is based upon the ground that such contribution gives to the contributing partner or partners "no rights in the final distribution of the firm capital." This conclusion, however, can not be accepted as valid until it can be said with equal force, in the most general terms, that no contribution whose earning potentiality will be temporarily exhausted in the interest of the partnership can be designated "capital," which latter position will, in effect, abolish altogether the use of the word "capital" as now understood." A rebuttable presumption exists that each partner contributed an equal amount to the firm capital.^" In ascertaining the amount actually contributed by any one partner, allowance must be made for any lien or encumbrance upon his y. 613; Van Voorhis v. Webster, 85 Hun S91, 66 N. Y. St. 793, 33 N. Y. S. 121 ; Richmond v. Voorhees, 10 Wash. 316, 38 Pac. 1014; Calder v. Crowley, 74 Wis. 157, 42 N. W. 266. See also Rapier v. Gulf City Paper Co., 64 Ala. 330; Harper v. Lamping, 36 Cal. 641; Logan v. Bond, 13 Ga. 192; Griff en v. Cooper, 50 III. App. 257; Lee v. Lashbrooke, 8 Dana (Ky.) 214; Owens v. Davis, 15 La. Ann. 22; Walker v. Schindel, 58 Md. 360. sMoley v. Brine, 120 Mass. 324; Dunnell v. Henderson, 23 N. J. Eq. 174; Jones v. Butler, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 367 (affd. 87 N. Y. 613) ; Johnston V. Ballard, 83 Tex. 486, 18 S. W. 686. See also Taylor v. Coffing, 18 111. 422; Robertson v. DeLizardi, 4 Rob. (La.) 300; Juilliard v. Orem, 70 Md. 465, 17 Atl. 333 ; Pierce v. Ten Eyck, 9 Mont. 349, 23 Pac. 423 ; Uhler v. Semple, 20 N. J. Eq. 288; Guccione v. Scott, 33 •App. Div. (N. Y.) 214, S3 N. Y. S. 462 ; Lovett v. Perry, 98 Va. 604, 37 S. E. 33. '' Story on Partnership (7th ed.), § 15 ; Peacock v. Peacock, 16 Ves. Jr. 49, 10 R. R. 138; Reid v. Hollinshead, 4 B. & C. 867, 7 D. & R. 444, 28 R. R. 488; Meyer v. Sharpe, S Taunt. 74, 2 Rose 124; Waugh v. Carver, 2 H. Bl. 235; Dale v. Hamilton, 5 Hare 369, 16 L. J. Ch.' 126, 11 Jur. 163 ; Perry V. Butt, 14 Ga. 699; Dob v. Halsey, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 34, 8 Am. Dec. 293. 8 As stated in 22 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law 86 (citing Lovett v. Perry, 98 Va. 604, 37 S. E. 33 ; Shea v. Dona- hue, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 160, 54 Am. Rep. 407). ^Johnson v. Jackson, 130 Ky. 751, 114 S. W. 260. 1" Peacock v. Peacock, 16 Ves. Jr. 49, 10 R. R. 138 ; Copland v. Toulmin, 7 CI. & F. 350, West, 164; Robinson v. Anderson, 20 Beay. 98, 7 De G., M. § 276 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 308 contribution/^ "A contribution to the capital of a firm by a part- ner does not constitute a loan to the other partner."" Undivided profits allowed to remain in the firm, do not become capital.^' Upon dissolution each partner is entitled to draw out capital ac- cording to the proportion in which he contributed, and if there are losses, the capital is regarded as a debt of the firm due the partners, and if there is a deficiency of firm assets, the members will be required to contribute in order to make up the amount.^* § 276. Partnership property obtained with partnership funds. — Further than determining the character and amount of capital the question of what belongs to the firm or, in other words, of what is firm property, does not ordinarily turn upon any predetermination of the partners, for whatever, following the acquisition of the capital, is in any manner added to or ob- tained by means of, the common stock, belongs to the partnership and is partnership property to the same extent as its capital itself.^^ This holds good both as to realty and personalty. "While only a qualified citizen can by location, or filing, initiate a right to a tract of the public land from which there can, by compliance with the requirements of law, be perfected a complete and valid title in fee, the rights thus initiated by the qualified citizen become and are recognized as property susceptible of sale and transfer, and that such sale and transfer may be made to persons not possessing the qualifications that & G. 239; Jackson v. Crapp, 32 Ind. 12 Armstrong v. Hollen, S8 Ore. 534, 422. But see Taylor v. Coffing, 18 111. 115 Pac. 423. 422; Livingston v. Blanchard, 130 is Dean v. Dean, 54 Wis. 23, 11 N. Mass. 341 ; Whitcomb v. Converse, W. 239. 119 Mass. 38, 20 Am. Rep. 311 ; Ray- " Bradbury v. Smith, 21 Maine 117; mond V. Putnam, 44 N. H. 160; Mar- Whitcomb v. Converse, 119 Mass. 38, quand v. New York Mfg. Co., 17 20 Am. Rdp. 311 ; Barfield v. Lough- Johns. (N. Y.) 525; Conroy v. Camp- borough, 42 L. J. Ch. 179, L. R. 8 bell, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 326; Shea v. Ch. 1, 27 L. T. 499; In re Anglesea Donahue, IS Lea (Tenn.) 160, 54 Am. Colliery Co., L. R. 2 Eq. 379. Rep. 407. 15 "The property of a partnership 11 Nichol V. Stewart, 36 Ark. 612 ; consists of all that is contributed to Sexton V. Lamb, 27 Kans. 426; Dun- the common stock at the formation nell V. Henderson, 23 N. J. Eq. 174. of the partnership, and of all that is 309 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 276 would enable them to initiate such property rights and interests [in this case, a partnership] ; * * * [and] the incapacity of such persons to initiate such right, or subsequently to perfect such title, can be called in question only by the sovereign, and can not be invoked to attack their right to be protected in the pos- session and enjoyment of their property, or to attack the validity of their conveyance of the same to subsequent grantees."^* The subsequently acquired thereby." Mc- Pherson v. Swift, 22 S. Dak. 165, 116 N. W. l(s, 133 Am. St. 907. See fur- ther Wade V. Martin, 157 Ala. 215, 47 S. 340 ; Lyman v. Lyman, 2 Paine (U. S.) 11, Fed. Cas. No. 8628; Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 173, "Fed. Cas. No. 6802; Lewis v. Buford, 93 Ark. 57, 124 S. W. 244; Hill v. Miller, 78 Cal. 149, 20 Pac. 304; Scutt v. Rob- ertson (111.), 17 N. E. 14; Laswell v. Robbins, 39 111. 210; Booher v. Per- rill, 140 Ind. 529, 40 N. E. 36; Fair- field V. Phillips, 83 Iqwa 571, 49 N. W. 1025; Phillips v. Purington, IS Maine 425; Scott v. McKinney, 98 Mass. 344; Person v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 189; Priest v. Chouteau, 12 Mo. App. 252 (aflfd. 85 Mo. 398, 55 Am. Rep. 373) ; Swift v. Dean, 6. Johns. (N. Y.) 523; Stoughton v. Lynch, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 209; Thursby v. Lidgerwood, 69 N. Y. 198; Ryder v. Gilbert, 16 Hun (N. Y.) 163; Robin- son V. Gimilan, 15 Hun (N. Y.) 267; Le Roy v. Mathewson, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 389; McCullough v. Barr, 145 Pa. St. 459, 22 Atl. 962; Brock v. Brock, 116 Pa. St. 109, 9 Atl. 486; Jones v. Smith, 31 S. Car. 527, 10 S. E. 340; Wright V. Market Bank (Tenn.), 60 S. W. 623 ; Rogers v. Nichols, 20 Tex. 719; Glasscock v. Glasscock's Admr., 17 Tex. 480; Deming v. Mass, 40 Utah SOI, 121 Pac. 971; Brooke v. Washington, 8 Grat. (Va.) 248, 56 Am. Dec. 142; Strong v. Hoskin, 85 Wis. 497, 55 N. W. 852. And com- pare Hatchett v. Blanton, 72 Ala. 423. But see Crawshay v. Maule, 1 Swanst. 495, 1 Wils. 181, 18 R. R. 126; Fereday v. Wightwick, Tamlyn 250, 1 Russ. & M. 45, 31 R. R. 93 ; Waterer V. Waterer, L. R. 15 Eq. 402, 21 W. R. 508; Jackson v. Jackson, 9 Ves. Jr. 591 ; Davies v. Games, 12 Ch. D. 813, 28 W. R. 16; Brown v. Oakshot, 24 Beav. 254; Davis v. Davis (1894), 1 Ch. 393, 63 L. J. Ch. 219, 8 R. 133, 70 L. T. 265, 42 W. R. 312; Steward V. Blakeway, L. R. 4 Ch. 603; Pat- terson V. Wai-e, 10 Ala. 444; Cald- well V. Leiber, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 483. 16 Neal V. Kayser, 12 Ariz. 118, 100 Pac. 439. See further Causler v. Wharton, 62 Ala. 358; Hammond v.' Hopkins, 143 U. S. 224, 36 L. ed. 134, 12 Sup. Ct. 418; Goldthwaite v. Jan- ney, 102 Ala. 431, 15 So. 560, 28 L. R. A. 161, 48 Am. St. 56; Rovelsky v. Brown, 92 Ala. 522„ 9 So. 182, 25 Am. St. 83; Brewer v. Browne, 68 Ala. 210; Caldwell v. Parmer's Admr., 56 Ala. 405; Little v. Snedecor, 52 Ala. 167; Murphy v. Abrams, 50 Ala. 293; Quinn v. Quinn, 81 Cal. 14, 22 Pac. 264; Roberts v. Eldred, 73 Cal. 394, IS Pac. 16; Kayser v. Maugham, 8 Colo. 339, 7 Pac. 286; Sigourney v. Munn, 7 Conn. 11 ; Robertson v. Baker, 11 Fla. 192; Winstanlejr v. Gleyre, 146 111. 27, 34 N. E. 628; Al- kire V. Kahla, 123 111. 496, 17 N. E. 693, 5 Am. St. 540; Indiana Pottery § 276 LAW OF PARTNERSHII^ 310 controlling consideration in deciding of what the firm as such has thus become possessed is usually, in a sense at least, one of the Co. V. Bates, 14 Ind. 8; Paige v. Paige, 71 Iowa 318, 32 N. W. 360, 60 Am. Rep. 799; Drake v. Moore, 66 Iowa 58, 23 N. W. 263; Seeley v. Mitchell's Assignee, 85 Ky. 508, 9 Ky. L. 86, 4 S. W. 190; Sherley v. Thom- asson's Exr., 8 Ky. L. (abstract) 351, 1 S. W. 530; Bryant v. Hunter, 6 Bush (Ky.) 75; May v. New Orleans &c. R. Co., 44 La. Ann. 444, 10 So. 769; Lane v. Tyler, 49 Maine 252; Blake v. Nutter, 19 Maine 16; Fall River Whaling Co. v. Borden, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 458; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 562, 39 Am. Dec. 697; Dunlap v. Byers, 110 Mich. 109, 67 N. W. 1067; Lindsay v. Race, 103 Mich. 28, 61 N. W. 271 ; KiUefer v. McLain, 70 Mich. 508, 38 N. W. 455 ; Godfrey v. White, 43 Mich. 171, 5 N. W. 243; Thayer v. Lane, Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 200; Hardin v. Jamison, 60 Minn. 348, 62 N. W. 394; Brown v. Morrill, 45 Minn. 483, 48 N. W. 328; Alexander v. Kimbro, 49 Miss. 529; Carlisle's Admrs. v. Mulhern, 19 Mo. 56 ; Rockefeller v. Dellinger, 22 Mont. 418, 74 Am. St. 613; Smith v. Jones, 18 Nebr. 481, 25 N. W. 624; Hogle v. Lowe, 12 Nev. 286; Jarvis v. Brooks, 27 N. H. 37, 59 Am. Dec. 359; Har- ney V. First Nat. Bank, 52 N. J. Eq. 697, 29 Atl. 221; Deveney v. Ma- honey, 23 N. J..Eq. 247; Smith v. Sipall, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 223; Ken- dall V. Rider, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 100; Morton v. Ostrom, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 256; Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 43 ; Averill v. Loucks, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 19; Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 165, 47 Am. Dec. 305; Smith v. Danvers, 7 N. Y. Super. Ct. 669; Dawson v. Parsons, 10 Misc. 428, 31 N. Y. S. 78, 63 N. Y. St. 320 (affd. 11 App. Div. 632, 41 N. Y. S. nil, 75 N. Y. St. 1479) ; Donaldson v. Cape Fear Bank, 1 Dev. Eq. (N. Car.) 103, 18 Am. Dec. 577; McCaskill V. Lancashire, 83 N. Car. 393 ; Page v. Thomas, 43 Ohio St. 38, 1 N. E. 79, 54 Am. Rep. 788; Nor- walk Nat. Bank v. Sawyer, 38 Ohio St. 339; Sumner v. Hampson, 8, Ohio St. 329, 32 Am. Dec. 722; Church v. Adams, 37 Ore. 3SS, 61 Pac. 639; Hayes v. Treat, 178 Pa. St. 310, 35 Atl. 987; William's Appeal, 122 Pa. St. 472, IS Atl. 912; In re Grubb's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 117; Meason v. Kaine, 63 Pa. St. 335 ; In re Abbott's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 234; Lacy y. Hall, 37 Pa. St. 360; Black v. Seipt, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 360, 34 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 66; Boyers v. Elliott, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 204; Murrell v. Mandelbaum, 85 Tex. 22, 19 S. W. 880, 34 Am. St. 777; Baldwin v. Richardson, 33 Tex. 16; Willis V. Freeman, 35 Vt 44, 82 Am. Dec. 619; Dewey v. Dewey, 35 Vt. 555 ; Rice v. Barnard, 20 Vt. 479, 50 Am. Dec. 54; Wheatle/s Heirs v. Calhoun, 12 Leigh (Va.) 264, 37 Am. Dec. 654; Daniels v. McCormick, 87 Wis. 255, 58 N. W. 406; Riedeburg V. Schmitt, 71 Wis. 644, 38 N. W. 336; Bird V. Morrison, 12 Wis. 138. And compare Hatchett v. Blanton, 72 Ala. 423; Filkins v. Blackman, 13 Blatchf. (U. S.) 440, Fed. Cas. No. 4786; Richards v. Maynard, 61 111. App. 336 (affd. 166 111. 466, 46 N. E. 1138, 57 Am. Rep. 145) ; Wiltse v. Fifield, 143 Iowa 332, 121 N. W. 1086; Gil- lisse V. Gibson, 6 La. Ann. 125 ; Phil- lips V. Purington, IS Maine 425 ; Mc- Grath v. Sinclair, 55 Miss. 89; Cox 311 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 276 intent, ^^ express^' partners to act/® or implied, which prompted the partner or "The true method of determining, as between V. McBurney, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 561, 4 N. Y. Super. Ct. 561; Merry v. Hoopes, 111 N. Y. 415, 18 N. E. 714; Hazard v. Caswell, 93 N. Y. 259, 45 Am. Rep. 198; Baumert v. Daeschler, 65 Misc. (N. Y.) 526, 120 N. Y. S. 957; Kellogg v. Totten, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 35; Bininger v. Clark, 60 Barb. (N. Y.) 113, 10 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 264; Dayton v. Wilkes, 17 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 510; Dusen- berry v. Horning, 56 Ore. 210, 106 'Pac. 1019; McCoy v. Crosfield, 54 Ore. 591, 104 Pac. 423; Blood v. Ludlow Carbon Black Co., 150 Pa. St. 1, 24 Atl. 348, 30 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 253 ; Coder v. Huling, 27 Pa. St. 84; Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 85 Vt. 76, 81 Atl. 97, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, 1015; Newell v. Humphrey, 37 Vt. 265; Jennings v. Jennings, L. R. (1898) 1 Ch. 378, 67 L. J. Ch. 190; Page V. Ratliffe, 76 L. T. (N. S.) 63. But see Arundell v. Bell, 52 L. J. Ch. 537, 49 L. T. (N. S.) 345, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 657; Hines v. Driver, 72 Ind. 125; Auten v. Ellingwood, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 359. ^^ New York Commercial Co. v. Francis, 101 Fed. 16, 41 C. C. A. 167; McKinnon v. McKinnon, 56 Fed. 409, 5 C. C. A. 530, 14 U. S. App. 433; Bopp V. Fox, 63 111. 540; Baxter v. Rollins, 90 Iowa 217, 57 N. W. 838, 48 Am. St. 432; Hill v. Cornwall, 95 Ky. 512, 26 S. W. 540, 16 Ky. L. 97; Fray v. Eisenhardt, 116 Mich. 160, 74 N. W. 501 ; Rockefeller v. Dellinger, 22 Mont. 418, 74 Am. St. 613 ; Brown V. O'Brien, 4 Nebr. 195; Dawson v. Parsons, 10 Misc. 428, 63 N. Y. St. 320, 31 N. Y. S. 78 (affd. 11 App. Div. 632, 75 N. Y. St. 1479, 41 N. Y. S. 1111) ; Barry v. Kennedy, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 421; Meridian Nat. Bank v. McConica, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 106, 8 Ohio C. C. 442; Wilson V. Black, 164 Pa. St. 555, 30 Atl. 488; Maybin v. Moorman, 21 S. Car. 346; Boyers v. Elliott, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 204; Hunt v. Benson, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 459; Richmond v. Voorhees, 10 Wash. 316, 38 Pac. 1014. See also Pomeroy v. Benton, 57 Mo. 531. and Morris v. Barrett, 3 Y. & J. 384. 18 Robinson Bank v. Miller, 153 111. 244, 38 N. E. 1078, 27 L. R. A. 449, 46 Am. St. 883; Lucas v. Cooper, 15 Ky. L. 642, 23 S. W. 959; Johnson v. Hogan, 158 Mich. 635, 123 N. W. 891,' 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 889; Lindsay v. Race, 103 Mich. 28, 61 N. W. 271; Schlicher v. Whyte, 74 N. J. Eq. 839, 71 Atl. 337; Fairchild v. Fairchild, 64 N. Y. 471; Le Roy v. Mathewson, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 389; Van Voor- his.v. Webster, 85 Hun (N. Y.) 591, 33 N. Y. S. 121, 66 N. Y. St. 793 ; Auten V. Ellingwood, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 359; Sumner v. Hampson, 8 Ohio 328, 32 Am. Dec. 722; Mc- CuUough V. Barr, 145 Pa. St. 459, 22 Atl. 962; In re Lefevre's Appeal, 69 Pa. St. 122, 8 Am. Rep. 229; Murrell V. Mandelbaum, 85 Tex. 22, 19 S. W. 880, 34 Am. St. 777 ; Brooke v. Wash- ington, 8 Grat. (Va.) 248, 56 Am. Dec. 142. i» In re Strang, 166 Fed. 779 ; Rob- inson Bank v. Miller, 153 III. 244, 38 N. E. 1078, 27 L. R. A. 449, 46 Am. St. 883; Booher v. Perrill, 140 Ind. S29, 40 N. E. 36; Johnson v. Hogan, 158 Mich. 635, 123 N. W. 891, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 889; Lindsay v. Race, 103 Mich. 28, 61 N. W. 271 ; Chappell 276 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 312 the partners themselves, whether land standing in the name of the individuals is or is not to be treated as partnership property, is to ascertain from their conduct and course of dealing the un- derstanding and intention of the partners themselves, which, when ascertained; should unquestionably control."'"' As a gen- eral thing when partnership funds have been used in purchasing property, it is presumed that such property was intended to be- long to the firm,^^ and this, though the title thereto has been made to a partner or partners individually.^^ Thus, a seat on a stock exchange which was purchased with partnership funds, and was so carried on the "firm books, is partnership property, even if it V. Chappell, 125 App. Div. (N. Y.) 127, 109 N. Y. S. 648; Fairchild v. Fair- child, 64 N. Y. 471 ; Brayton v. Sher- man, 45 App. Div. (N. Y.) 58, 60 N. Y. S. 1118 (affd. 166 N. Y. 610, 59 N. E. 1119) ; Page v. Thomas, 43 Ohio St. 38, 1 N. E. 79, 54 Am. Rep. 788; Sumner v. Hampson, 8 Ohio 328, 32 Am. Dec. 722; Collner v. Grieg, 137 Pa. St. 606, 20 Atl. 938, 21 Am. St. 899; In re Shafer's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 49; Winslow v. Chiffelle, Harp. Eq. (S. Car.) 25; Murrell v. Mandel- baum, 85 Tex. 32, 19 S. W. 880, 34 Am. St. m ; Brooke v. Washington, 8 Grat. (Va.) 248, 56 Am. Dec. 142; Wheatley v. Calhoun, 12 Leigli (Va.) 264, Z1 Am. Dec. 654; Crawshay v. Maule, 1 Swanst. 495, 1 Wils. 181, 18 R. R. 126. See further Ames v. Ames, Til Fed. 30; Lincoln v. White, 30 Maine 291. 2" Johnson v. Hogan, 158 Mich. 635, 123 N. W. 891, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 889. 21 Allen V. Hawley, 6 Fla. 142, 63 Am. Dec. 198; Loubat v. Nourse, S Fla. 350; Alkire v. Kahla, 123 111. 496, 17 N. E. 693, 5 Am. St. 540; Pepper V. Pepper, 24 111. App. 316; Brad- bury V. Smith, 21 Maine 117; Scott v. McKinney, 98 Mass. 344; Catron v. Shepherd, 8 Nebr. 308, 1 N. W. 204; Dawson v. Parsons, 10 Misc. 428, 63 N. Y. St. 320, 31 N. Y. S. 71 (affd. 11 App. Div. 632, 75 N. Y. St. 1479, 41 N. Y. S. nil) ; Thursby v. Lidger- wood, 69 'N. Y. 198; Smith v. Tarl- ton, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 336; Swift V. Dean, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 523; Hunt V. Benson, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 459; Deming v. Moss, 40 Utah 501, 121 Pac. 971; Ex parte Hinds, 3 De G. & Sm. 613, 14 Jur. 286. 22 Lewis V. Buford, 93 Ark. 57, 124 S. W. 244; Ferguson v. Hanauer, 56 Ark. 179, 19 S. W. 749; Bopp v. Fox, 63 111. 540; Holmes v. Stix, 104 Ky. 351, 47 S. W. 243, 20 Ky. L. 593; Davis V. Davis, 60 Miss. 615; Quinn V. Quinn, 22 Mont. 403, 56 Pac. 824; Partridge v. Wells, 30 N. J. Eq. 176; Leary v. Boggs, 41 Hun (N. Y.) 643, 1 N. Y. St. 571 ; Williams v. Gillies, 13 Hun (N. Y.) 422; Traphagen v. Burt, 67 N. Y. 30; KruEchke v. Ste- fan, 83 Wis. 373, S3 N. W. 679; Smith v. Smith, 5 Ves. Jr. 189. See further Johnson v. Hogan, 158 Mich. 635, 123 N. W. 891, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 889; Morris v. Brown, 177 Ala. 389, 58 So. 910; Deming v. Moss, 40 Utah 501, 121 Pac. 971; Scott v. Dixie, 70 W. Va. 533, 74 S. E. 659, 40 313 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 277 Stands in the name of one partner.^^ This presumption is, of course, rebuttable,^* as is likewise the one that the partnership owns the property employed in its business.^^ It has been held, that the legal title to property does not vest in the partnership merely because partnership funds were used in its purchase;^" but where the partners agreed that an undivided half of the property should be assigned to each partner, the partnership became the equitable assignee of the property.^^ If a partner withdraws money from the business in bad faith, property purchased with such money, without his partner's consent, becomes firm property, but • if the partner knows of and consents to the withdrawal, the prop- erty purchased is not partnership property.^ ^ Practically any property bought with firm money for its use is firm property al- though not strictly within the scope of its business.^' § 277. Property owned by partner used in firm business. — If property owned by one of the partners before the organiza- tion of the firm has been used for partnership purposes, it must L. R. A. (N. S.) 152n; Richtman v. Watson, 150 Wis. 385, 136 N. W. 797. 23 In re Hearns, 163 App. Div. 897, 147 N. Y. S. 447. 2* Hoxie V. Carr, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 173, Fed. Cas. No. 6802; Price v. Hicks, 14 Fla. 565; Chandler v. Jes- sup, 132 Ind. 351, 31 N. E. 1109; Goodwin v. Richardson, 11 Mass. 469; Pitts v. Waugh, 4 Mass. 424; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Mete. (Mass.) -562, 30 Am. Dec. 697; In re Lefevre's Appeal, 69 Pa. St. 122, 8 Am. Rep. 229; McCormick's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 54, 98 Am. Dec. 191; Bosworth v. Hopkins, '85 Wis. 50, 55 N. W. 424. 25Flagg V. Stow, 85 111. 164; Pearce V. Pearce, 11 111. 284; Murphy v. Warren, 55 JNebr. 215, 75 N. W. 573; Champion v. Bostwick, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 175, 31 Am. Dec. 376; Van Voor- his V. Webster, 85 Hun 591, 33 N. Y. S. 121, (£ N. Y. St. 793; Rich- mond V. Voorhees, 10 Wash. 316, 38 Pac. 1014; Ex parte Owen, 4 De G. & Sm. 351, 20 L. J. Bk. 14, 15 Jur. 983; Ex parte Smith, 3 Madd. 63, Buck 149; Burdon v. Barkus, 4 De G., F. & J. 42, 31 L. J. Ch. 521, 8 Jur. (N. S.) 656. See further Ashton v. Robinson, L. R. 20 Eq. 25 ; Thompson V. Bowman, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 316, 18 L. ed. 736; Ware v. Owens, 42 Ala. 212, 94 Am. Dec. 672. And compare Grant v. Bannister, 160 Cal. 774, 118 Pac. 253; Greenwood v. Marvin, 111 N. Y. 423, 19 N. E. 228. 28Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 85 Vt. 16, 81 Atl. 97, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, 1015. 27 Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 85 Vt. 16, 81 Atl. 97, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, 1015. 28Hengy v. Hengy (Tex. Civ. App.), 151 S. W. 1127. 29Kilgore v. Shannon, 60 So. 520, 6 Ala. App. 537. § 277 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 314 be determined from the partnership agreement and the conduct of the parties, whether it has become a part of the firm property or remains the property of the one partner.^" Thus a lease of premises occupied by the firm business, procured by one partner before formation of the partnership may become firm property without formal assignment, if it is so understood and the part- ners regard it as such.^^ But merely paying the rent by the part- nership does not make the lease a partnership asset.'^ Improve- ments made with firm money on lands owned by one partner, or both partners as individuals, are firm property .^^ If only the use of property owned by a partner is put in the firm, it does not be- come partnership property,®* but if the property is to be used up in the firm business or sold and its proceeds used, this is evidence of an intention to make it firm property.^® Where some of the parties put up property to be used in the business, offsetting an- other's business experience and skill, it is often held that there is a partnership only in profits, and that the property used in the business does not become firm property.^^ The firm does not ac- quire a right to the information or inventive genius of a part- ner,®^ unless he has clearly agreed to make them firm property.^' 30 Buckingham v. Chicago First Ct. 310, 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 310; Hart Nat. Bank, 131 Fed. 192, 65 C. C. A. v. Hart, 117 Wis. 639, 94 N. W. 890. 498, 12 Am. Bankr. R. 465; In re s^Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) Swift, 114 Fed. 947, 118 Fed. 348, 9 173, Fed. Cas. No. 6802; Taber- Am. Bankr. 237; Baxter v. Rollins, Prang Art Co. v. Durant, 189 Mass. 90 Iowa 217, 57 N. W. 838, 48 Am. 173, 75 N. E. 221; Dunlap v. Byers, St. 432; Marcus v. McFarland, 119 110 Mich. 109, 67 N. W. 1067 ; Person Md. 269, 86 Atl. 337; Penny v. Black, v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 189. 22 N. Y. Super. Ct. 310, 9 Bosw. (N. =6 J^iurphey v. Warren, 55 Nebr.215, Y.) 310; In re Bailey, 187 Pa. St. 381, 75 N. W. 573; Hillock v. Grape, 111 41 Atl. 293. App. Div. 720, 97 N. Y. S. 823; Van. 31 Quinn V. Reed, 148 N. Y. S. 801. Voorhis v. Webster, 85 Hun (N. Y.) Compare In re Welch, 77 Misc. 427, 591, 33 N. Y. S. 121, 66 N. Y. St. 793. 137 N. Y. S. 941, which is somewhat ^^ Jennings v. Rickard, 10 Colo, opposed in its holding. 395, 15 Pac. 677 (knowledge of the 32 Quinn v. Reed, 148 N. Y. S. 801. location of a valuable ore claim) ; 33 Lane v. Tyler, 49 Maine 252. Belcher v. Whittemore, 134 Mass. 330; 3*Stumph V. Bauer, 76 Ind. 157; Burr v. De La Vergne, 102 N. Y. 415, Van Voorhis v. Webster, 85 Hun (N. 7 N. E. 366; Aas v. Benham (1891), Y.) 591, 33 N. Y. S. 121, 66 N. Y. St. 2 Ch. 244, 65 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 25. 793 ; Penny v. Black, 22 N. Y. Super. 38 Hill v. Miller, 78 Cal. 149, 20 Pac. 315 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 279 § 278. Property acquired in exercise of partnership rights. — Partnership property includes the good will of the firm'^ and things acquired in the exercise of partnership rights,*" such as debts due the firm from one partner/^ bonds or notes held by a partner to secure the firm's debt, or rights,*^ a sum to be for- feited if a purchaser of real estate from a real estate brokerage firm fails to pay the purchase-price,** hay on land staked off by a partner while a member of a firm conducting the business of cattle-raising,** a legacy to one partner contributed by him to firm capital,*^ land purchased for firm business with firm money,*" profits from building an electric road and selling its stocks and bonds,*^ profits of a land deal though not concluded within the time originally fixed,*® damages for breach of a con- tract, although not recovered until after one partner's death** and sometimes a lease of the firm's place of business.^" A judg- ment in favor of two persons as partners for a tresp'ass on firm property, is part of the firm assets.^^ § 279. Patents and trade-marks. — Patent rights may be held as partnership property.®^ A patent obtained on an inven- 304; Blood v. Ludlow Carbon &c. Co., *= Kayser v. Mangham, 8 Colo. 232, 150 Pa. St. 1, 24 Atl. 348. 6 Pac. 803. 3" Smith V. Walker, 57 Mich. 456, ** Whipple v. Stuart, 26 Mont. 219, 22 N. W. 267, 24 N. W. 830, 26 N. W. 66 Pac. 941. 783; Spiess v. Rosswog, 63 How. Pr. « Lyman v. Lyman, 2 Paine (U. S.) (N. Y.) 401, 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. 135 11, Fed. Cas. No. 8628. (affd. 96 N. Y. 651). But compare 46 -Williams v. Meyer (Tex. Civ. Smith V. Smith, 51 La. Ann. 72, 24 App.), 64 S. W. 66. So. 618. *^ Leeds v. Townsend, 89 111. App. *o Day V. Perkins, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. 646. Y.) 359; Lowber V. Le Roy (N. Y.), *» Thomas v. HoUingsworth, 181 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 202; Buie v. Ken- Ind. 411, 103 N. E. 840. nedy, 164 N. Car. 290, 80 S. E. 445 ; f » Richards v. Maynard, 61 111. App. Kreis V. Gorton, 23 Ohio St. 468. 336, 46 N. E. 1138 (affg. 166 111. 466, "George v.^Morison, 93 Md. 132, 57 Am. Rep. 145). 48 Atl. 744; Russell V. Minnesota Out- s" Spiess v. Rosswog, 63 How. Pr. fit, 1 Minn. 162 (Gil. 136). • (N. Y.) 401, 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. 135 *2Gillisse v. Gibson, 6 La. Ann. (affd; 96 N. Y. 651). 125 ; Wilson v. Cobb, 29 N. J. Eq. 361 ; " Collins v. Butler, 14 Cal. 223. Allison V. Davidson, 17 N. Car. 79. ^^ Freeman v. Lowell Specialty Co., § 280 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 316 tion which is part of the capital stock is partnership property/* so is a license to manufacture a patented article.^* A partnership trade-mark"^ or a trade-mark conveyed to the firm by one part- ner, under the partnership agreement"® or trade-name"^ may be partnership property. The licensed use in the business of a trade- mark by its owner does not constitute it firm property."* If a trade-mark is owned by one who entered into a partnership, title to the trade-mark will not pass to the partnership except by ex- press agreement, but may be retained in the owner and on his retirement from the partnership and agreement to allow the other partner to use the trade-mark under certain conditions, such partner has no right to use it in violation of the conditions."" The owner of a trade-mark used in a partnership business, may on dissolution transfer the right to use the trade-mark to the purchaser of his interest."" § 280. Partnership property — Uniform Partnership Act. — The Uniform Partnership Act defines partnership property substantially in the terms laid down by the general rule followed by the courts: "All property originally brought into the part- nership stock or subsequently acquired, by purchase or other- wise, on account of the partnership is partnership property. Un- less the contrary intention appears, property acquired with part- nership funds is partnership property.""^ However, in respect to partnership real estate, it changes the prevailing rule very mate- rially by providing that title to real estate may be acquired and 174 Mich. 59, 140 N. W. 572; Whit- 67 Wright Restaurant Co. v. Seattle comb V. Whitcomb, 85 Vt. 76, 81 Atl. Restaurant Co., 67 Wash. 690, 122 97, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, 1015. Pac. 348. 53 Hill V. Miller, 78 Cal. 149, 20 Pac. ss Batcheller v. Thornson, 93 Fed. 304. 660, 35 C. C. A. 532. 5* Scutt V. Robertson, 127 III. 135, ^^ Greacen v. Bell, 115 Fed. 553. 19 N. E. 851. 80 Batcheller v. Thomson, 93 Fed. =5 Smith V. Imus, 57 Mich. 456, 22 660, 35 C. C. A. 532. N. W. 267, 24 N. W. 830, 26 N. W. 6i Uniform Partnership Act, § 8, 783. '(1) (2). 56 Hoxie V. Chaney, 143 Mass. 592, ' 10 N. E. 713, 58 Am. Rep. 149. 317. CAPITAL AND PROPERTY 281 conveyed in the partnership name, and that a conveyance to a partnership in the partnership name, passes the entire estate."^ § 281. When real estate is partnership property. — In this chapter there will be considered, what constitutes partnership real estate, its equitable conversion into personalty and some general rights respecting it. In subsequent chapters will be con- sidered as to partnership real estate the rights of partners inter se, of creditors of a surviving partner and of representatives of deceased partners. Land conveyed to members of a copartner- ship as tenants in common, but purchased with copartnership funds and used for copartnership purposes, is treated in equity as copartnership personal properly. ^^ The rule applies to real 62 Uniform Partnership Act, § 8 (3) (4). 62 Thompson v. Bowman, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 316, 18 L. ed. 736; Ames v. Ames, 37 Fed. 30 ; Hatchett v. Blan- ton, 72 Ala. 423 ; Chapman v. Hughes, 104 Cal. 302, 2,1 Pac. 1048, 38 Pac. 109; Robertson v. Baker, 11 Fla. 192; Hartnett v. Stillwell, 121 Ga. 386, 49 S. E. 276, 104 Am. St. 151; Jackson V. Stanford, 19 Ga. 14; Pepper v. Pepper, 24 111. App. 316; Morgan v. Olvey, S3 Ind. 6; Paige v. Paige, 71 Iowa 318, 32 N. W. 360, 60 Am. Rep. 799; Pepper v. Thomas, 85 Ky. 539, 4 S. W. 297, 9 Ky. L. 122 ; Spalding V. Wilson, 80 Ky. 589, 4 Ky. L. 575; Galbraith v. Gedge, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 631 ; May v. New Orleans, 44 La. Ann. 444, 10 So. 769; Buffum v. Buffum, 49 Maine 108, 11 Am. Dec. 249; Fall River Whaling Co. v. Borden, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 458; Burnside v. Mer- rick, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 537; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 562, 39 Am. Dee. 697; Goodwin v. Richardson, 11 Mass. 469; Willet v. Brown, 65 Mo. 138, 27 Am. Rep. 265; Matthews v. Hunter, 67 Mo. 293 ; Quinn v. Quinn, 22 Mont. 403, 56 Pac. 824 ; Whitmore V. Shiverick, 3 Nev. 288; Cilley v. Huse, 40 N. H. 358; Harney v. First Nat. Bank, 52 N. J. Eq. 697, 29 Atl. 221; Matlack v. James, 13 N. J. Eq. 126; Struthers v. Pearce, 51 N. Y. 357; Hiscock v. Phelps, 49 N. Y. 97; Leary v. Boggs, 41 Hun 643, 1 N. Y. St. 571 ; Smith v. Tarlton, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 336; Haynes v. Brooks, 8 Civ. Proc. (N. Y.) 106; Ross v. Henderson, 11 N. Car. 170; Page v. Thomas, 43 Ohio St. 38, 1 N. E. 79, 54 Am. Rep. 788; Miller v. Proctor, 20 Ohio St. 442 ; Hayes v. Treat, 178 Pa. St. 310, 35 Atl. 987; In re Ab- bott's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 234; Lime Rock Bank v. Phetteplace, 8 R. I. 56 ; Tillinghast v. Champlin, 4 R. I. 173, 67 Am. Dee. 510; Wilson v. Wilson, 74 S. Car. 30, 54 S. E. 227; Boyce v. Coster, 4 Strob. Eq. (S. Car.) 25; Winslow V. Chiiifelle, Harp. Eq. (S. Car.) 25; Willis v. Freeman, 35 Vt. 44, 82 Am. Dee. 619; Forde v. Her- ron, 4 Munf. (Va.) 316; Jones v. Neale, 2 Pat. & H. (Va.) 339; Cun- ningham v. Ward, 30 W. Va. 572, 5 S. E. 646. But see Taber-Prang Art Co. V. Durant, 189 Mass. 173, 75 N. E. 221; Frey v. Eisenhardt, 116 Mich. § 281 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 318 as well as personal property, that if purchased in the name of one partner, but with partnership funds for partnership use, it becomes in equity partnership property, whether or not the other partner consented to the purchase,"* and is treated in equity as personalty for partnership purposes.*^ Th'e ,above rule holds es- pecially if the conduct of the parties shows it was intended to be treated as partnership property."" "Whether the land belongs to a firm or to one of the individuals composing it, — when the title is in his name, and not in that of his firm, it must be solved by what appears to have been the intention of the parties. Prima facie, ownership is where the muniment of title places it; but if by all the circumstances attending the transaction, which may be shown by parol, if there is no written evidence, — it is made to appear that, in the intention of the parties, it was purchased for and was treated as partnership property, that presumption of ownership arising from the face of the deed will be overcome, and the property will be treated as belonging to the partner- ship.""^ If one member of the partnership without his copart- ner's knowledge purchases real estate with partnership funds, and takes title in the name of an outside party, it is held such property is a partnership asset."' 160, 74 N. W. 501 ; Gordon v. Gordon, St. 395 ; Barney v. Pike, 94 App. Div. 49 Mich. 501, 13 N. W. 834; Dexter 199, 87 N. Y. S. 1038; Hardin v. V. Dexter, 43 App. Div. 268, 60 N. Y. Hardin, 25 S. Dak. 601, 129 N. W. S. 371. 108; Johnson v. Rankin (Tenn.), 59 8*Richtman v. Watson, 150 Wis. S. W. 638 ; Bartelt v. Smith, 145 Wis. 385, 136 N. W. 797; McKinnon v. 31, 129 N. W. 782, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, McKinnon, 5 C. C. A. 530, 14 U. S. 1195n. See cases cited in note 22, App. 433, S6 Fed. 409; Goldthwaite § 276 ante. V. Janney, 102 Ala. 431, 15 So. 560, es Troll v. St. Louis, 257 Mo. 626, 28 L. R. A. 161, 48 Am. St. 56; Payne 168 S. W. 167; Scott v. Dixie Fire V. Martin, 39^Colo. 265, 89 Pac. 46; Ins. Co., 70 W. Va. 533, 74 S. E. 659, Crone v. Crone, 180 111. 599, 54 N. 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 152n. ' E. 605 ; Jones v. Davies, 60 Kans. 309, e^ Miller v. Casey, 176 Mich. 221, 56 Pac. 484, 72 Am. St 354; Calder 142 N. W. 589. V. Creditors, 47 La. Ann. 346, 16 So. er Goldthwaite v. Janney, 102 Ala. 852; Johnson v. Hogan, 158 Mich. 431, 15 So. 560, 28 L. R. A. 161, 48 635, 123 N. W. 891, 37 L. R. A. (N. Am. St. 56. S.) 889; York v. Tozer, 59 Minn. 78, ^s ciaflin v. Ambrose, Z7 Fla. 78, 19 60 N. W. 846, 28 L. R. A. 86, 50 Am. So. 628; American Nat. Bank v. 319 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 282 § 282. Intention. — It depends mainly upon the intention of the parties, as shown by their conduct and dealings with ref- erence to the land, the surrounding circumstances, and the use to which it is to be put, whether land purchased with partnership funds becomes partnership or individual property.*'® As said in a leading Michigan case :'° "whether or not land taken in the name of pne or more partners is in fact partnership property always depends upon the intent of the parties and the understanding and design under which they acted. It is clear that an express agreement may show this intent, but if may also be established by an implied agreement. This implied agreement may be gath- ered by considering the general purpose of the parties, the nature of their business and the manner in which they have dealt with the property in question." This rule is often applied where prop- erty stands in the name of individual partners.''^ And if the in- tention is to create partnership property, the fact that the firm did not pay taxes, insurance and repairs is not cofttrolling.'^ The Thornburrow, 109 Mo. App. 639, 83 92 Tex. 516, SO S. W. 118, 71 Am. St. S. W. 771; Daniels v. McCormick, 87 870; Hubbard v. Moore, (,1 Vt. 532, Wis. 255, 58 N. W. 406. Compare 32 Atl. 465; Richmond v. Voorhees, , Winans v. Winans, 99 Mich. 74, 57 10 Wash. 316, 38 Pac. 1014; note 27 N. W. 1088. L. R. A. 455-460. 69 See cases cited in note 63, § 281. ""^ Johnson v. Hogan, 158 Mich. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 81 Ark. 68, 98 S. 635, 123 N. W. 891, Z1 L. R. A. (N. W. 685; Reemsnyder v. Reemsnyder, S.) 889. 75 Kans. 565, 89 Pac. 1014; Taber- "Archer v.. Barry, 23 Ky. L. 12, 62 Prang Art Co. v. Durant, 189 Mass. S. W. 485; Johnson v. Hogan, 158 173, 75 N. E. 221 ; Johnson v. Hogan, Mich. 635, 123 N. W. 891, 37 L. R. 158 Mich. 635, 123 N. W. 891, Zl. L. A. (N. S.) 889; Lindsay v. Race, 103 R. A. (N. S.) 889; Woodward Mich. 28, 61 N. W. 271; Foster v. Holmes Co. v. Nudd, 58 Minn. 236, Sargent, 72 N. H. 170, 55 Atl. 423; 59 N. W. 1010, 27 L. R. A. 340, 49 Jones v. Beekman (N. J. Eq.), 47 Am. St. 503; Thompson v. Holden, Atl. 71; Barney v. Pike, 94 App. 117 Mo. 118, 22 S. W. 905; Foster Div. 199, 87 N. Y. S. 1038; Hardin V. Sargent, 72 N.H. 170, 55 Atl. 423; v. Hardin, 25 S. Dak. 601, 129 N. W. Jones V. Beekman (N. J. Eq.), 47 108; Spencer v. Jones, 92 Tex. 516, Atl. 71 ; Buckley v. Doig, 188 N. Y. 50 S. W. 118, 71 Am. St. 870. 238, 80 N. E. 913, 11 Ann. Cas. 263 ^2 Robinson Bank v. Miller, 153 111. (affg. 115 App. Div. 413, 100 N. Y. 244, 38 N. E. 1078, 27 L. R. A. 449, 46 S. 869) ; Church v. Adams, 11 Ore. Am. St. 883 ; Taber-Prang Art Co. 355, 61 Pac. 639; Spencer v. Jones, v. Durant, 189 Mass. 173, 75 N. E. § 282 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP ' 320 mere use of the land owned by one or both partners for partner- ship purposes will not make it partnership property, unless the partners so intend." It would seem that land purchased with partnership funds would be held partnership property where the business of the partnership is to deal in real estate, yet it has been held that the intention to transform realty into personalty so as to create a partnership in it, must appear so clearly as to exclude every construction of the relation under which the prop- erty may be considered to retain its character of realty.''* Nor is the mere fact that property, purchased by individual members of the partnership with their own funds, is carried on the partner- ship books, sufficient to change it into partnership property, where it was not used for partnership purposes.''^ But where the clear intention of the partners is to convert the land into person- alty for all purposes that intention will be enforced.''^ It has even been held that it is unnecessary that the real estate was pur- chased with partnership funds, if there is manifest an intention for it to be firm property and the partners so treated it.''^ Realty not suitable for a partnership business and not intended to be used in it, will, it is held, not be considered an equitable asset of the firm merely because its owner verbally agreed for a consider- ation that it be so treated.''^ The former rule in Pennsylvania was that in order to render real estate partnership property as to strangers, there must be a writing evidencing such intention since it was considered that the matter came within the statute of frauds.'^' 221 ; Bernheimer v. Schmid, 36 Misc. ''^ National Union Bank v. National 456, 73 N. Y. S. 767 (affd. 73 App. Mechanics Bank, 80 Md. 371, 30 Atl. Div. 434, 77 N. Y. S. 138). 913, 27 L. R. A. 476, 45 Am. St. 350. ^3 See cases cited in preceding note, '^ Buckley v. Doig, 188 N. Y. 238, also Clark v. Lyster, 155 Fed. 513, 84 80 N. E. 913, 11 Ann. Cas. 263 (affg. C. C. A. 27; Humes v. Higman, 145 115 App. Div. 413, 100 N. Y. S. 869). Ala. 215, 40 So. 128; Blakeslee v. " Blakeslee v. Blakeslee, 265 111. 48, Blakeslee, 265 111. 48, 106 N. E. 470; 106 N. E. 470. Frey v. Eisenhardt, 116 Mich. 160, 74 ^s Richtpian v. Watson, 150 Wis. N. W. 501 ; Starr v. Starr, 67 Misc. 385, 136 N. W. 797. 3.05, 122 N. Y. S. 414. 79 Kepler v. Erie Dime Sav. &c. Co., TiSpurlock V. Wilson, 160 Mo. 100 Pa. St. 602; In re McCormick's App. 14, 142 S. W. 363. Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 59, 98 Am. Dec. 321 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 283 § 283. Title in partners as individuals. — The common- law rule is that when real estate is conveyed to the partners indi- vidually and not as members of a partnership, they take title as tenants in common and hold the property in common, not as part- nership property.^" The presumption that property so conveyed is not partnership property does not apply where a clear intention is shown to treat the property as partnership property. ^^ And if the property was purchased with partnership funds for partner- ship purposes, it is considered in equity as partnership property though conveyed to the partners as individuals.^^ In Pennsyl- vania as between the partners and third parties the common-law rule was strictly adhered to, and title to the property was deter- mined entirely from the record,^^ but as between the partners the true facts governed.** A deed to partners individually vests in them, prima facie, undivided interests as tenants in common.*® 191 ; Lancaster Bank v. Myley, 13 Pa. St. 544. 80 Humes v. Higman, 145 Ala. 215, 40 So. 128; Grant v. Baumister, 160 Cal. 774, 118 Pac.'2S3; Richards v. Fraser, 136 Cal. 460, 69 Pac. 83; Rob- inson Bank v. Miller, 153 III. 244, 38 N. E. 1078, 27 L. R. A. 449, 46 Am. St. 883; Wilhite v. Boulware, 88 Ky. 169, 10 S. W. 629; Taber-Prang Art Co. V. Durant, 189 Mass. 173, 75 N. E. 221; Frey v. Eisenhardt, 116 Mich. 160, 74 N. W. 501; Starr v. Starr, 61 Misc. 305, 122 N. Y. S. 414; Schleissner v. Goldsticker, 135 App. Div. 435, 120 N. Y. S. IZZ; Harris V. De Raismes (N. J. Eq.), 58 Atl. 637; Bernheimer v. Schmid, Z6 Misc. 456, n N. Y. S. 1(>7 (aflfd. IZ App. Div. 434, n N. Y. S. 138; Jones v. De Camp, 2 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 133. siHartnett v. Stilwell, 121 Ga. 386, 49 S. E. 276, 104 Am. St. 151 ; Lind- say V. Race, 103 Mich. 28, 61 N. W. 271; Jones v. Beekman (N. J. Eq.), 47 Atl. 71. 82 See note 80, this section. Lewis 21— Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 V. Buford, 93 Ark. 57, 124 S. W. 244; McKee v. Covalt, 71 Kans. 772, 81 Pac. 475; Rockefeller v. Dellinger, 22 Mont. 418, 56 Pac. 822, 74 Am. St. 613; Quinn v. Quinn, 22 Mont. 403, 56 Pac. 824; Dawson v. Parsons, 10 Misc. 428, 31 N. Y. S. 78, dZ N. Y. St. 320; Hayes v. Treat, 178 Pa. St. 310, 35 Atl. 987. 83 Cundey v. Hall, 208 Pa. 335, 57 Atl, 761, 101 Am. St. 938; Stover v. Stover, 180 Pa. St. 425, 36 Atl. 921, 57 Am. St. 654. 84 Stover V. Stover, 180 Pa. St. 425, Z(> Atl. 921, 57 Am. St. 654; Hayes V. Treat, 178 Pa. St. 310, 35 Atl. 987; Harris v. Rosenberg, 161 Pa. St. 367, 29 Atl. 44. The same rule prevailed where title to the property was in the name of one partner only, and his creditors could hold it as his indi- vidual property. Gwinner v. Union Trust Co., 226 Pa. 614, 75 Atl. 856. 85 Grant v. Bannister, 160 Cal. 774, 118 Pac. 253. § 284 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 322 If two partners purchase land in the name of one, they become equitable owners and equitable tenants in common.^" Land pur- chased by two parties in the name of one of them, does not nec- essarily become the property of a partnership afterward entered into between them.^'' A deed to two persons as individuals prima facie conveys an undivided half interest to each, and although the grantees are partners in a commercial business, there is no presumption that the lands were partnership property. *' § 284. Title in firm name. — The general rule is that where property is purchased with partnership funds, and the convey- ance is made to the partnership in the firm name, without using the full name of any partner, the legal title does not pass to the partnership, but an equitable title passes.** It is usually held in such a case that the legal title is in the members of the partner- ship who hold it for the use and benefit of the firm.'" If there is a deed to a partnership in a firm name which includes the name of one or more partners, those members designated by name take the legal title and hold the land for the benefit of the firm." A conveyance to a partnership in a fictitious firm name which con- tains the name of no partners vests no legal title in it, but may be reformed in equity by inserting the true names of the 86 Roach V. Roach (Ga.), 85 S. E. Close v. O'Brien, 135 Iowa 305, 112 703. N. W. 800; Taylor v. Dauley, 83 87 Humes v. Higman, 145 Ala. 215, Kans. 646, 112 Pac. 595, 21 Ann. Cas. 40 So. 128; Robinson Bank v. Miller, 1241; Hardin v. Hardin, 25 S. Dak. 153 111. 244, 38 N. E. 1078, 27 L. R. A. 601, 129 N. W. 108. 449, 46 Am. St. 883 ; Jones v. Dugan, so Cole v. Mettee, 65 Ark. 503, 47 124 Md. 346, 92 Atl. 775. S. W. 407, GJ Am. St. 945 ; Anderson 88 Lee V. Wysong, 128 Fed. 833, 63 v. Goodwin, 125 Ga. 663, 54 S. E. 679; C. C. A. 483. Adams v. Church, 42 Ore. 270, 70 89 See cases cited in note 70, § 265. Pac. 1037, 59 L. R. A. 782, 95 Am. Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Godbold, 92 St. 740; Mann v. Paddock, 108 Va. Ark. 63, 121 S. W. 1063, 29 L. R. A. 827, 62 S. E. 951. (N. S.) 282, 135 Am. St. 168, 19 Ann. ^i See cases cited in notes 71, 72, Cas. 947 ; La Fayette Land Co. v. § 265. Dunlap v. Green, 60 Fed. 242, Caswell, 59 Fla. 544, 52 So. 140, 138 8 C. C. A. 600, 23 U. S. App. 154; Am. St. 166; McRae v. Stillwell, 111 Dwyer Pine Land Co. v. Whiteman, Ga. 65, 36 S. E. 604, 55 L. R. A. 513; 92 Minn. 55, 99 N. W. 362. 323 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 285 grantees."" It may be shown by parol that real estate is partner- ship property, whatever the manner in which the conveyance was made or the name in which title was taken.'^ This was not the rule in Pennsylvania.** Real estate conveyed to the partnership in payment of a debt becomes partnership property ."^ § 285. Land purchased by partnership dealing in real estate. — Generally, when the purpose of the partnership is dealing in real estate, land purchased by the partners is consid- ered partnership stock in trade, as between the partners*® and if purchased with partnership funds this rule holds although the land was conveyed to the partners individually as tenants in common*'' or title was taken in one partner's name.*^ It may be considered as personalty for all purposes, if the partners so in- tended.** And if a partnership for the sale of lands is formed, it extends to tracts of land not actually purchased, the purchase of which was contemplated in the undertaking^ and one member of 8^ Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Godbold, 92 Ark. 63, 121 S. W. 1063, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 282, 135 Am. St. 168, 19 Ann. Cas. 947; Walker v. Miller, 139 N. Car. 448, 52 S. E. 125, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157, 4 Ann. Cas. 601, 111 Am. St. 805; Trexler v. Africa, 42 Pa. Super. Ct. 542 ; Wray v. Wray, 93 L. T. (N. S.) 304 (1905), 2 Ch. 349. 93 In re Groetzinger, 127 Fed. 814, 62 C. C. A. 494 (affg. 110 Fed. 366) ; Hodgson V. Fowler, 24 Colo. 278, 50 Pac. 1034; Van Housen v. Copeland, 180 111. 74, 54 N. E. 169; Van Buskirk V. Van Buskirk, 148 111. 9, 35 N. E. 383; Kringle v. Rhomberg, 120 Iowa 472, 94 N. W. 1115; Foster v. Sar- gent, 72' N. H. 170, 55 Atl. 423; Bern- heimer v. Schmid, 36 Misc. 456, 73 N. Y. S. 767 (affd. 73 App. Div. 434, 77 N. Y. S. 138); Hardin v. Hardin, 25 S. Dak. 601, 129 N. W. 108; Hubbard v. Moore, 67 Vt. 532, 32 Atl; 465. 9* Stover V. Stover, 180 Pa. St. 425, 36 Atl. 921, 57 Am. St. 654, See cases cited in note 79, § 282. ssFretwell v. Branyon, 67 S. Car. 95, 45 S. E. 157. 96 Tutt V. Davis, 13 Cal. Aop. 715, 110 Pac. 690; McPherson v. Swift, 22 S. Dak. 165, 116 N. W. 76, 133 Am. St. 907. 9' Harney v. First Nat. Bank, 52 N. J. Eq. 697, 29 Atl. 221 ; Patrick v. Pat- rick, 71 N. J. Eq. 347, 63 Atl. 848. 98 Stitt V. Rat Portage Lumber Co., 98 Minn. 52, 107 N. W. 824; Daniels V. McCormick, 87 Wis. 255, 58 N. W. 406. 99 Buckley v. Doig, 188 N. Y. 238, 80 N. E. 913, 11 Ann. Cas. 263 (affg. 115 App. Div. 413, 100 N. Y. S. 869). 1 Kyle v. Griffin (W. Va.), 85 S. E. 559. § 286 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 324 such a partnership is entitled to share in the profits of sales to the other members as individuals.^ § 286. When real estate is partnership property — Sum- mary. — Summing up the doctrine of the cases the general rule is that real estate purchased with partnership funds and used by the partners for partnership purposes or intended by them to be, and treated as, partnership property is regarded in equity as partnership property and is considered as personalty for partnership purposes, that is for paying the debts of the part- nership and settling the rights of the partners between them- selves. § 287. Partnership real estate — Uniform Partnership Act. — No feature of partnership law is changed so much by the Uni- form Partnership Act as that relating to the holding of partner- ship real estate and its conveyance. It is provided* that : "Any estate in real property may be acquired in the partnership name. Title so acquired can be conveyed only in the partnership name. A conveyance to a partnership in the partnership name, though without words of inheritance, passes the entire estate of the grantor unless a contrary intent appears." Title to such property may be conveyed by one partner in the partnership name, if within his agency for the purpose of the business,* or he may convey the equitable interest of the firm by a deed in his own name, if within his authority'' or if the real estate stands in his own name,' or may, if within the scope of his authority, pass the equitable interest by a conveyance in his name or the firm name, of firm property standing in the name of another partner or a third person,'' and if title is in the name of all partners a conveyance by all of them passes all their rights.^ Many of these rules are contrary to many holdings, but they will clarify the law 2 Burns v. Russell Bros. (Tex. Civ. s Uniform Partnership Act, § 10 (2). App.), 146 S. W. 707. 6 Uniform Partnership Act, § 10 (3). 3 Uniform Partnership Act, § 8 ^Uniform Partnership Act, § 10 (4). (3) (4) . 8 Uniform Partnership Act, § 10 (5) . * Uniform Partnership Act, § 10 ( 1 ) . 325 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY S 288 in the states where the act is adopted. This act also runs counter to most American decisions in following the English rule of con- version of partnership real estate into personal property for all purposes.*^ § 288. Equitable conversion of partnership realty into personalty — English rule. — Equitable conversion is a change in the nature of property whereby for certain purposes real prop- erty is considered personal or personal property as real. It seems to be an outgrowth of the maxim that equity regards that as done which ought to be done. As applied to partnership, there is an implied agreement that all firm property shall be liable for firm debts and each partner's share is a right to surplus assets, thus, at least so far as is necessary to pay firm debts or settle partnership matters, the firm property may be turned into npioney, and real estate acquired by the firm is impressed with the charac- teristic that it may be turned into money, so far as necessary to pay firm debts." The established English rule, now enacted into . statute, is that lands purchased with partnership funds and in- tended to be a part of the partnership property, are ipso facto, in equity, converted into personalty for all purposes, for the ad- justment of partnership debts and claims, and for the purpose of determining the rights between the personal and real representa- tives of a deceased partner." Mr. Lindley says:^^ "From the principle that a share of a partner is nothing more than his pro- portion of the partnership assets after they have been turned into money and applied in liquidation of the partnership debts, it necessarily follows that, in equity, a share in a partnership, whether its property consists of land or not, must, as between the 8a Uniform Partnership Act, § 26, 305; Darrow v. Calkins, 154 N. Y. quoted in § 293 infra. 503, 49 N. E. 61, 48 L. R. A. 299, 61 9 Darby v. Darby, 3 Drew. 495, 25 Am. St. 637; Green v. Green, 1 Ohio L. J. Ch. 371, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 271, 4 535, 13 Am. Dec. 642; TiUinghast v. W. R. 413. Champlin, 4 R. I. 173, 67 Am. Dec. 10 Eng. Partnership Act (1890) , § 22 ; 510. Lang's Heirs v. Waring, 25 Ala. 625, ii Lindley Partnership (8 ed.), pp. 60 Am. Dec. 533 ; Buchan v. Sumner, 406, 409. 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 165, 47 Am. Dec. § 289 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 326 real and personal representatives of a deceased partner, be deemed to be personal and not real estate, unless indeed such conversion is inconsistent with the agreement between the par- ties. * * * The doctrine of conversion merely amounts to this, that on the death of a partner his share in the partnership property is to be treated as money and not as land to those who claim under him." It has been said that the reason for this pe- culiar rule is to overcome the rule which excludes all but the eldest child from inheriting lands and exempt real estate in the hands of the heir from all but the specialty debts of the an- cestor.^^ This doctrine applies in England only in the absence of any intention to the contrary.^^ The same rule is applied in Canada.^* § 289. Equitable conversion — American rule. — Some early American cases followed the English rule of "out and out" con- version of partnership realty into personalty for all purposes, and in a few jurisdictions the rule seems to be followed yet.^^ In one case it was said that, to enable a surviving partner properly to wind up the business, he should have absolute authority to sell real estate ; that if he can sell only so much as was necessary to pay debts, he would be hindered in finding a purchaser.^^ But the equitable conversion of partnership realty into personalty, otherwise than by agreement express or implied, ^^ is not carried "Darrow v. Calkins, 154 N. Y. S03, 106, 85 S. W. 692, 27 Ky. L. SOS, 117 49 N. E. 61, 48 L. R. A. 299, 61 Am. Am. St. 571 ; Divine v. Mitchum, 4 B. St. 637. Mon. (Ky.) 488, 41 Am. Dec. 241; i^Lindley Partnership (8 ed.), 408; Sumner v. Hampson, 8 Ohio 328, 23 Stewart v. Blakeway, L. R. 4 Ch. 603 ; Am. Dec. 722 ; Miller v. Ferguson, 107 Wilson V. Holloway, 62 L. J. Ch. 781 Va. 249, 57 S. E. 649, 122 Am. St. (1893), 2 Ch. 340, 68 L. T. 785, 41 W. 840; Pierce v. Trigg, 10 Leigh (Va.) R. 684; Lang's Heirs v. Waring, 25 406. Ala. 625, 60 Am. Dec. 533. is McAllister v. Montgomery, 3 "In re Fulton, 7 Ont. L. Rep. 445. Hay. (5 Tenn.) 94. 15 3 Kent. Com., pp. Zl, 39; Hoxie "See Partnership Realty, Burdick, V. Carr, 1 Summ. (U: S.) 173, Fed. 9 Col. Law Rev., p. 197. Bates v. Cas..6802; Dickinson v. Dickinson, 29 Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 30 Pac. 60S, 16 Conn. 600 ; Sigourney v. Munn, 7 L. R. A. 745, 29 Am. St. 133 ; Davis Conn. 11; Garth v. Davis, 120 Ky., v. Smith, 82 Ala. 198, 2 So. 897; 327 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 289 as far in the United States as in England/' it being here extended only to such a point as is required in order to satisfy the firm Nicoll V. Ogden, 29 111. 323, 81 Am. Dec. 311 ; Lowe v. Lowe, 13 Bush (Ky.) 688; Maddock v. Astbury, 32 N. J. Eq. 181 ; Buckley v. Doig, 188 N. Y. 238, 80 N. E. 913, 11 Ann. Cas. 263 (afifg. lis App. Div. 413, 100 N. Y. S. 869) ; Sumner v. Hampson, 8 Ohio 328, 32 Am. Dec. 722; Murrell V. Mandelbaum, 85 Tex. 22, 19 S. W. 880, 34 Am. St. 117; Miller v. Fergu- son, 107 Va. 249, 57 S. E. 649, 122 Am. St. 840. See further Holmes v. Self, 79 Ky. 297, 2 Ky. L. (abstract) 322, 2 Ky. L. 380; Buck v. Winn, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 320; Divine v. Mitchum, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 488, 41 Am. Dec. 241; Bank of Louisville v. Hall, 8 Bush (Ky.) 672; Wilhite's Admr. v. Boul- ware, 88 Ky. 169, 10 S. W. 629, 11 Ky. L. 59; Fall River Whaling Co. v. Borden, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 458; Dar- row V. Calkins, 154 N. Y. 503, 49 N. E. 61, 48 L. R. A. 299, 61 Am. St. 637; Coster V. Clarke, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 405. See Robinson Bank v. Miller, 153 111. 244, 38 N. E. 1078, 27 L. R. A. 449, 46 Am. St. 883 and note ; Col- lumb V. Read, 24 N. Y. 505 ; Ludlow's Heirs v. Cooper's Devisees, 4 Ohio St. 1 ; Greene v. Greene, 1 Ohio 535, 13 Am. Dec. 642 ; Mallory v. Russell, 71 Ohio &i, 32 N. W. 102, 60 Am. Rep. lid; Rammelsberg v. Mitchell, 29 Ohio St. 22 ; In re Welles, 4 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 135; In re Leaf's Ap- peal, 105 Pa. St. 505. 18 "The English rule seems to be that when lands are acquired in the partnership name, with partnership funds, , and for partnership purposes, equity will treat them as personalty for all purposes; but the better con- sidered American cases hold that the lands thus acquired must be treated as personalty until the purposes of the partnership are accomplished, and then as realty with the attributes of a tenancy in common." Whisenhant V. Hybart, 160 Ala. 271, 49 So. 760. See further English Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vic, ch. 39), §§ 20, 22; Selkrig v. Davies, 2 Dow. 230, 2 Rose 97, 14 R. R. 146; Sanborn v. Sanborn, 11 Grant's Ch. (Can.) 359; Broom v. Broom, 3 Myl. & K. 443; Phillips v. Phillips, 1 Myl. & K. 649, 1 L. J. Ch. 187; Crawshay v. Maule, 1 Swanst. 495, 1 Wils. 181, 18 R. R. 126; Attor- ney-General V. Hubbuck, 13 Q. B. Div. 275, 53 L. J. Q. B. 146, 50 L. T. 374; Houghton v. Houghton, 11 Sim. 491, 10 L. J. Ch. 310, 5 Jur. 528; Hol- royd v. Holroyd, 28 L. J. Ch. 902, 7 W. R. 426; Essex v. Essex, 20 Beav. 442; Waterer v. Waterer, L. R. IS Eq. 402, 21 W. R. 508; Murtagh v. Costello, L. R. 7 Ir. 428; Ripley v. Waterworth, 7 Ves. 425; Darby v. Darby, 3 Drew 495, 25 L. J. Ch. 371, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 271, 4 W. R. 413; Schleissner v. Goldsticker, 135 App. Div. (N. Y.) 435, 120 N. Y. S. 333; Darrow v. Calkins, 154 N. Y. 503, 49 N. E. 61, 48 L. R. A. 299, 61 Am. St. 637. And compare Custance v. Brad- shaw, 9 Jur. 486, 4 Hare 315, 14 L. J. Ch. 358. See Partnership Realty, Burdick, 9 Col. Law. Rev., p. 197; Ashworth v. Munn, 15 Ch. Div. 363, 50 L. J. Ch. 107, 43 L. T. 553, 28 W. R. 965 ; Thornton v. Dixon, 3 Bro. C. C. 199; Bell v. Phyn, 7 Ves. Jr. 453, 458, 6 R. R. 148; Balmain v. Shore, 9 Ves. 500 ; Gray v. Smith, 43 Ch. Div. 208, 59 L. J. Ch. 145, 62 L. T. 335, 38 W. R. 310; Cookson v. Cookson, 8 § 290 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 328 obligations and to make an equitable distribution among the sev- eral partners themselves.^' § 290. Equitable conversion — Various statements of American rule — Effect and limits. — The prevailing Ameri- Sim. 529, 6 L. J. Ch. 337, 1 Jur. 621; Randall v. Randall, 7 Sim. 271, 4 L. J. Ch. 187; Ex parte M'Kenna, 3 De G., F. & J. 645, 30 L. J. Bk. 25 ; Berry V. Folkes, 60 Miss. 576. See also' 8 Columbia Law Rev., 208 ; Partnership Realty, Burdick, 9 Col. Law Rev., pp. 197, 201 et seq. "Riddle V. WhitehiU, 135 U. S. 621, 34 L. ed. 283, 10 Sup. Ct. 924; Marrett v. Murphy, Fed. Cas. No. 9103; Lyman v. Lyman, 2 Paine (U. S.) 11, Fed. Cas. No. 8628; Kleine v. Shanks, Fed. Cas. No. 7870 (affd. 104 U. S. 18, 26 L. ed. 635) ; Hoxie V. Carr, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 173, Fed. Cas. No. 6802; Hiscock v. Jaycox, Fed. Cas. No. 6531 ; Schhchter Jute Cordage Co. v. . Mulqueen, 142 Fed. 583; Logan v. Greenlaw, 25 Fed. 299; In re Codding, 9 Fed. 849 ; Whisenant v. Hybart, 160 Ala. 271, 49 So. 760; Long v. Slade, 121 Ala. 267, 26 So. 31 ; Davis V. Smith, 82 Ala. 198, 2 So. 897; Brewer v. Browne, 68 Ala. 210; Causler v. Wharton, 62 Ala. 358 ; Lang's Heirs v. Waring, 25 Ala. 625, 60 Am. Dec. 533; Andrews' Heirs V. Brown's Admr., 21 Ala. 437, 56 Am. Dec. 252; Lenow v. Fones, 48 Ark. 557, 4 S. W. 56; Per- cifuU v. Piatt, 36 Ark. 456; Beecher V. Stevens, 43 Conn. 587; Frink V. Branch, 16 Conn. 260; Price v. Hicks, 14 Fla. 565 ; Robinson Bank V. Miller, 153 111. 244, 38 N. E. 1078, 27 L. R. A. 449, 46 Am. St. 883 ; Gal- braith v. Tracy, 153 111. 54, 38 N. E. 937, 28 L. R. A. 129, 46 Am. St. 867; Morrill V. Colehour, 82 111. 618; Faulds V. Yates, 57 111. 416, 11 Am. Rep. 24; Mauck v. Mauck, 54 111. 281 ; Nicoll V. Ogden, 29 111. 323, 81 Am. Dec. 311; Null v. Parsons, 145 111. App. 436; Dickey v. Shirk, 128 Ind. 278, 27 N. E. 733 ; Walling v. Burgess, 122 Ind. 299, 22 N. E. 419, 23 N. E. 1076, 7 L. R. A. 481 ; Matlock v. Mat- lock, 5 Ind. 403; Paige v. Paige, 71 Iowa 318, 32 N. W. 360, 60 Am. Rep. 799; Mallory v. Russell, 71 Iowa 63, 32 N. W. 102, 60 Am. Rep. 116; Paton v. Baker, 62 Iowa 704, 15 N. W. 586; Hewitt v. Rankin, 41 Iowa 35 ; Stern- berg V. Larkin, 58 Kans. 201, 48 Pac. 861, Z1 L. R. A. 195 ; Duncan v. Dun- can, 93 Ky. Z1, 13 Ky. L. 917, 18 S. W. 1022, 40 Am. St. 159; Flanagan V. Shuck, 82 Ky. 617, 6 Ky. L. 699; Spalding v. Wilson, 80 Ky. 589, 4 Kj'. L. 575; Galbraith v. Gedge, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 631; Divine v. Mitchum, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 488, 41 Am. Dec. 241 ; Lowe v. Lowe, 13 Bush (Ky) 688; Graves v. Hardin, 21 Ky. L. 1499, 55 S. W. 679; Long v. Watts, 7 Ky. L. (abstract) 375 ; Casky v. Casky, 5 Ky. L. (abstract) 769; Buf- fum V. Bufifum, 49 Maine 108, 11 Am. Dec. 249 ; Harris v. Harris, 153 Mass. 439, 26 N. E. 1117; Shearer v. Shearer, 98 Mass. 107; Wesson v. Washburn Iron Co., 13 Allen (Mass.) 95, 90 Am. Dec. 181 ; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 562, 39 Am. Dec. 697; Comstock v. McDonald, 126 Mich. 142, 85 N. W. 579 (with which compare Dunlap v. Byers, 110 Mich. 109, 67 N. W. 1067); Godfrey v. White, 43 Mich. 171, 5 N. W. 243; 329 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 290 can doctrine is well expressed in a leading New York case:^"^ "The general doctrine of 'out and out' conversion adopted by the English courts has not been followed to its full extent in this and many other American states. There is no policy growing out of our laws of inheritance or the exemption of lands from liability for simple contract debts, which requires the application of such a doctrine here. The lands of the ancestor are assets for the payment of all debts and the persons who take by descent and under the statute of distribution are substantially the same. The necessity for an absolute conversion, supposed to be found in the nature of a partnership interest, seems hardly sufficient to justify a fiction which should deprive real estate of a partnership of its Arnold v. Wainwright, 6 Gil. (Minn.) 241, 80 Am. Dec. 448; Whitney v. Cot- ten, S3 Miss. 689; Scruggs v. Blair, 44 Miss. 406; Priest v. Chouteau, 85 Mo. 398, 55 Am. Rep. 373; Lindley V. Davis, 7 Mont. 206, 14 Pac. 717; Hogle V. Lowe, 12 Nev. 286; Camp- bell V. Campbell, 30 N. J. Eq. 415; Hill V. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31 ; Dar- row V. Calkins, 154 N. Y. 503, 49 N. E. 61, 48 L. R. A. 299, 61 Am. St. 637; Collumb v. Read, 24 N. Y. 505; Tarbel v. Bradley, 7 Abb. N. Cas. 273 (affd. 86 N. Y. 280) ; Rank v. Grote, 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 275 (affd. 110 N. Y. 12, 17 N. E. 665) ; Greenwood v. Marvin, 111 N. Y. 423, 19 N. E. 228; Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 165, 47 Am. Dec. 305 ; Hauptmann V. Hauptmann, 91 App. Div. (N. Y.) 197, 86 N. Y. S. 427; Sumner v. Hampson, 8 Ohio 328, 32 Am. Dec. 722; Greene v. Greene, 1 Ohio 535, 13 Am. Dec. 642; Ludlow's Heirs v. Cooper's Devisees, 4 Ohio St. 1; In re Welles, 191 Pa. St. 239, 43 Atl. 207; Moore v. Wood, 171 Pa. St. 365, 33 Atl. 63; Brown v. Beecher, 120 Pa. St. 590, 15 Atl. 608; West Hickory Min. Assn. v. Reed, 80 Pa. St. 38; Meily V. Wood, 71 Pa. St. 488, 10 Am. Rep. 719; Moderwell v. Mullison, 21 Pa. St. 257; Tillinghast v. Champlin, 4 R. L 173, 67 Am. Dec. 510; Boyce X. Coster's Exrs., 4 Strob. Eq. (S. Car.) 25 ; Williamson v. Fontain, 7 Baxt. (Tenn.) 212; Diggs v. Brown, 78 Va. 292; Rice v. Barnard, 20 Va. 479, 50 Am. Dec. 54; Martin v. Mor- ris, 62 Wis. 418, 22 N. W. 525. And compare Spurlock v. Wilson, 160 Mo. App. 14, 142 S. W. 363 ; Rovelsky v. Brown, 92 Ala. 522, 9 So. 182, 25 Am. St. 83 ; Grissom v. Moore, 106 Ind. 296, 6 N. E. 629, 55 Am. Rep. 742; Fooks V. Williams, 120 Md. 436, 87 Atl. 692 ; Rosenbaum v. New York, 59 Misc. 30, 109 N. Y. S. 775 ; Smith v. Jack- son, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 28; Lud- low's Heirs v. Cooper's Devisees, 4 Ohio St. 1; Lauffer v. Cavett, 87 Pa. St. 479; McPherson v. Swift, 22 S. Dak. 165, 116 N. W. 76, 133 Am. St. 907; Pitts V. Spotts, 86 Va. 71, 9 S. E. 501. See note 37 L. R. A. (N. S.), p. 900. "aDarrow v. Calkins, 154 N. Y. 503, 49 N. E. 61, 48 L. R. A. 299, 61 Am. St. 637. § 290 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 330 descendible quality when it is admitted on all hands that partner- ship real estate if the necessity arises is first subject to be appro- priated in equity to the discharge of partnership obligations and the adjustment of the equities between the parties. The clear current of the American decisions supports the rule that in the absence of any agreement, express or implied, between the part- ners to the contrary, partnership real estate retains its character as realty with all the incidents of that species of property be- tween the partners themselves, and also between a surviving partner and the real and personal representatives of a deceased partner, except that each share is impressed with a trust implied by law in favor of the other partner, that so far as is necessary it shall be first applied to the adjustment of partnership obliga- tions and the payment of any balance found to be due from the one partner to the other on winding up the partnership affairs. To the extent necessary for these purposes the character of the property is in equity deemed to be changed into personalty. On the death of either partner, where the title is vested in both, the share of the land standing in the name of the deceased partner descends as real estate to his heirs, subject to the equity of the surviving partner to have it appropriated to accomplish the trust to which it was primarily subjected. The working out of the mutual rights which grew out of the partnership relation does not seem to require that the character of the property should be changed until the occasion arises for a conversion, and then only to the extent required. The American rule commends itself for its simplicity. It makes the legal title subservient in equity to the original trust. It disturbs it no further than is necessary for this purpose. The portion of the land not required for partner- ship equities retains its character as realty, and it leaves the laws of inheritance and descent to their ordinary operation." In an Iowa case it is held that partnership realty retains its character as such as between partners and the representatives of a deceased partner, the ownership of the partners being in the nature of both joint tenancy and tenancy in common, but that the legal title is held in trust for the firm and its creditors, and that 331 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 290 because impressed with a trust for the adjustment of partnership obligations, to that extent only is it regarded in equity as per- sonalty.^* In Massachusetts the rule seems to be slightly different al- though similar in effect. There partnership realty is subject to firm debts, but is not held to be converted into personalty, it being in its character as realty impressed w;th a trust for the benefit of the partnership and partnership creditors.^^ Thus the general rule in this country is that dower rights,^^ and rights of inherit- so Western Securities Co. v. Atlee (Iowa), 151 N. W. 56. 21 Shearer v. Shearer, 98 Mass. 107. 22 Brewer v. Browne, 68 Ala. 210; Lenow v. Fones, 48 Ark. 557, 4 S. W. 56; Hunnicutt v. Summey, 63 Ga. 586; Trowbridge v. Cross, 117 111. 109, 7 N. E. 347; Strong v. Lord, 107 111. 25; Simpson v. Leech, 86 111. 286; Bopp V. Fox, 63 111. 540; Pepper v. Pepper, 24 111. App. 316; Grissom v. Moore, 106 Ind. 296, 6 N. E. 629, 55 Am. Rep. 742; Hill v. Cornwall, 95 Ky. 512, 16 Ky. L. 97, 26 S. W. 540; Galbraith v. Gedge, 16 B. Men. Costello V. Costello, 209 N. Y. 252, 103 N. E. 148. See also Morri- son V. Austin State Bank, 213 111. 472, 72 N. E. 1109, 104 Am. St. 225. 51 "The interest of each member of a partnership extends to every por- tion of its property." McPherson v. Swift, 22 S. Dak. 165, 116 N. W. 76, 133 Am. St. 907. "The interest of a partner in the partnership estate only attaches after dissolution of the part- nership in the residuum for the pay- ment and satisfaction of partnership liabilities." Blake v. Sargent, 152 Fed. 263. "The interest of each partner in the partnership property is his share of the surplus after pay- ment of all partnership debts and set- tlement of all accounts between him- self and his partners." Jones v. Way, 78 Kans. 535, 91 Pac. 437, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1180n. "A partner can not commit larceny of the funds or prop- erty of the partnership of which he is a iflember because the interest or ownership of such partner extends to every portion of its property. Rev. Codes, § 5469." State v. Brown, 38 Mont. 309, 99 Pac. 954. To the same effect Ringo v. Wing, 49 Ark. 457, 5 S. W. 787; Lewis v. Buford, 93 Ark. 57, 124 S. W. 244; Fourth Nat. Bank V. New Orleans &c. R. Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 624, 20 L. ed. 82; In re Rice, 164 Fed. 509; FiUey v. Phelps, 18 Conn. 294; Taft v. Schwamb, 80 111. 289; Trowbridge v. Cross, 117 111. 109, 7 N. E. 347; Taylor v. Farmer (111.), 4 N. E. 370; Null v. Parsons, 145 111. App. 436; Deeters v. Sellers, 102 Ind. 458, 1 N. E. 854; Henry v. Anderson, 17 Ind. 361 ; Meridian Nat. Bank v. Brandt, 51 Ind. 56; Matlock V. Matlock, 5 Ind. 403; Tuller v. Leaventon, 143 Iowa 162, 121 N. W. 515, 136 Am. St. 756; Mayer v. Gar- ber, 53 Iowa 689, 6 N. W. 63; Ward V. Brandt, 11 Mart. (O. S.) (La.) 331, 13 Am. Dec. 352; Purdy v. Hood, 5 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 626; United States V. Baulos' Exr., 5 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 567; Claiborne v. Their 335 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 291 interest somewhat uncertain in its value/^ subject to levy of attachment or execution for his individual debt/* to his mort- Creditors, 18 La. SOI; Douglas v. Winslow, 20 Maine 89, 2 Appleton (Maine) 89; Millaudon v. New Or- leans &c. R. Co., 3 Rob. (La.) 488; Gay V. Ray, 195 Miss. 8, 80 N. E. 693 ; Arnold v. Wainwright, 6 Minn. 358 (Gil. 241), 80 Am. Dec. 448; Schalck Fenske v. Harmon, 6 Minn. 265 (Gil. 176) ; Staats v. Bristow, Ti N, Y. 264; NicoU V. Mumford, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 522 (revd. 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 611) ; Hauptmann v. Hauptmann, 91 App. Div. (N. Y.) 197, 86 N. Y. S. 427; Allison V. Davidson, 17 N. Car. 79; Place V. Sweetzer, 16 Ohio 142 ; Nixon V. Nash, ^12 Ohio St. 647, 80 Am." Dec. 390; McManus v. Cash, 101 Tex. 261, 108 S. W. 800; Warren v. Wheelock, 21 Vt. 323; Lellman v. Mills, IS Wyo. 149, 87 Pac. 985. But see Stevens v. Stevens, 39 Conn. 474 ; Hewitt v. Ran- kin, 41 Iowa 35; Whitmore v. Shiv- erick, 3 Nev. 288; Geortner v. Cana- joharie, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 625; Berry V. Kelly, 27 N. Y. Super. Ct. 106; Ap- peal of Baker, 21 Pa. St. Ifs, 59 Am. Dec. 752; Boyce v. Coster's Exrs., 4 Strob. Eq. (S. Car.) 25. 32 This, by reason of the fact that the amount and value of firm prop- erty at any given future time is un- certain. See Lellman v. Mills, IS Wyo. 149, 87 Pac. 985, wherein it is stated that "until that occurs, [the payment of partnership debts and the settlement of partnership accounts] it is impossible to determine the ex- tent of his interest." - S3 Fourth Nat. Bank v. New Or- leans &c. R. Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 624, 20 L. ed. 82; Johnson v. Rogers, IS Nat. Bankr. Reg. 2, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7408; Stevens v. Stevens, 39 Conn. 474; Rice v. McMartin, 39 Conn. 573; Witter v. Richards, 10 Conn. 37; Weber v. Hertz, 188 111. 68, 58 N. E. 676; Hurlbut v. Johnson, 74 111. 64; Williams v. Lewis, 115 Ind. 45, 17 N. E. 262, 7 Am. St. 403 ; State v. Em- mons, 99 Ind. 452; Burgess v. At- kins, S Blackf. (Ind.) 337; Aldrich v. Wallace, 8 Dana (Ky.) 287, 33 Am. Dec. 495; White v. Woodward, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 484; Bank of Louisville V. Hall, 8 Bush (Ky.) 672 ; Williams V. Smith, 4 Bush (Ky.) 540; Lee v. BuUard, 3 La. Ann. 462 ; Cunningham V. Gushee, 73 Maine 417; Fogg v. Lawry, 68 Maine 78, 28 Am. Rep. 19; Crabtree v. Clapham, 67 Maine 326; Hacker v. Johnson, (£> Maine 21 ; Crooker v. Crooker, 46 Maine 250; Bradbury v. Smith, 21 Maine 117; Commercial Bank v. Wilkins, 9 Greenl. (Maine) 28; Russell v. Cole, 167 Mass. 6, 44 N. E. 1057, 57 Am. St. 432; Breck v. Blair, 129 Mass. 127; Davis V. Werden, 13 Gray (Mass.) 305; Peck v. Fisher, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 386; Lord v. Baldwin, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 348; Haynes v. Knowles, Zd Mich. 407; Day v. McQuillan, 13 Gil (Minn.) 192; First Nat. Bank v. Brenneisen, 97 Mo. 145, 10 S. W. 884; Fleisher v. Hinde (Mo.), 93 S. W. 1126 (affd. 122 Mo. App. 218, 99 S. W. 25) ; Lester v. Givens, 74 Mo. App. 395; Deickmann v. St. Louis, 9 Mo. App. 9; Carillon v. Thomas, 6 Mo. App. 574; Richards v. Leveille, 44 Nebr. 38, 62 N. Wl 304; Newman v. Bean, 21 N. H. 93 ; Curran v. Kendall Boot &c. Co., 8 N. Mex. 417, 45 Pac. 1120; Staats v. Bristow, 73 N. Y. 264; Sterrett v. Third Nat. Bank, 46 Hun (N. Y.) 22, 10 N. Y. St. 818 (afJEd. § 291 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 336 gage,^* to a mechanic's lien,^^ to injunction by a personal creditor,^ 122 N. Y. 659, 25 N. E. 913, 3 Silv. Ct. App. 136) ; Ryder v. Carpenter, 8 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 25 ; Davis v. Dela- ware &c. Canal Co., 109 N. Y. 47, 15 N. E. 873, 4 Am. St. 418; Watt v. Johnson, 49 N. Car. 190; Latham v. Simmons, 48 N. Car. 27; Planner v. Moore, 47 N. Car. 120; Vann v. Hus- sey, 46 N. Car. 381; McPherson v. Pemberton, 46 N. Car. 378; Blevins V. Baker, 33 N. Car. 291; Jarvis v. Hyer, 15 N. Car. 367; Sellew v. Chrisfield, 1 Handy (Ohio) 86, 12 Ohio Dec. 41 ; Buchanan v. Mitchell, 8 Ohio Dec. 437, 8 Cin. L. Bui. 8; Adams v. James L. Leeds Co., 195 Pa. St. 70, 45 Atl. 666 ; Sweeney v. Girolo, 154 Pa. St. 609, 26 Atl. 600; Lothrop V. Wightman, 41 Pa. St. 297; In re Cooper's Appeal, 26 Pa. St. 262 ; In re Brown's Appeal, 17 Pa. St. 480 ; Knox V. Summers, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 477; Wood V. Witherow, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 517; Roop V. Rodgers, 5 Watts (Pa.) 193 ; Morgan v. Watmough, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 125 ; Crowningshield v. Strobel, 2 Brev. (S. Car.) 80; Knox v. Schep- ler, 2 Hill (S. Car.) 595; McHaney V. Cawthorn, 4 Heisk. (Tenn.) 508; Grant v. Williams, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), § 363; Schley v. Hale, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), § 930; Skavdale v. Moyer, 21 Wash. 10, 56 Pac. 841, 46 L. R. A. 481 ; Bolin v. Metcalf, 6 Wyo. 1, 42 Pac. 12, 44 Pac. 694, 71 Am. St. 898. See further Green v. Pyne, 1 Ala. 235 ; Peck v. Schultze, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 28, Fed. Cas. No. 10895 ; Johnson V. Sanf ord, 13 Conn. 461 ; Green v. Ross, 24 Ga. 613; Hill v. Bell, 111 Mo. 35, 19 S. W. 959; Wiles v. Maddox, 26 Mo. 11; Lester v. Givens, 74 Mo. App. 395; In re Kelly's Appeal, 16 Pa. St. 59; Brady v. Conway, 3 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 110; Powers v. Powers, 69 Wis. 621, 2 Am. St. 767, 35 N. W. 53. And compare Edwards v. Hughes, 20 Mich. 289'; Cook v. Ar- thur, ZZ N. Car. 407. 3* Lellman v. Mills, IS Wyo. 149, 87 Pac. 985. ^5 "As a partner he was liable to creditors of the firm for all its debts — the entire debt, not a portion of it, and his title in the firm's realty must be taken to be a fee simple absolute to the whole, though he share his in- terest with another; and, whatever that may be worth, it is subject to the lien granted by the statute, in obedience to the express command of the Constitution, for the improve- ments placed thereon by his consent, and when the proper steps have been taken the lien attaches to the rem as against subsequent purchasers." De Soto Nat. Bank v. Arcadia Elec. Light &c. Co., 57 Fla. 391, 48 So. 745. 36 Rev. Laws of Mass., ch. 159, § 3, cl. 7; Gay v. Ray, 195 Mass. 8, 80 N. E. 693. Partners whose interests have been jeopardized by the sale of a copartner's interest under execu- tion may enjoin a further disposi- tion of the property by the purchaser thereof. White v. Woodward, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 484. Compare Williams V. Smith, 4 Bush (Ky.) 540. 337 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 291 and to sale by him either to a copartner/^ or a third person. " Bradbury v. Barnes, 19 Cal. 120 ; Gondolfo V. Garbarino, 8 Cal. App. 546, 97 Pac. 203 ; Van Aken v. Clark, 82 Iowa 256, 48 N. W. IZ; Christen V. Ruhlman, 22 La. Ann. 570; Rich- ardson V. Davis, 70 Miss. 219, 11 So. 790 ; Love v. Van Every, 18 Mo. App. 196; Bigham v. TInsley, 149 Mo. App. 467, 130 S. W. 506 (opinion adopted in Bigham v. Tinsley, 160 Mo. App. 605, 140 S. W. 1193) ; Reese v. Kin- kead, 18 Nev. 126, 1 Pac. 667; Wright V. Duke, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 409, 36 N. Y. S. 853, 72 N. Y. St. 375; In re Weir, 59 Misc. (N. Y.) 320, 112 N. Y. S. 278; Kelly v. Delaney, 136 App. Div. (N. Y.) 604, 121 N. Y. S. 241; Kaufmann v. Kaufmann, 222 Pa. 58, 70 Atl. 956; Yost v. Critcher, 112 Va. 870, 72 S. E. 594. See further War- den V. Marcus, 45 Cal. 594; Chandler V. Sherman, 16 Fla. 99; Lantz v. Ry- man, 102 Iowa 348, 71 N. W. 212; Comstock V. McDonald, 126 Mich. <■ 142, 85 N. W. 579; Howe v. BristoW, 65 Mo. App. 624; Abbe v. Clark, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 238; White v. Reed, 124 N. Y. 468, 26 N. E. 1037; Jarecki V. Hays, 161 Pa. St. 613, 29 Atl. 118; Norris & Bro. v. Vernon, 8 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 13; Smith v. Smith, 30 Vt. 139; Fisher v. Vaughn, 75 Wis. 609, 44 N. W. 831. 38 Simmons v. Rowe, 4 Cal. App. 752, 89 Pac. 621 ; Union Brewing Co. V. Inter-State Bank & Trust Co., 240 111. 454, 88 N. E. 997; Tuller v. Leav- erton, 143 Iowa 162, 121 N. W. SIS, 136 Am. St. 756; Givens v. Berry, 21 Ky. L. 680, 52 S. W. 942; Van Rens- selaer V. Emery, 9 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 135; Savag v. Putnam, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 420 (affd. 32 N. Y. 501) ; Fourth Nat. Bank v. New Orleans &c. R. Co., II Wall. (U. S.) 624, 20 L. ed. 82. See also Schurtz v. Romer, 82 Cal. 474, 23 Pac. 118; Jackson v. Stanford, 19 Ga. 14; Union Brewing Co. v. Inter-State Bank & Trust Co., 240 111. 454, 88 N. E. 997 ; Thompson v. Lowe, III Ind. 272, 12 N. E. 476; Cook v. Gilchrist, 82 Iowa 277, 48 N. W. 84; Glynn v. Phetteplace, 26 Mich. 383; Day V. Stafford, 128 Mo. App. 438, 107 S. W. 433; Treadwell v. Williams, 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 649; Mills v. Pear- son, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 16; Carlisle Gas &c. Co. V. Carlisle Borough, 218 Pa. 554, 67 Atl. 844; Swoope v. Wake- field, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 342 ; McGIen- sey V. Cox, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 387; Sei- bert V. Seibert, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 531; Kanawha Hardwood Co. v. Evans, 65 W. Va. 622, 64 S. E. 917; Rommer- dahl v. Jackson, 102 Wis. 444, 78 N. W. 742. "It is conceded by the par- ties to the suit that purchasers of the share of an individual partner can only take his interest, and that in- terest consists in the vendor's share of the surplus, which remains after the payment of the partnership debts and the settlement of accounts be- tween the partners. * * * "piijs jg the law, and it follows that where one partner transfers his interest in the partnership to a third person, such purchase does not make the buyer a partner in the firm without the con- currence of the other partners, and the purchaser has only a right of accounting." Bloodworth v. Booser, 99 Ark. 238, 138 S. W. 457; Reece v. Hoyt, 4 Ind. 169; Merrick v. Braln- ard, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 574; Sherrod v. Mayo, 156 N. Car. 144, 72 S. E. 216, Ann. Cas. 1912 D, 120Sn. A partner disposing of his right, title 22— Row. ON Paetn.— Vol. 1 § 292 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 338 § 292. Interest of partner in firm property further con- sidered. — It is said in several cases, in effect, that the interest of a partner in the firm property is a right to share in the surplus after the firm debts are paid, and the partner's equities adjusted among themselves,^® that such right is a property which can be sold by a transfer of interest to a copartner or stranger,*" that since such interest may be seized under legal process, and may be mortgaged, it must be considered property.*^ But no single partner can transfer an undivided interest in any particular piece of firm property f^ nor, so it seems, will the offer, in attach- ment or execution against an individual partner, of title to the whole of specific firm articles, be valid.*' The defendant's intan- and interest in and to partnership property divests himself, but not the firm, - of title thereto. Kanawha Hardwood Co. v. Evans, 65 W. Va. 622, 64 S. E. 917. 39Staats V. Bristow, 73 N. Y. 264; Costello V. Costello, 103 N. E. 148, 209 N. Y. 252 (affg. judgment 137 N. Y. S. 132, 152 App. Div. 280) ; Eilers Music House v. Reine, 133 Pac. 788, 65 Ore. 598; King v. Board of Can- vassers &c. Providence (R. I.), 92 Atl. 569; Sherk v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 832. 40 Sherk v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 832. *^King v. Board of Canvassers &c. Providence (R. I.), 92 Atl. 569. *2 Dickinson v. Matheson Motor Car Co., 161 Fed. 874; Nichol v. Stewart, 36 Ark. 612 ; Noonan v. Nu- nan, 76 Cal. 44, 18 Pac. 98; Simmons V. Rowe, 4 Cal. App. 752, 89 Pac. 621 ; Pratt V. McGuinness, 173 Mass. 170, 53 N. E. 380; Ewart v. Nave-McCord Mercantile Co., 130 Mo. 112, 31 S. W. 1041; Gilbert v. Howard Automatic Mach. Co., 147 N. Car. 308, 61 S. E. 176; Strauss v. Frederick, 91 N. Car. 121 ; Kenneweg v. Schilansky, 45 W. Va. 521, 31 S. E. 949. But compare Gross v. Gross, 128 App. Div. (N. Y.) 429, 112 N. Y. S. 790. *3 Daniel v. Owens, 70 Ala. 297; Church V. Knox, 2 Conn. 514; Ger- ard V. Bates, 124 111. 150, 16 N. E. 258, 7 Am. St. 350; Williams v. Lewis, 115 Ind. 45, 17 N. E. 262, 7 Am. St. 403; Stumph v. Bauer, 76 Ind. 157; Branch v. Wiseman, 51 Ind. 1 ; Fer- guson v. Day, 6 Ind. App. 138, 33 N. E. 213; Levy v. Cowan, 27 La. Ann. 556; Marston v. Dewberry, 21 La. Ann. 518; Pittman v. Robicheau, 14 La. Ann. 108 ; Carvin v. Bates, 10 La. Ann. 756; Smith v. McMicken, 3 La. Ann. 319; Tennessee Bank v. Mc- Keage, U Rob. (La.) 130; Allen v. Wells, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 450, 33 Am. Dec. 757; Sirrine v. Briggs, 31 Mich. 443; Blumenfeld v. Seward, 71 Miss. 342, 14 So. 442 ; Sanders v. Young, 31 Miss. Ill; Morrison v. Blodgett, 8 N. H. 238, 29 Am. Dec. 653; Gibson V. Stevens, 7 N. H. 352; Shaver v. White, 6 Munf. (Va.) 110, 8 Am. Dec. 730; Wayt v. Peck, 9 Leigh (Va.) 434; Heydon v. Heydon, 1 Salk. 392. See further Bachurst v. Clinkard, 1 Show. 173; Eddie v. Davidson, 2 Doug. 650, 17 Ves. 193, 1 Rose 213, 11 R. R. 56; Felt v. Cleghorn, 2 Colo. 339 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 292 gible "interest"** is alone amenable to such judicial process,*^ though possibly it may be proper to confine the sale to this inter- est as embodied in particularized property/'' Nor has a partner the right to a division of property in kind/^ The interest of a partner in partnership real estate the legal title to which was in the firm, has been held to make him a "freeholder," qualified to sign certain petitions as such.** Though the interest of partners is joint, they are not joint tenants, since there is no right of sur- App. 4, 29 Pac. 813; Brewster v. Hammet, 4 Conn. S40; Spalding v. Black, 22 Kans. SS ; Moore v. Pennell, 52 Maine 162, 83 Am. Dec. 500; Haynes v. Knowles, 36 Mich. 407; Hutchinson v. Dubois, 45 Mich. 143, 7 N. W. 714; Wiles v. Maddox, 26 Mo. n ; Lester v. Givens, 74 Mo. App. 395 ; Wrigfit v. Radcliffe, 61 Mo. App. 257; Treadwell v. Brown, 43 N. H. 290 ; Tappan v. Blaisdell, 5 N. H. 190 ; In re Smith, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 102; Waddell V. Cook, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 47, Z1 Am. Dec. 372; Atkins v. Saxton, n N. Y. 195; Jarvis v. Hyer, 15 N. Car. 367; Skavdale v. Moyer, 21 Wash. 10, 56 Pac. 841, 46 L. R. A. 481. ** See ante, notes 30, 33. *5 Clagett V. Kilbourne, 1 Black (U. S.) 346, 17 L. ed. 213; Winston v. Ewing, 1 Ala. 129, 34 Am. Dec. 768; Brewster v. Hammet, 4 Conn. 540; White V. Jones, 38 111. 159 ; Edgar v. Caldwell, 1 Morr. (Iowa) 434; Moore V. Pennell, 52 Maine 162, 83 Am. Dec. 500; Allen v. Wells, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 450, 33 Am. Dec. 757; Hutchinson v. Dubois, 45 Mich. 143, 7 N. W. 714; Sanders v. Young, 31 Miss. Ill ; Wiles V. Maddox, 26 Mo. 11; Atkins V. Saxton, 11 N. Y. 195 ; In re Smith, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 102; Waddell v. Cook, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 47, 37 Am. Dec. 372; Nixon v. Nash, 12 Ohio St. 647, 80 Am. Dec. 390; Doner v. Stauffer, 1 P. & W. (Pa.) 198, 21 Am. Dec. 370; Bachurst v. Clinkard, 1 Show. 173. See further United States v. Williams, Fed. Cas. No. 16719, 4 Mc- Lean (U. S.) 236; Vandike v. Ross- kam, 67 Pa. St. 330 ; Conniff v. Doyle, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 630; Deal v. Bogue, 20 Pa. St. 228, 57 Am. Dec. 702; Cox V. Russell, 44 Iowa 556; Hacker v. Johnson, 66 Maine 21 ; Kunze v. Cox, 113 Mich. 546, 71 N. W. 864, 61 Am. St. 480; Lucas v. Laws, 27 Pa. St. 211 ; Snell v. Crowe, 3 Utah 26, 5 Pac. 522. «Felt V. Cleghorn, 2 Colo. App. 4, 29 Pac. 813; Hershfield v. Claflin, 25 Kans. 166, 37 Am. Rep. 237 ; Mor- rison V. Blodgett, 8 N. H. 238, 29 Am. Dec. 653 ; Phillips v. Cook, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 389; Dutton v. Morrison, 17 Ves. Jr. 193, 1 Rose 213, 11 R. R. 56; Waters v. Taylor, 2 Ves. & B. 299. See further Lester v. Givens, 74 Mo. App. 395. *^ Pennybacker v. Leary, 65 Iowa 220, 21 N. W. 575; Mendenhall v. Benbow, 84 N. Car. 646 ; Kruschke v. Stefan, 83 Wis. 373, S3 N. W. 679; Wild V. Milne, 26 Beav. 504. Com- pare Molineaux v. Reynolds, 54 N. J. Eq. 559, 35 Atl. 536. *8 Tattersall v. Nevels, 11 Nebr. 843, 110 N. W. 708. § 293 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 340 vivorship in the property, further than to close up the business*" and one partner may sell his interest or all the assets in his co- partner's lifetime. Nor are partners tenants in common of part- nership property, for one partner's sale of his interest does not pass an undivided interest in the property, but only a share in the surplus after the property is sold and firm debts are paid.^" A levy of a judgment on a partner's share conveys no more than the right to his share in the surplus^'- and the levy of an execu- tion by an individual creditor of a partnership on firm property gives him only a lien on the partner's share, not on the partner- ship title,°^ while one partner's sale of partnership property as such, passes title to the whole of it, not an undivided interest of the seller."^ The Uniform Partnership Act defines this peculiar interest of a partner in partnership property as tenancy in part- nership. § 293. Tenancy in partnership — Uniform Partnership Act. — The drafters of the Uniform Partnership Actjn dealing with rights of one partner in firm property and the nature of his interest, have seen fit to create a new term for the nature of the partner's *9 Clay V. Freeman, 118 U. S. 97, 30 10, 26 Pac. 841, 46 L. R. A. 481 ; Hey- L. ed. 104, 6 Sup. Ct. 964; Shanks v. don v. Heydon, 1 Salk. 392; Johnson Klein, 104 U. S. 18, 26 L. ed. 63S; v. Evans, 7 Man. & G. 240, 13 L. J. Hoyt V. Sprague, 103 U. S. 613, 26 L. C. P. 117, 8 Jur. 340. See also Dan- ed. S8S; Donnell v. Harshe, 67 Mo. iel v. Owens, 70 Ala. 297; Lane v. 170; Buckley- V. Barber, 6 Exch. 164; Lanfest, 40 Minn. 375, 42 N. W. 84; Knox V. Gye, 42 L. J. Ch. 234, L. R. Atkins v. Saxton, 11 N. Y. 195 ; Smith 5 H. L. 6S6; Pollock Partnership, ch. v. Jones, 18 Nebr. 481, 25 N. W. 624; 6, art. 27. and the firm may sell the property 50 See cases cited in notes Zl and levied on, for firm debts and give 38 ante; Sindelar v. Walker, 137 111. perfect title. See Garbett v. Veale, 43, 27 N. E. 59, 31 Am. St. 353; D. & M. 345, 5 Q. B. 408, 13 L. J. Q. Thompson v. Spittle, 102 Mass. 207; B. 98, 8 Jur. 335; Staats v. Bristow, Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 73 N. Y. 264; In re Coover's Appeal, Am. Rep. 683 ; In re Collins' Appeal, 29 Pa. St. 9, 70 Am. Dec. 149. 107 Pa. St. 590, 27 Am. Rep. 479. =» Thompson v. Bowman, 6 Wall. 51 Sanborn v. Royce, 132 Mass. 594; (U. S.) 316, 18 L. ed. 736; Person v, Taylor V. Fields, 4 Ves. 396. , Wilson, 25 Minn. 189; Mersereau v. 52 Branch v. Wiseman, 51 Ind. 1; Norton, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 179; Johnson v. Wingfield (Tenn.), 42 S. Thursby v. Lidgerwood, 69 N. Y. 198. W. 203 ; Skavdale v. Moyer, 21 Wash. 341 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 293 holding defining it as "tenancy in partnership." This seems to be rather a change in the name of the partner's right in specific firm property, rather than a change in the generally accepted law re- garding the nature of such right, although it is contrary to some decisions on the border-line of the old general rules, and it makes a very great- change in the law as to the rights of a partner's individual creditors in firm property. Some' provisions of the act follow: Sec. 24. (Extent of Property Rights of a Part- ner.) The property rights of a partner are (1) his rights in specific partnership property, (2) his interest in the partnership, and (3) his right to participate in the management. Sec. 25. (Nature of a Partner's Right in Specific Partnership Property.) (1) A partner is co-owner with his partners of spe- cific partnership property holding as a tenant in partnership. (2) The incidents of this tenancy are such that : (a) A partner, subject to the provisions of this act and to any agreement be- tween the partners, has an equal right with his partners to pos- sess specific partnership property for partnership purposes; but he has no right to possess such property for any other purpose without the consent of his partners, (b) A partner's right in specific partnership property is not assignable except in connec- tion with the assignment of the rights of all the partners in the same property, (c) A partner's right in specific partnership property is not subject to attachment or execution, except on a claim against the partnership. When partnership property is attached for a partnership debt the partners, or any of them, or the representatives of a deceased partner, can not claim any right under the homestead or exemption laws, (d) On the death of a partner his right in specific partnership property vests in the sur- viving partner or' partners, except where the deceased was the last surviving partner, when his right in such property vests in his legal representatives. Such surviving partner or partners, or the legal representative of the last surviving partner, has no right to possess the partnership property for any but a partnership purpose, (e) A partner's right in specific partnership property is not subject to dower, curtesy, or allowances to widows, heirs, § 294 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 342 or next of kin. Sec. 26. (Nature of Partner's Interest in the Partnership.) A partner's interest- in the partnership is his share of the profits and surplus, and the same is personal prop- erty. § 294. Possession of firm property. — Partners are joint owners of the firm property and have a joint and common pos- session, each partner having an equal right to possession of all the property and the possession of one is the possession of each and all.°* One partner has no right to exclude the other from possession.^^ A partner who withholds possession of the part- nership property from a copartner, will be held in equity to pay him the value of the use of the property so withheld,"" but he has no rights in a possessory action at common law.°^ One part- ner has no right to take possession of the partnership property because the firm is in debt."* Nor has the receiver of an abscond- ing partner, in the absence of waste or fraud, the right to dispos- sess of the partnership property the other member of the firm."* If one partner has furnished stock and, the other does the work and the working partner absconds, his copartner is entitled to possession of the entire stock subject to the claims of the other partner's creditors against his share.*" S* Robinson v. Winn, 4 Ky. L. 54 56 Adams v. Kable, 45 Ky. (6 B. (abstract); Johnson v. Brandt, 10 Men.) 384, 44 Am. Dec. 772; Com- Mart. (O. S.) (La.) 638; Johnson stock v. McDonald, 126 Mich. 142, 85 V. Aston, 1 Sim. & L. 12,, 1 Eng. Ch. N. W. 579; Burgess v, Deierling, 113 73; Reg. v. Bennett, 27 Ont. 314. Mo. App. 383, 88 S. W. 770; Mon- 55 Dugger V. Tutwiler, 129 Ala. 258, bray v. Monbray, 157 N. Y. 712, S3 30 So. 91; Buckley v. Carlisle, 2 Cal. N. E. 1128; Blisset v. Daniel, 1 Eq. 420; Carithers v. Jarrell, 20 Ga. 842; Rep. 484, 10 Hare 493, 18 Jur. 122, 68 TuUer v. Leaverton, 143 Iowa 162, 121 Eng. Reprint 1022. N. W. 515, 136 Am. St. 756/stewart "Buckley v. Carlisle, 2 Cal. 420; V. Millsaps (La.), 23 So. 88/; Hamill Robinson v. Gilfillan, 15 Hun (N. Y.) V. Hamill, 27 Md. 679; Monbray v. 267; Smith v. Stokes, 1 East 363; Monbray, 157 N. Y. 712, 53 N. E. 1128 Smith v. Book, S U. C. Q. B. (O. S.) (affg. 3 App. Div. 227, 38 N. Y. S. 556; Fox v. Hanbury, Cowp. 445. 439) ; Azel v. Betz, 2 E. D. Smith (N. ss Carithers v. Jarrell, 20 Ga. 842. Y.) 188; Robinson v. Gilfillan, 15 Hun ^s Hamill v. Hamill, 27 Md. 679. (N. Y.) 267; Browning v. Cover, 108 soBoynton v. Page, 13 Wend. (N. Pa. 595 ; Reg. v. Mason, 28 Ont. 495. Y.) 425. 343 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 295 § 295. Proportionate shares of partners. — In the absence of any agreement between the partners whereby it is provided in what proportion each member of the firm shall be deemed to be interested in the partnership property, there exists a rebuttable presumption that the interests of the several members of the firm are equal." As said in one case.*^ "Where there is no spe- cific agreement between partners as to their respective interests in the profits and losses of the firm, the law presumes them to be equal, unless, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent to the court that some other division was intended by the members of the firm." Unless this presumption is over- thrown by evidence it. will control in the distribution of firm profits** and the sharing of losses"* or additional contributions to capital necessary to further carry out the original business planned.®" But where a partner abandons his contract, this pre- ■sumption of equal interest fails altogether."* Again it will not 81 Stein V. Robertson, 30 Ala. 286; Wallace v. Hull, 28 Ga. 68; Roach v. Perry, 16 111. Zl ; Farr v. Johnson, 25 111. 522; Moore v. Bare, 11 Iowa 198; Commonwealth v. Bracken, 17 Ky. L. 78S, 32 S. W. 609; Crabtree v. Clap- ham, GI Maine 326; Randle v. Rich- ardson, S3 Miss. 176 ; Ryder v. Gilbert, 16 Hun (N. Y.) 163; Worthy v. Brower, 93 N. Car. 344; In re Rich- ard's Estate, 1 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 362; Logan v. Dixon, 73 Wis. 533, 41 N. W. 713. See also Demain v. Hus- ton. 70 W. Va. 306, 73 S. E. 923 ; Hol- lings worth v. Cameron (Tex. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 644. 62 Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Turner, 98 Md. 22, 55 Atl. 1023 (cit- ing Fleischmann v. Gottschalk, 70 Md. 523, 17 Atl. 384). 63 Pearce v. Ham, 113 U. S. 585, 28 L. ed. 1067, 5 Sup. Ct. 676; Tur- nipseed v. Goodwin, 9 Ala. 372; Donelson v. Posey, 13 Ala. 752; Griggs V. Clarke, 23 Cal. 427 ; Honore V. Colmesnil, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 506; Avritt v. Russell, 22 Ky. L. 752, 58 S. W. 811 ; Wolfe v. Gilmer, 7 La. Ann. 583 ; Harris v. Carter, 147 Mass. 313, 17 N. E. 649; Wingarden v. Ver- hage, 68 Mich. 14, 35 N. W. 801; Burgess v. Deierling, 113 Mo. App. 383, 88 S. W. 770; Miller v. Hale, 96 Mo. App. 427, 70 S. W. 258; Ratzer V. Ratzer, 28 N. J. Eq. 136; Taylor V. Taylor, 6 N. Car. 70; Jones v. Jones, 36 N. Car. 332; Keys v. Bald- win, 10 Ohio Dec. 271, 19 Wkly, L. Bui. (Ohio) Til^; Frazer v. Linton, 183 Pa. St. 186, 38 Atl. 589; Broad- foot V. Fraser, 73 Vt. 313, 50 Atl. 10S4. Compare Towner v. Lane's Admr., 9 Leigh (Va.) 262. 6*Danforth v. Levin (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 569. 65 Jackson v. Jackson, 224 Fed. 888. 66 Denver v. Roane, 99 U. S. 355, 25 L. ed. 476; Miller v. Hale, 96 Mo. App. 427, 70 S. W. 258. § 296 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 344 be indulged so as to confer upon a partner the right to share in fees received by his copartner for services as administrator, not- withstanding the fact that the latter "intended" that the amount which he thus earned should be divided between himself and his associate.*^ Moreover under no circumstances, is this presump- tion to militate against the right of those entering, into a partner- ship agreement, to make whatever express provisions they may ' choose in regard to the distribution of profits resulting from their association.*^ § 296. Dower and homestead rights in partnership real estate. — Naturally, the right of a widow to dower in partner- ship real estate is measured largely by the extent of her husband's rights, so real estate purchased with partnership funds and used for partnership purposes must be subjected to the payment of partnership debts, and of liabilities between the partners, before the widow of a deceased partner can claim dower** and is s^King V. Whiton, IS Wis. 684. See also Metcalfe v. Bradshaw, 145 111. 124, 33 N. E. 1116, 36 Am. St. 478. 85 Dumont v. Ruepprecht, 38 Ala. 175; Pond v. Clark, 24 Conn. 370; Plunkett V. Dillon, 4 Houst. (Del.) 338; Appeal of Mclntire, 118 Pa. St. 421, 11 Atl. 784. 69 See cases cited, note 22, § 290; Clay V. Freeman, 118 U. S. 97, 30 L. ed. 104, 6 Sup. Ct. 964; In re Perl- hefter, 177 Fed. 299; Helton v. Gwin, 65 Fed. 450; Brewer v. Browne, 68 Ala. 210 ; Andrews v. Brown, 21 Ala. 437, 56 Am. Dec. 252; Lenow v. Fones, 48 Ark. 557; Gray v. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616; Loubat v. Nourse, 5 Fla. 350; Ferris v. Van Ingen, 110 Ga. 102, 35 S. E. 347; Galbraith v. Tracy, 153 111. 54, 38 N. E. 937, 28 L. R. A. 129, 46 Am. St. 867; Bopp v. Fox, 63 111. 540; Grissom v. Moore, 106 Ind. 296, 6 N. E. 629, 55 Am. Rep. 742; Paige V. Paige, 71 Iowa 318, 32 N. W. 360, 60 Am. Rep. 799 ; Bennett v. Bennett, 137 Ky. 17, 121 S. W. 495, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 407 and note; Cornwall v. Cornwall, 6 Bush (Ky.) 369; Good- burn V. Stevens, 1 Md. Ch. 420 ; Dyer V. Clark, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 562, 39 Am. Dec. 697; Free v. Beatley, 95 Mich. 426, 54 N. W. 910; Sykes v. Sykes, 49 Miss. 190; Priest v. Chou- teau, 85 Mo. 398, 55 Am. Rep. 373; Willet V. Brown, 65 Mo. 138, 27 Am. Rep. 265; Cilley v. Huse, 40 N. H. 358; Uhler v. Semple, 20 N. J. Eq. 288; Greenwood v. Marvin, 111 N. Y. 423, 19 N. E. 228 (affg. 46 Hun 675, 11 N. Y. St. 235); Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 167, 47 Am. Dec. 305; Patton v. Patton, 60 N. Car. 572, 86 Am. Dec. 448; Sum- ner V. Hampsen, 8 Ohio 328, 32 Am. Dec. 722; In re Foster's Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 391, IS Am. Rep. 553 ; Mowry V. Bradley^ 11 R. I. 370; Lyon v. Lyon, 1 Tenn. Ch. 225; Pierce v. 345 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY |§ 296 practically the same as the right of the creditors and heirs of her deceased husband/" "When all the claims against the partnership have been satisfied, the partnership account ad- justed and the object of the trust (for the partnership use) fulfilled, in a case where the partners have not either by an express or implied agreement indicated an intention to con- vert their lands into personal estate, no solid reason can be assigned, why the real estate should not be treated, in a court of equity, as at law, according to its real nature, and consequently chargeable with the widow's dower."^^ The widow has no incho- ate right to dower in the partnership real estate as such.^^ In a few jurisdictions, however, the wife of a partner has been held a necessary party to a conveyance of firm real estate/^ A husband Trigg, 10 Leigh (Va.) 406; Martin firm not required for the payment of V. Smith, 25 W. Va. 579. such debts and the adjusting of such 70 Dyer v. Clark, 5 Met. (Mass.) equitable claims." Campbell v. Camp- 562, 39 Am. Dec. 697, bell, 30 N. J. Eq. 415. 71 Goodburn v. Stevens, 5 Gill '^ Welch v. McKenzie, 66 Ark. 251, (Md.) 1. "The real estate of a part- SO S. W. 505; Dickey v. Shirk, 128 nership, purchased with partnership Ind. 278, 27 N. E. 733; Dawson v. funds, or for the use of the firm, is Parsons, 10 Misc. 428, 31 N. Y. S. subjected to the doctrine of equitable 78, 63 N. Y. St. 320; Mowry v. conversion, so far as necessary for Bradley, 11 R. I. 370. Contra: Hale the purpose of the partnership, but v. Plummer, 6 Ind. 121 ; Smith v. otherwise it retains its legal charac- Jackson, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 28. ter and incidents. It is in equity, Compare Woodward-Holmes Co. v. chargeable with the debts of the co- Nudd, 58 Minn. 236, 59 N. W. 1010, partnership, and any balance which 27 L. R. A. 340, 49 Am. St. 503, hold- may be due from one copartner to ing there is inchoate right of dower another, on the winding up of the in what real estate remains uncon- afifairs of the firm and as between the verted after partnership affairs are heirs at law and the personal repre- adjusted, and Chase v. Angell, 148 sentatives of a deceased partner, his Mich. 1, 108 N. W. 1105, 118 Am. St. share of the surplus of that real 568; Huber v. Case, 93 App. Div. estate remaining, after paying the 479, 87 N. Y. S. 663. debts and adjusting all the equitable '^ Brewer v. Browne, 68 Ala. 210; claims of the different members of Pugh's Heirs v. Currie, S Ala. 446; the firm as between themselves, is to Lenow v. Fones, 48 Ark. 557, 4 S. W. be considered and treated as real 56; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Met. (Mass.) estate. The widow of such deceased 562, 39 Am. Dec. 697 ; Collins v. War- partner will be entitled to dower in ren, 29 Mo. 236; Bowman v. Bailey, his share of any real estate of the 20 S. Car. 550. § 296 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 346 can not convey his real estate to a partnership of which he is a member and cut off his wife's right to dower except by her con- sent.''* Where the agreement between the partners has the effect of converting the land into out and out personalty there is no right to dower.'"' Therefore, in England, where by law partner- ship realty is converted into personalty for all purposes, there is no right of dower in it.''" In a few American states the English rule has been adhered to.''^ The widow's right to a homestead is governed practically by the same rules applying to dower.''* In some states, a partner as the head of a family, has a right to a homestead exemption in partnership real estate.''* In others the rule is that a partner has no right to a homestead in partnership real estate, as against partnership debts*" nor as against his co- partner.*^ ''* Smith V. Jackson, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 28; Titus v. Neilson, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 452; (In Indiana by deed in which she joins), Erissom v. Moore, 106 Ind. 296, 6 N. E. 629, SS Am. Rep. 742. Tsperin v. Megibben, 53 Fed. 86, 3 C. C. A. 443 ; Hale v. Plummer, 6 Ind. 21; Mdllory v. Russell, 71 Iowa 63, 32 N. W. 102, 60 Am. Rep. 776; Lowe V. Lowe, 13 Bush (Ky.) 688; Sumner v. Hampson, 8 Ohio 328, 32 Am. Dec. 722; McDermot v. Lau- rence, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 438, 10 Am. Dec. 468. ''s Houghton V. Houghton, 11 Sim. 491, 10 L. J. Ch. 310, S Jur. 528; Es-. sex V. Essex, 20 Beav. 442; Conger V. Piatt, 25 U. C. Q. B. 277; In re Music Hall Block, 8 Ont. 225. TT Pierce v. Trigg, 10 Leigh (Va.) 423; Parrish v. Parrish, 88 Va. 529, 14 S. E. 325 ; Deering v. Kerfoot, 89 Va. 491, 16 S. E. 671. ^* Ferguson v. Hanauer, 56 Ark. 179, 19 S. W. 749; Robertshaw v. Hr.nway, 52 Miss. 713. '9 Blanchard v. Paschal, 68 Ga. 32, 45 Am. Rep. 474; Hunnicutt v. Sum- mey, 63 Ga. 586; Ferguson v. Speith, 13 Mont. 487, 34 Pac. 1020, 40 Am. St. 459; McMillan v. Parker, 109 N. Car. 252, 13 S. E. 764; Moyer v. Drummond, 32 S. Car. 165, 10 S. E. 952, 7 L. R. A. 747, 17 Am. St. 850; Swearingen v. Bassett, 65 Tex. 267; Allen V. Meyer (Tex. Civ. App.), 65 S. W. 645; Williams v. Meyer (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 66; Gordon v. McCall, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 283, 48 S, W. 1111. so Short v. McGruder, 22 Fed. 46; Trowbridge v. Cross, 117 111. 109, 7 N. E. 347; Drake v. Moore, 66 Iowa 58, 23 N. W. 263; Regenstein v. Pearlstein, 32 S. Car. 437, 11 S. E. 298, 17 Am. St. 865; Brady v. Kreuger, 8 S. Dak. 464, 66 N. W. 1083, 59 Am. St. 771. siHoyt V. Hoyt, 69 Iowa 174, 28 N. W. 500 ; Drake v. Moore, 66 Iowa 58. 23 N. W. 263. 347 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 297 § 297. Right to exemptions in partnership property. — Under most exemption statutes a partnership, as such, can not select and claim property as exempt from execution, for exemp- tions are usually allowed only to individual persons as heads of families,*^ In one case it was held that where an execution for a firm debt was levied on firm goods the partners could sever their interests and each claim exemption in his separate share.** In Tennessee the contrary was held.** Nor as a general rule can the partners as individuals claim exemption in the partnership prop- erty when levied on for firm debts.*^ The contrary is held in some states.*" As a general rule, a partner can not during the continuance of the partnership claim an individual exemption in partnership property, as to individual debts.*^ It is held that a 82 In re Lentz, 97 Fed. 486; White V. Heffner, 30 La. Ann. 1280, 31 Am. Rep. 238; Thurlow v. Warren, 82 Maine 164, 19 Atl. 158, 17 Am. St. 472 ; State ex rel. Fulks v. Pruitt, 65 Mo. App. 154; Bateman v. Edgerly, 69 N. H. 244, 45 Atl. 95, 76 Am. St. 162; Wise v. Frey, 7 Nebr. 134, 29 Am. Rep. 380; Russell v. Lennon, 39 Wis. 570, 20 Am. Rep. '60. Contra : Oilman v. Williams, 7 Wis. 329, 76 Am. Dec. 219; Fingerhuth v. Lach- nann, S7 III. App. 489; Guptil v. Mc- Fee, 9 Kans. 30; Pond v. Kimball, 101 Mass. IDS ; State ex rel. Billingsley V. Spencer, 64 Mo. 355, 27 Am. Rep. 244; Gaylord v. Imhoff, 26 Ohio St. 317, 20 Am. Rep. 762; Bonsall v. Comly, 44 Pa. St. 442 ; Spiro v. Pax- ton, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 75, 31 Am. Rep. 630. 83 Russell V. Lennon, 39 Wis. 570, 20 Am. Rep. &i. 84 Gill V. Lattimore, 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 381. 85 See cases cited in note 82, this section ; Giovanni v. First Nat. Bank, 55 Ala. 305, 28 Am. Rep. 723; Rich- ardson V. Adler, 46 Ark. 43; Cowan V. Creditors, 77 Cal. 403, 19 Pac. 755, 11 Am. St. 294; McCrimmon v. Lin- ton, 4 Colo. App. 420, 36 Pac. 300; Love V. Blair, 72 Ind. 281 ; Sharp v. Baker, 51 Ind. App. 547, 99 N. E. 44, 96 N. E. 627; Till v. Rory, 3 Nebr. 261; Lynch v. Englehard-Winning- Davison Mercantile Co., 1 Nebr. (Unof.) 528, 96 N. W. 524; In re Spitz, 8 N. Mex. 622, 45 Pac. 1122, 34 L. R. A. 604; B. C. Evans Co. v. Kingsbury (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 729. 86 Bright v. Buhr's Admr., 11 Ky. L. 579; McCoy v. Brennan, 61 Mich. 362, 28 N. W. 129, 1 Am. St. 589. 87 Schlapback v. Long, 90 Ala. 525, 8 So. 113; Porch v. Arkansas Milling Co., 65 Ark. 40, 45 S. W. 51, 67 Am. St. 895 ; State v. Bowden, 18 Fla. 17 ; Smith V. Harris, 76 Ind. 104; Green v. Taylor, 98 Ky. 330, 32 S. W. 945, 17 Ky. L. 897, 56 Am. St. 375 ; Pros- ser V. Hartley, 35 Minn. 340, 29 N. W. 156; State ex rel. Hinde v. United States Fidelity &c. Co., 135 Mo. App. 160, lis S. W. 1081 ; Peaslee v. San- § 297 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 348 partner can not claim exemption in partnership property, either as to his own or the firm's debt.^^ But it has been held in some states that a partner as to his individual creditors may claim exemptions out of partnership property.®* Where, however, the joint interest of the partners in the property has been severed by sale by one partner of his interest to the other'** or by dissolu- tion,"^ one partner may claim exemption as to individual debts. But if execution was issued before dissolution and levy made afterward, there is no right to such exemption'^ and the right is cut off by assignment for benefit of creditors.®^ The taking charge by a receiver is not such a dissolution as to allow individ- ual exemption.** It has been held, the other partners may, dur- ing the continuance of the relation, consent to one partner having a share of the partnership property set aside as his personal ex- emption.*^ In some states it is held that such consent is inef- born, 68 N. H. 262, 44 Atl. 384; Southern Commission Co. v. Porter, 122 N. Car. 692, 30 S. E. 119. 88 Hart V. Hiatt, 2 Ind. Ter. 245, 48 S. W. 1038. 89 Southern Jellico Coal Co. v. Smith, 105 Ky. 769, 49 S. W. ,807, 20 Hy. L. 1594. See also Howard v. Jones, SO Ala. (^ ; Skinner v. Shan- non, 44 Mich. 86, 6 N. W. 108, 38 Am. Rep. 232 ; Moyer v. Drummond, 32 S. Car. 165, 10 S. E. 952, 7 L. R. A. 747, 17 Am. St. 850; St. Louis Type Foundry v. International Live-Stock Journal Print. &c. Co., 74 Tex. 651, 12 S. W. 842, 15 Am. St. 870. See Farmers' Union Gin &c. Co. v. Seitz, 93 Ark. 329, 124 S. W. 780. so Aiken v. Steiner,. 98 Ala. 355, 13 So. 510, 39 Am. St. 58 ; Levy v. Will- iams, 79 Ala. 171 ; Goudy v. Werbe, 117 Ind. 154, 19 N. E. 764, 3 L. R. A. 114 (even though the firm is insolv- ent at the time if no lien has at- tached) ; Lee v. Bradley Fertilizer Co., 44 Fla. 787, 33 So. 456. ^1 In re Bjornstad, Fed. Cas. No. 1453, 9 Hiss. (U. S.) 13; Dunklin v. Kimball, 50 Ala. 251 ; Worman v. Gid- dey, 30 Mich. 151 ; Prosser v. Hartley, 35 Minn. 340, 29 N. W. 156; State v. Thomas, 7 Mo. App. 205; Miller v. Waite, 59 Nebr. 319, 80 N. W. 907 (affd. 60 Nebr. 431, 83 N. W. 355) ; Dennis v. Kass, 11 Wash. 353, 39 Pac. 656, 48 Am. St. 880. See O'Gorman v. Fink, 57 Wis. 649, IS N. W. 771, 46 Am. Rep. 58; Bates v. Callender, 3 Dak. 256, 16 N. W. 506; Long v. Hoban, 7 Ohio Dec. 688, 4 Wkly. Law Bui. 986. 92 State V. Day, 3 Ind. App. 155, 29 N. E. 436. 03 Ex parte Hopkins, 104 Ind. 157, 2 N. E. 587. °*Weinrich v. KoelHng, 21 Mo. App. 133. 05 In re Seabolt, 113 Fed. 766; Richardson v. Redd, 118 N. Car. 677, 24 S. E. 422 ; Stout v. McNeill, 98 N. Car. 1, 3 S. E. 915 ; State v. Kenan, 94 N. Car. 296; Burns v. Harris, 67 349 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 298 factual to allow an exemption."" The Uniform Partnership Act provides that nothing in it, "shall be held to deprive a partner of his right, if any, under the exemption law, as regards his interest in the partnership."*^ § 298. Insurance of partnership property — Insurable in- terest. — As any title or interest in property, legal or equi- table, will generally support a contract of insurance, it follows that a partnership may insure property which it owns or in which it has an interest.'* A partnership has an insurable interest in property partly held by deed and partly as mortgagees, half of it held under a voidable agreement.®® It has an interest in grain held for sale on commission.^ The partnership has no insurable interest in the household furniture or wearing apparel of a part- ner, and a policy in the partnership name embracing in part such property is void as to such property.^ Partners engaged in pur- chasing land have an insurable interest in partnership property, to which they hold a deed.^ A partner has an insurable interest in the entire property of the firm.* A partnership has an insur- able interest in the life of one partner.^ This interest ceases when the firm is dissolved before the partner's death.® Each N. Car. 140 ; O'Gorman v. Fink, 57 2 Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Hall, Wis. 649, IS N. W. 771, 46 Am. 94 Ga. 630, 21 S. E. 828. Rep. 58. ^ Grabbs v. Farmers' Mut. Fire 96 Wills V. Downs, 38 111. App. 269. Ins. Assn., 125 N. Car. 389, 34 S. E. 97 Uniform Partnership Act, § 28 503. (3). *MilIandon v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 8 98 Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 14 La. 557 ; Converse v. Citizens' Mut. Wall. (U. S.) 504, 20 L. ed. 729; Ins. Co., 64 Mass. (10 Cush.) 37; Columbian Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 2 Voisen v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., Pet. (U. S.) 25, 7 L. ed. 335; Georgia 62 Hun 4, 16 N. Y. S. 410; Manhat- Horae Ins. Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga. 630, tan Ins. Co. v. Webster, 59 Pa. St. 21 S. E. 828 ; Scott v. Dixie Ins. Co., 227, 98 Am. Dec. 332 ; Hanover Fire 70 W. Va. 533, 74 S. E. 659, 40 L. Ins. Co. v. Shrader, 11 Tex. Civ. App. R. A. (N. S.) lS2n. 255, 31 S. W. 1100, 32 S. W. 344. 99 Columbian Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, ^ Rahders v. People's Bank, 113 27 U. S. (2 Pet.) 25, 7 L. ed. 335. Minn. 496, 130 N. W. 16, Ann. Cas. 1 Phcenix Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 14 1912 A, 299 and note. Wall. (U. S.) 504, 20 L. ed. 729. « Cheeves v. Anders, 87 Tex. 287, 28 S. W. 274, 47 Am. St. 107. § 299 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 350 partner has an insurable interest in the Hves of the other partners. The necessities of the business incur more or less liability which might be serious financially if one partner were removed by death.'' The contrary has been held, where no capital was in- vested, no debt was due from one partner to the other and no other contribution owing from the partner was shown.* It has also been held that one partner may insure his life making the firm a beneficiary.^ § 299. Insurance — Ownership clause in policy — Transfers by and between partners. — A surviving partner is not the sole owner of property belonging to the undivided partnership estate within the clause of the standard insurance policy which requires that if the interest of the insured is other than uncondi- tional and sole ownership of the property, the fact must be dis- closed to the insurer.^" It has also been held that a partnership does not, within the meaning of this provision, own property contributed as a partner's share of the capital, but which has not been deeded to the partnership." But, an assignment for the benefit of creditors by one member of a firm has been held not to affect the sole and undivided ownership by the firm of the part- nership property.^^ Under the provision that an insurance policy is void if interest of the insured is not the unconditional and sole ownership, the fact that title to property insured in the firm name is in the name of the individual partners is not a breach of the 'Rahders v. People's Bank, 113 Travellers' Ins. Co., 113 N. Car. 244, Minn. 496, 130 N. W. 16, Ann. Cas. 18 S. E. 175, 22 L. R. A. 291. 1912 A, 299. See also Connecticut » Powell v. Dewey, 123 N. Car. 103, Mut. L. Ins. Co. V. Luchs, 108 U. S. 31 S. E. 381, 6& Am. St. 818. 498, 27 L. ed. 800, 2 Sup. Ct. 949, » Valton y. National Loan Fund &c. where there was debt owing the firm Soc, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 9. by the partner on whose life the in- i" Crescent Ins. Co. v. Camp, 64 surance was taken, and Rush v. Tex. 521. Hawkins, 135 Ga. 128, 68 S. E. 1035, ii Citizens' Fire Ins. &c. Co. v. Doll, where the partner on whose life the 35 Md. 89, 6 Am. Rep. 360. policy was paid contributed skill to ^^ Wood v. American Fire Ins. Co., the business. See Trinity College v. 149 N, Y. 382, 44 N. E. 80, S2 Am. St. 733. 351 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY 299 condition. ^^ Nor is the condition breached where property is in- sured in the name of a firm of which the policy holder had been a member, but which was dissolved before the policy was issued.^* Nor by the insurance in the partnership name of a building deeded to the firm in its name by one of its members, in a juris- diction where such a conveyance does not give the firm legal title. ^° According to the weight of authority and what seems to be the better reason, a condition making the policy void if there is any change in the title or interest of the insured without the consent of the company is not violated by the sale by one partner to another of his interest in the property, as this provision has no reference to a transfer of interest between partners.^® But in Iowa and a few other states a different view has been taken.^^ 15 Delaware Ins. Co. v. Bonnet, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 107, 48 S. W. 1104; Bonnet v. Merchiants' Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 316; Scott v. Dixie Fire Ins. Co., 70 W. Va. 533, 74 S. E. 659, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) lS2n. 1* Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Bonnet (Tex. Civ. App.), 48 S. W. 1110. 15 Missouri Sav. Assn. v. German- American Ins. Co., IZ Mo. App. 158. 18 Burnett v. Euf aula &c. Ins. Co., 46 Ala. 11, 7 Am. Rep. 581 ; Sun Fire Office v. Wich, 6 Colo. App. 103, 39 Pac. 587; Drennen v. London Assur. Corp., 20 Fed. 657 (revd. 113 U. S. 51, 28 L. ed. 919, 5 Sup. Ct. 341); Powers V. Guardian Fire & Life Ins. Co., 136 Mass. 108, 49 Am. Rep. 20; New Orleans Ins. Assn. v. Holberg, 64 Miss. 51, 8 So. 175; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Holcombe, 57^ Nebr. 622, 78 N. W. 300, 11 Am. St. 532; German Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Fox, 4 Nebr. (Unof.) 833, 96 N. W. 652, 63 L. R. A. 334; Combs V. Shrewsbury Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 N. J. Eq. 403 ; Wilson v. Gen- esee Mut. Ins. Co., 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 511 (revd, 14 N. Y. 418) ; Hoffman v. .S;tna Fire Ins. Co., 19 Abb. Prac. (N. Y.) 325, 24 N. Y. Super. Ct. 501 (affd. 32 N. Y. 405, 88 Am. Dec. 337) ; Tallman v. Atlantic &c. Ins. Co., 29 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 71 (revd. 42 N. Y. 87, 4 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 345, 33 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 400) ; Wood v. American Fire Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 382, 44 N. E. 80, 52 Am. St. 733 ; Keeney v. Home Ins. Co., 71 N. Y. 396, 27 Am. Rep. 60; Dresser v. United Firemen's Ins. Co., 45 Hun 298, 12 N. Y. S. 434 (affg. 122 N. Y. 642, 25 N. E. 956) ; West V. Citizens' Ins. Co., 27 Ohio St. 1, 22 Am. Rep. 294 ; Texas Bank- ing & Insurance Co. v. Cohen, 47 Tex. 406, 26 Am. Rep. 298; Virginia Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Vaughan, 88 Va. 832, 14 S. E. 754. Agreement of one partner to sell his interest to an- other: Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga. 630, 21 S. E. 828; Alle- mania Fire Ins. Co. v. Peck, 133 111. 220, 24 N. E. 538, 23 Am. St. 610. See also Virginia Fire & Marine Ins. Co. V. Thomas, 90 Va. 658, 19 S. E. 454. !'■ Oldham, v. Anchor Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 90 Iowa 225, 57 N. W. 861 ; Jones V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 97 Iowa 275, 66 § 299 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 352 So, it was held that the retiring of one partner from participa- tion in the business management or control of the partnership business, reserving to himself simply the right to see that the stock of goods is kept up to its value at the time of retiring as security for the payment of the amount allowed by the other partner for his interest, is such a change of possession, if not of title, as to avoid the policy on the goods, under a policy which provides that it shall be void if the title or possession of the property is changed.^ ^ It is generally held that a change in the firm by which a third party becomes a member of the firm is a violation of the condition and renders the policy void/® And the same has been held where the insured turns over property to a partnership of which he is a member.^" In a New York case, where the policy contained a provision that it should be void "if the property be sold or transferred, or any change takes place in title or possession," the court said :^^ "The contract of insurance N. W. 169. As supporting the rule that a transfer from one partner to another is within this provision, see Buckley v. Garrett, 47 Pa. St. 204; Finley v. Lycoming County Mut. Ins. Co., 30 Pa. St. 311, 72 Am. Dec. 70S; Keeler v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 16 Wis. S23, 84 Am. Dec. 714. See also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Ross, 23 Ind. 179, 85 Am. Dec. 4S2 ; Tillou v. Kingston Mut. Ins. Co., S N. Y. 405 ; Keith V. Royal Ins. Co., 117 Wis. 531, 94 N. W. 295. 18 Jones V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 97 Iowa 275, 66 N. W. 169. 15 Drennen v. London Assur. Corp., 20 Fed. 657 (revd. 113 U. S. 51, 28 L. ed. 919, 5 Sup. Ct. 341); Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Floss, 67 Md. 403, 10 Atl. 139, 1 Am. St. 398; American Steam Laundry Co. ' v. Hamburg-Bremen Fire Ins. Co., 121 Tenn. 13, 113 S. W. 394, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 442n. See also Malley v. Atlantic Fire & Ma- rine Ins. Co., 51 Conn. 222; Card v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 4 Mo. App. 424; Virginia Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 90 Va. 658, 19 S. E. 454. But compare Hanover Fire Ins. Co. V. Lewis, 28 Fla. 209, 10 So. 297. 20 Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 144 N. Y. 195, 39 N. E. 11, 26 L. R. A. 591, 43 Am. St. 749; Biggs V. North Carolina Home Ins. Co., 88 N. Car. 141; Royal Ins. Co. v. Mar- tin, 192 U. S. 149, 48 L. ed. 385, 24 Sup. Ct. 247. But compare Cowan V. Iowa State Ins. Co., 40 Iowa 551, 20 Am. Rep. 583 ; Blackwell v. Miami Valley Ins. Co., 48 Ohio St. 533, 29 N. E. 278, 29 Am. St. 574, 14 L. R. A. 431. 21 Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 144 N. Y. 195, 39 N. E. 11, 26 L. R. A. 591, 43 Am. St. 749. See cases cited in Beebe v. Ohio &c. Ins. Co., 93 Mich. 514, 53 N. W. 818, 18 L. R. A. 481, 32 Am. St. 519. See also, as sustaining this doctrine, Drennen v. London Assur. Corp., 20 353 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 300 is peculiarly personal in its nature, and the success of the business of underwriting depends largely upon what is known as the moral hazard. * * * It is of the utmost importance to the com- pany to ascertain who is to be vested with the title and possession of the property sought to be insured. It would be a harsh and indefensible rule that required the underwriter, who had insured an individual on a stock of goods in a store, to continue the in- surance after the insured had taken in two partners and formed a firm wherein each partner was vested with an undivided third interest in the property covered by the policy, without having been afforded the opportunity to examine into the moral and business characters of two strangers to the original contract. This right of the insurance company was in no wise invaded when this court held that a sale by one partner to another of his interest, where both were insured, did not avoid the policy. It is only when a stranger is to be brought into contractual relations with the insurance company that the consent of the latter is essential." § 300. Guaranty insurance — Identity of the insured — Partnership. — In guaranty insurance we find a principle somewhat analogous to that of change in interest or title in fire insurance. Two partners were insured against loss by uncollecti- ble debts, under a policy which provided that "if any member . guaranteed with respect to his gross or particular trade-debts shall cease to be such a trader, his guarantee or contract shall become void on his retiring from such trade," and it was held Fed. 657 (revd. 113 U. S. 51, 28 L. til it is disposed of. Until this is ed. 919, 5 Sup. Ct. 341), and Malley done there is no violation of the con- V. Atlantic Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 51 dition against a change in the title. Conn. 222; Card v. Phoenix Ins. Co., But a dissolution of the partnership 4 Mo. App. 424. The mere dissolu- and a division of the partnership tion of a firm does not destroy the property jprior to the fire is a viola- joint interest of the copartners in the tion of the condition. Roby v. Amer- partnership property or make them ican Cent. Ins. Co., 120 N. Y. 510, 24 tenants in common. The property N. E. 808. See Dreher v. Mtna Ins. continues as partnership property un- Co., 18 Mo. 128. , 23— Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 301 lAW OF PARTNERSHIP 3S4 I that the retirement of one partner invalidated the contract.^^ Under such a policy the death of a partner effects such a change in the firm as will release the insurer.^' § 301. Mortgage of partnership real estate. — Where land is conveyed to partners as individuals which was purchased with partnership funds and is used for partnership purposes, the cred- itors of the copartnership are in such case entitled to priority of payment out of it in preference to the creditors of individual members of the firm.^* But if one member of the copartnership mortgages his apparent interest as tenant in common of such land for a consideration paid him at the time, as, for instance, for a loan of money, the mortgagee having notice of the charac- ter of the property in equity as copartnership property, he is en- titled to hold it under his mortgage. He may rely upon the legal effect of the conveyance to his mortgagor, and upon his appareht title upon record. A person taking a mortgage without notice that it covered partnership property is a purchaser, and is subject to no equity in favor of the partnership or of its creditors. ^^ Whether real property is partnership assets depends upon the intention or agreement of the partners. Such intention may be express or implied. In the absence of an express agreement, parol evidence may be resorted to for the determination of the question. The manner in which the members of the firm have treated and used the property always goes far in determining its 22 Solvency Mut. Guar. Co. v. Free- Meily v. Wood, 71 Pa. St. 488, 10 man, 7 Hurl. & N. 17. Am. Rep. 719; Pollock's Dig. of Law 23 Cosgrave Brewing &c. Co. v. of Partnership, ch. 6; Story Partner- Starrs, S Ont. 189; Pemberton v. ship, §§ 92, 93. Oakes, 4 Russ. 1S4. 25 Robinson Bank v. Miller, 153 111. 24 Matlock V. Matlock, S Ind. 403; 244, 38 N. E. 1078, 27 L. R. A. 449, 46 Hewitt V. Rankin, 41 Iowa 35 ; Mes- Am. St. 883 ; Reeves v. Ayers, 38 111. ser V. Messer, 59 N. H. 375; Everett 418; Hewitt v. Rankin, 41 Iowa 35; V. Schepmoes, 6 Hun (N..Y.) 479; Seeley v. Mitchell, 85 Ky. 508, 4 S. Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. W. 190, 9 Ky. L. 86; Hiscock v. Y.) 165, 47 Am. Dec. 305; Tarbel v. Phelps, 49 N. Y. 97; Richmond v. Bradley, 7 Abb. (N. Cas.) (N. Y.) Voorhees, 10 Wash. 316, 38 Pac. 1014. 273; Hogle v. Lowe, 12 Nev. 286; 355 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 301 character.^® If the property has been purchased by the individual partners with their own funds, each taking a conveyance of an undivided interest, the fact that the property has for a time been used for the partnership business is not generally sufficient to im- press it with an equitable lien for the payment of partnership debts as against a mortgage of one partner's interest to secure his individual debt.^^ A valid mortgage of partnership property to secure a partnership debt, may be made by one partner^* with the express or implied assent of the other partner.^" Under some 28 See § 282 ante, on intention. Jen- kins V. Jenkins, 81 Ark. 68, 98 S. W. 685 ; Brown v. Morrill, 45 Minn. 483, 48 N. W. 328; Deming v. Moss, 4d Utah 501, 121 Pac. 971 ; Bosworth v. Hopkins, 85 Wis. 50, 55 N. W. 424; Riedeburg v. Schmitt, 71 Wis. 644, 38 N. W. 336. See also Richtman v. Watson, 150 Wis. 385, 136 N. W. 797. 27 Wilhite V. Boulware, 88 Ky. 169, 10 S. W. 629, 11 Ky. L. 59. 28 Long V. Slade, 121 Ala. 267, 26 So. 31 ; Breen v. Richardson, 6 Colo. 60S (given to prevent sacrifice of partnership realty) ; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Johnson, 79 Iowa 290, 44 N. W. 551 ; Horton v. Bloedorn, Zl Nebr. 666, 56 N. W. 321 (in absence of co- partner, firm being insolvent) ; Weeks V. Mascoma Rake Co., 58 N. H. 101 ; Neer v. Oakley, 18 N. Y. St. 374, 2 N. Y. S. 482 (without consulting co- partner) ; Baldwin v. Richardson, 33 Tex. 16; Schwab Clothing Co. v. Claunch (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 922 (with consent of copartner). Un- der Georgia Civ. Code 1910, § 3172, each partner has power to contract or otherwise bind the firm and exe- cute any writing in the course of the business. 2!'McGahan v. Bank of Rondout, 156 U. S. 218, 39 L. ed. 403, 15 Sup. Ct. 347; Greer v. Ferguson, 56 Ark. 324, 19 S. W. 966 (in presence of co- partner with consent) ; Cottle v. Har- rold, 72 Ga. 830; Printup v. Turner, 65 Ga. 71 ; Sutlive v, Jones, 61 Ga. 676; Ely v. Hair, 55 Ky. 230 (with knowledge and assent of copartner) ; Ely V. Hair, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 230; Kahn v. Becnel, 108 La. 296, 32 So. 444 (power to mortgage not implied from power to secure advances) ; Baker v. Lee, 49 La. Ann. 874, 21 So. 588; Chittenden v. German Amer. Bank, 27 Minn. 143, 6 N. W. 11 Z; Jones V. Davis (N. J. Eq.), 25 Atl. 370; Hardin v. Dolge, 46 App. Div. 416, 61 N. Y. S. 753 ; Tarbell v. Brad- ley, 7 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 273 (affd. Tarbell v. West, 86 N. Y. 280) ; Lance v. Butler, 135 N. Car. 419, 47 S. E. 488; McNeal Pipe &c. Co. v. Woltman, 114 N. Car. 178,' 19 S. E. 109; Napier v. Catron, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 534; Caviness v. Black (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 712; Schwab Clothing Co. v. Claunch (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 922; Byrd v. Perry, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 378, 26 S. W. 749 (mortgage by one partner procured by other) ; Weir Plow Co. v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 38; Wil- son V. Hunter, 14 Wis. 683, 80 Am. Dec. 795. But see Beckman v. Noble, lis Mich. 523, 73 N. W. 803; Cohen v. Miller, 46 Misc. 106, 91 N. Y. S. 345. § 301 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 356 authorities such a mortgage, made without authority of the other partner, is held to bind only the interest of the partner executing j^ 29a 'VVhere a copartnership carried on business in a store built by the firm upon land, the legal title of which was in A, and one of his copartners, to secure a copartnership debt, executed a mortgage of the land with the consent of his copartners, and in the firm name of A & Co., and acknowledged the execution of it "as his free act and deed in behalf of said firm," it was held valid as against a person who, with actual notice of this, took a subse- quent mortgage of the same property executed by A.^" Such a mortgage is valid, too, as against creditors of the firm whose lien attached afterward.^^ An exception to the general rule, that an authority to bind another by an instrument under seal must itself be created by a like instrument, seems to have been established in the case of partners ; they may give each other authority by parol to bind each other by instruments under seal.^^ Some of the cases cited do not refer to conveyances of real estate. But if au- thority to execute a personal contract under seal may be implied from this relation, the same authority may as well extend to con- veyances of real property. Lord Kenyoh said that, if the rela- tion of partnership gave this authority in the one case, it "would extend to the case of mortgages."^^ An unauthorized mortgage of partnership property made by one partner using the name of his copartner may be ratified by the latter by parol, or by any act showing his recognition of the mortgage. A mortgage of such real estate by one partner to secure a copartnership debt is valid f* 29a Cottle V. Harrold, 72 Ga. 830; Smith v. Kerr, 3 N. Y. 144. See also Printup V. Turner, 65 Ga. 71 ; Sutlive Wilson v. Hunter, 14 Wis. 683, 80 V. Jones, 61 Ga. 676; Baker v. Lee, Am. Dec. 795. 49 La. Ann. 874, 21 So. 588; Weeks ss Harrison v. Jackson, 7 Term V. Mascoma Rake Co., 58 N. H. 101. Rep. 203, 4 R. R. 422. 30 Wilson V. Hunter, 14 Wis. 683, 3*Cooley v. Hobart, 8 Iowa 358; 80 Am. Dec. 795. Holbrook v. Chamberlin, 116 Mass. 31 Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Johnson, 155, 17 Am. Rep. 146; Harvey v. 79 Iowa 290, 44 N. W. 551. Ford, 83 Mich. 506, 47 N. W. 242. 32Cady V. Shepherd, 11 Pick. But see Baker v. Lee, 49 La. Ann. (Mass.) 400, 22 Am. Dec. 379; Swan 874, 21 So. 588 (ratification by parol V. Stedman, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 548; insufficient). 357 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 302 but it is not valid if made in opposition to the will of another partner with the knowledge of the creditor. '° § 302. Mortgage by one partner — Notice of partnership equities. — A mortgage made by a partner of his interest in partnership real estate, to one who knows it to be such, is not a mortgage of the partner's undivided interest in such real estate, but of his interest in the portion mortgaged after the payment of the firm debts upon a settlement of the partnership accounts. The mortgage is not available until the partnership debts have been paid and the partnership accounts discharged, if the other partner chooses to assert his equity, or if subsequent part- nership mortgagees assert their priority ;^^ or if the creditors of the partnership attach the property or levy an execution upon it as belonging to the partnership.^'' There would in such case be no distinction between debts incurred prior to the mortgage and those incurred subsequently.^^ Upon the bankruptcy of the firm, the assignee, in behalf of the creditors, would be entitled to the property in preference. If one partner, upon retiring from the partnership, conveys his interest in the partnership real estate to another person, who then comes in and forms a new firm, and this new partner executes a mortgage of such real estate to secure the purchase-money, in the absence of any evidence that the mortgage was intended to be a mortgage of this partner's interest in the new firm, it is proper to regard it as a mortgage of the same partnership interest, in the old firm which was conveyed to the new partner, and not of his interest in the new firm. Such a mortgage is subject fo the payment of the debts of the old firm, but not to the payment of the debts of the 35 H. Y. McCord Co. v. Callaway, fellar v. Bellinger, 22 Mont. 418, 56 109 Ga. 796, 35 S. E. 171; Fidelity Pac. 822, 74 Am. St. 613; Page v. Banking &c. Co. v. Kangara Val. &c. Thomas, 43 Ohio St. 38, 1 N. E. 79, Co., 95 Ga. 172, 22 S. E. 50; Bull v. 54 Am. Rep. 788. Harris, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 195. " Fargo v. Ames, 45 Iowa 491 ; 38 Goldthwaite v. Janney, 102 Ala. Seaman v. Huffaker, 21 Kans. 254 ; 431, IS So. 560, 28 L. R. A. 161, 48 Lovejoy v. Bowers, 11 N. H. 404; Am. St. 56; Beecher v. Stevens, 43 French v. Lovejoy, 12 N. H. 458. Conn. 587; Seeley v. Mitchell, 85 Ky. ^8 Lovejoy v. Bowers, 11 N. H. 404. 508, 4 S. W. 190, 9 Ky. L. 86; Rocke- § 302 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 358 new firm.'° But the mortgagee must be in the position of a bona fide purchaser for value; he must have parted with money or goods, or something valuable, in reliance upon the security. If he simply take the mortgage to secure an existing debt, or has knowledge of the facts which make the property in equity assets of the firm, then his mortgage will be postponed to the equities of those who have a right to have the property applied as assets of the copartnership.*" But a recital in a deed to three persons that the conveyance was in the proportion of an undivided half to one of them, and an undivided fourth to each of the others, "this be- ing the proportional undivided interest of each of the above part- ners in the firm and lands" of the partnership, was held not nec- essarily to impart notice to a mortgagee of the interest of one of the grantees of the equitable rights of others as representing the creditors of the firm.*^ A mortgage by one partner of his inter- est in a mill and machinery in the continued use and occupation of the partnership, to secure such partner's individual debt, passes only what interest such partner may have after paying the debts of the partnership.*^ The continued use of such property by the partnership is notice of the' equitable rights of the part- nership in the property. If the description of the property in the mortgage itself shows that the property is that of a partnership, as where it is described as all the right, title and interest of a part- ner individually, and as a member of a certain firm In all the real estate and other property of the firm, the mortgagee necessarily has notice of the partnership equities. The existence of such a mortgage can not prevent the copartners from disposing of the real estate for the legitimate purposes of the copartnership, such as adjusting its affairs with creditors, or with each other. The recording of such mortgage is without effect upon the other 39 Beecher v. Stevens, 43 Conn. 587. 186, 1 N. W. 971. But the decision in See also Phelps v. McNeely, 66 Mo. this case seems not to be quite in har- 554, 27 Am. Rep. 378. mony with other authorities. « Hiscock V. Phelps, 49 N. Y. 97. *^ Mechanics' Bank v. Godwin, S N. "Van Slyck v. Skinner, 41 Mich. J. Eq. 334. 359 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 303 members of the copartnership, or upon any one taking a convey- ance made for partnership purposes.*^ § 303. Mortgage of partner's separate property to secure firm debt. — If a partner mortgages his separate property to secure a partnership debt, he becomes a surety for the firm, and his separate creditors, upon his bankruptcy or insolvency, have a right to insist that the partnership property be first applied to the payment of the debt so secured.** One partner has no right to mortgage the corporate property for the payment of his indi- vidual debt without the assent, express or implied, of the other partners, and it makes no difference in the application of this principle that the separate creditor had no knowledge at the time of the fact of the property being partnership property.*^ Justice Story of the United States Supreme Court says : "The implied authority of each partner to dispose of the partnership funds strictly and rightfully extends only to the business and transac- tions of the partnership itself ; and any disposition of those funds, by any partner, beyond such purposes, is an excess of his author- ity as partner, and a misappropriation of those funds, for which the partner is responsible to the partnership ; though in the case of bona fide purchasers, without notice, for a valuable considera- tion, the partnership may be bound by such acts. Whatever acts, therefore, are done by any partner, in regard to partnership prop- erty or contracts beyond the scope and objects of the partnership, must, in general, in order to bind the partnership, be derived from some further authority, express or implied, conferred upon such partner, beyond that resulting from his character as partner. Such is the general principle ; and in our judgment, it is founded in good sense and reason. One man ought not to be permitted to *3TarbeI v. Bradley, 7 Abb. N. Cas. Co. v. Callaway, 109 Ga. 796, 35 S. E. (N. Y.) 273 (affd. 86 N. Y. 280). 171; Rainey v. Nance, 54 111. 29; See note to this case for decisions Deeters v. Sellers, 102 Ind. 4S8, 1 N. relating to partnership realty. E. 854; Livingston v. Roosevelt, 4 4*Averill V. Loucks, 6 Barb, (N. Johns. (N. Y.) 251, 4 Am. Dec. 273; Y.) 470. , Lance v. Butler, 135 N. Car. 419, 47 *B Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Pet. (U. S. E. 488. S.) 221, 9 L. ed. 1063; H. Y. McCord § 303 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 360 dispose of the property or to bind the rights of another unless the latter has authorized the act. In the case of a partner paying his own separate debt out of the partnership funds, it is manifest that it is a violation of his duty and of the rights of his partners, unless they have assented to it. The act is an illegal conversion of the funds ; and the separate creditor can have no better title to the funds than the partner himself had."*' Such a mortgage may, however, be given with the assent of copartners.*^ The mortgage will also be valid in cases where the property covered is set off to the mortgagor on a division of the assets of the firm.** Upon the death of a partner holding such an interest in partnership real estate, his share descends to his heirs, but equity converts the legal title into a trust, to be devoted to the payment of partnership obligations, before it can be taken as a part of his separate estate.*' As against the partnership creditors there can be no dower in such land. But when such real estate is not re- quired for the payment of the partnership debts or the adjust- ment of accounts between the partners, it is to be treated as realty in the settlement of the estate, and is subject to dower. It is then treated in every way as real estate, and does not go to the personal representatives of the deceased. It is to be regarded as real estate, and subject to all the rules applicable to real estate.^" The conversion of such real estate into personalty for the pur- pose of the settlement of partnership affairs, is a device of equity; and as soon as the reason of the rule ceases, by the closing of the partnership affairs without calling upon the real estate, the rule itself no longer applies.^^ This equitable interference is not extended so as to convert all real estate into personalty for the « Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Pet. (U. ard v. Priest, 5 Met. (Mass.) 582; S.) 221, 9 L. ed. 1063. Dyer v. Clark, 5 Met. (Mass.) 562, 39 *'■ Huiskamp v. Moline Wagon Co., Am. Dec. 697 ; Burnside v. Merrick, 121 U. S. 310, 30 L. ed. 971, 7 Sup. 4 Met. (Mass.) 537. Ct. 899. 50 See §§ 288-290- ante; Hewit v. *8 Smith V. Andrews, 49 111. 28. Rankin, 41 Iowa 35, and cases cited ; 49 Piatt V. Oliver, 3 McLean (U. Wilcox v. Wilcox ,13 Allen (Mass.) S.) 27, Fed. Cas. No. 11116 (affd. 3 252; In re Foster's Appeal, 74 Pa. St. How. 333, 11 L. ed. 622) ; Wilcox v. 391, IS Am. Rep. 553. Wilcox, 13 Allen (Mass.) 252; How- ^i jujgg Story says, in his work on 361 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 304 purpose of a division. A mortgage by an individual partner of such real estate is relieved of all equities in favor of the partner- ship so soon as the business of the partnership is closed, without requiring the application of it to the firm debts.^^ § 304. Mortgage of partnership personal property. — A mortgage by partners upon partnership property to secure an in- dividual debt of one of the partners is valid. The rule preferring partnership property for the payment of partnership debts is for the benefit of the partners, and they may waive it. The giving of such a mortgage is itself a waiver.°^ The partners, while the partnership property is still under their control, have power to appropriate it to secure their individual debts. The mere prefer- ence of individual debts by mortgage to secure them over part- nership debts is not such a fraud upon partnership creditors that a court of eqtiity will set it aside.^* The partnership creditors have no lien on the property of the partnership if the partners themselves have none." ^ut such a preference of individual creditors when the partnership is insolvent, and this fact is known to the mortgagee, may render the mortgage void as against the partnership creditors.^* One member of a copartnership may mortgage his interest in the firm to secure his own individual debt. Such a mortgage is, of course, subject to the prior equities of the partnership creditors. If after such a mortgage the part- nership business be closed, and a receiver of it appointed, in whose hands, after settling the affairs of the firm, there remains. partnership, § 93, that this is an open Bannon, 85 Tenn. 712, 4 S. W. 831, 4 question. But the authorities now Am. St. 803. seem decisive of the law as stated in 54'\Yinslow v. Wallace, 116 Ind. 317, the text. ^ 17 N. E. 923, 1 L. R. A. 179; Fisher 52 Hewitt V. Rankin, 41 Iowa 35. v. Syfers, 109 Ind. 514, 10 N. E. 306; 53 In re Kahley, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 383, National Bank v. Sprague, 20 N. J. Fed. Cas. 7593 ; Purple v. Farrington, Eq. 13 ; Kennedy v. Nat. Union Bank, 119 Ind. 164,' 21 N. E. 543, 4 L. R. A. 23 Hun (N. Y.) 494. 535; Fisher V. Syfers, 109 Ind. 514, 10 ssjones Liens (2d ed.), § 788; Car- N. E. 306; Kirby v. Schoonmaker, 3 ver Gin &c. Co. v. Bannon, 85 Tenn. Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 46, 49 Am. Dec. 712, 4 S. W. 831, 4 Am. St. 803. 160; Carver Gin & Machine Co. v. so Cribb v. Morse, 11 Wis. 322, 46 N. W. 126. § 304 LAW 6f partnership 362 a surplus to the credit of the members of the firm, such surplus will belong to the mortgagee in preference to the assigneie in bankruptcy of the mortgagor."^ A mortgage by one partner of specific partnership property, to secure his individual debt, con- fers no title or lien upon that property as against the partnership or its creditors, but only a right to the mortgagor's interest therein after the partnership debts are paid,°* and the firm has been dissolved/' A mortgage of partnership property, executed by one partner to secure his individual debt, may, however, be ratified and confirmed by his copartner, so as to be an effectual mortgage by the partnership.^" One partner may execute a valid mortgage of partnership goods to secure a partnership debt by signing the firm name, or the individual names of the members of the firm."^ One copartner having authority to pass a valid title to such property by bill of sale may, as incident thereto, exe- cute a transfer of it in any form or mode by which such title could in any case be legally transferred. It is immaterial whether he sign the name of each copartner separately, or sign the firm " Sloan V. Wilson, 117 Ala. 583, 23 136 U. S. 223, 34 L. ed. 341, 10 Sup. So. 145 ; Monroe v. Hamilton, 60 Ala. Ct. 1013 ; Bohler v. Tappan, 1 Mc- 226; Smith V. Andrews, 49 111. 28; Crary (U. S.) 134, 1 Fed. 469; Gates Thompson v. Spittle, 102 Mass. 207. v. Bennett, 33 Ark. 475; Letts- Under the English Bills of Sale Act Fletcher Co. v. McMaster, 83 Iowa of 1854, a mortgage by a partnership 449, 49 N. W. 1035 ; Citizens' Nat. •was regarded as an assignment of a Bank v. Johnson, 79 Iowa 290, 44 N. .chose in action, and not within the W. 551 ; Patch v. Wheatland, 8 Allen act. In re Bainbridge, L. R. 8 Ch. (Mass.) 102; Harvey v. Ford, 83 Div. 218, 47 L. J. Bk. 70, 38 L. T. 229, Mich. 506, 47 N. W. 242; Walker v. 26 W. R. 439. White, 60 Mich. 427, 27 N. W. 554; BSNichol V. Stewart, 36 Ark. 612; Rogers v. Gage, 59 Mo. App. 107; Millhiser v. Pleasants, 118 N. Car. Columbus State Bank v. Dole, 56 237, 23 S. E. 969; Moline Wagon Co. Nebr. 508, 76 N. W. 1054; Neer v. V. Rummell, 2 McCrary (U. S.) 307, Oakley, 18 N. Y. St. 374, 2 N. Y. S. 12 Fed. 658. 482; Graser -fr. Stellwagen, 25 N- Y. 59 Fort Worth Nat. Bank v. Daugh- 315 ; Mabbett v. White, 12 N. Y. 442 ; erty, 81 Tex. 301, 16 S. W. 1028. Odom v. Clark, 146 N. Car. 544, 60 60 McCoy V. Boley, 21 Fla. 803 ; Nel- S. E. 513 ; Hembree v. Blackburn, 16 son V. Wheelock, 46 111. 25 ; Kennedy Ore. 153, 19 Pac. 1i ; West Coast V. Nat. Union Bank, 23 Hun (N. Y.) Grocery Co. v. Stinson, 13 Wash. 255, 494. 43 Pac. 35; Hage v. Campbell, 78 «i Union Bank v. Kansas City Bank, Wis. 572, 47 N. W. 179, 23 Am. St 363 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 305 name.°^ The addition of a seal to the individual names does not Invalidate the mortgage, because a seal is unnecessary."* § 305. Conveyance of partnership real estate — Uniform Partnership Act. — The Uniform Partnership Act makes some very radical changes in the generally accepted rules as to the con- veyance of partnership real estate. It first provides that any estate in real property may be acquired in the partnership name, and that title so acquired can be conveyed only in the partnership name.*'* It further provides as to conveyance of real property the term conveyance in deeding every assignment, lease, encum- brance or mortgage,"** Sec. 10. (1) Where the title to real property is in the partnership name, any partner may convey title to such property by a conveyance executed in the partnership name ; but the partnership may recover such property unless the partner's act binds the partnership under the provisions of para- graph (1) of section 9 [relative to the agency of a partner for the purpose of firm business], or unless such property has been conveyed by the grantee or a person claiming through such grantee to a holder for value without knowledge that the partner, in making the conveyance, has exceeded his authority. (2)| Where title tO' real property is in the name of the partnership, a conveyance executed by a partner, in his own name, passes the equitable interest of the partnership, provided the act 422. In Wyoming it is necessary for penny v. Pennock, 33 U. C. Q. B. 229. each and every member of a copart- ^^ Hawkins v. Hastings Bank, 1 nership to execute and acknowledge Dill. (U. S.) 462, Fed. Cas. No. 6244, a mortgage, bond, conveyance, or 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 2Z7 ; Milton v. other instrument intended to operate Mosher, 7 Met. (Mass.) 244; Tapley as a chattel mortgage, for and on be- v. Butterfield, 1 Met. (Mass.) SIS, 35 half of a partnership. Wyo. Laws Am. Dec. 374; Lamb v. Durant, 12 (1891), ch. 7, § 2. Mass. 54, 7 Am. Dec. 31; Sweetzer 82Cooley V. Hobart, 8 Iowa 358; v. Mead, 5 Mich. 107; Weeks v. Mas- Bernstein V. Hobelman, 70 Md. 29, 16 coma Rake Co., 58 N. H. 101 ; Purvi- Atl. 374; Graser v. Stellwagen, 25 N. ance v. Sutherland, 2 Ohio St. 478; Y. 315; Mabbett v. White, 12 N. Y. Woodruff v. King, 47 Wis. 261, 2 N. 442; Johnson v. Nelson, 2 Ohio Dec. W. 4S2. 487, 3 West. L. Month. 306; Paterson "4 Uniform Partnership Act, § 8 (3). V. Maughan, 39 U, C. Q. B. 371 ; Hal- "*a Uniform Partnership Act, § 2. § 306 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 364 is one within the authority of the partner under the provisions of paragraph (1) of section 9. (3) Where the title to real property is in the name of one or more but not all the partners, and the record does not disclose the right of the part- nership, the partner in whose name the title stands may convey title to such property, but the partnership may recover such property if the partner's act does not bind the partnership under the provisions of paragraph (1) of section 9 [relative, to the agency of a partner for the purpose of firm business], unless the purchaser, or his assignee, is a holder for value without knowl- edge. (4) Where the title to real property is in the name of one or more or all the partners, or in a third person in trust for the partnership, a conveyance executed by a partner in the partner- ship name, or in his own name, passes the equitable interest of the partnership, provided the act is one within the authority of the partner under the provisions of paragraph (1) of section 9. (5) Where the title to real property is in the names of all the partners a conveyance executed by all the partners passes all their rights in such property. § 306. Taxation of partnership property. — As a general rule, partnership property is properly taxed to the firm, in its firrti name, the firm in most states being regarded as an entity for the purposes of taxation, or being so made by the tax assessment laws,"^ even after one partner's death, while the other partner is winding up the business.®" But firm property in the exclusive possession of a partner may be assessed to him®^ and under some statutes though properly assessed in the firm name, the tax is not invalid if the firm property is assessed in one partner's name.'* 85 See cases cited in note 51, §§ 120, Mich. 146; People v. Wells, 177 N. Y. 121, on entity. Stockwell v. Brewer, 586, 70 N. E. 1106; Robinson v. 59 Maine 286 ; Commonwealth v. Ward, 13 Ohio St. 293. Schmelz, 114 Va. 364, 76 S. E. 905. ee Blodgett v. Muskegon, 60 Mich. See Forst v. Parker, 34 N. J. L. (5 580, 27 N. W. 686. Vroom) 71; Swallow v. Thomas, 15 er Welles v. Battelle, 11 Mass. 477. Kans. 66; Thibodaux v. Keller, 29' "s Fletcher v. Post, 104 Mich. 424, La. Ann. 508 ; Oliver v. Lynn, 130 62 N. W. 574. Mass. 143; Hubbard v. Winsor, IS , 365 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY :§ 306 Under the Indiana statute each partner is Hable for the whole tax and one partner may be compelled by the state to pay back- taxes on unlisted property.** A retiring partner is not liable for taxes assessed after the date of his retirement.'"' The firm, after dissolution, is not liable for future taxes''^ and its former part- ners are liable for taxes already assessed and due.'^^ As a general rule, the property of a partnership is taxed at the place where it carries on its business,^^ notwithstanding the fact that the part- ners are not residents of such place, ^* or the property is located *' Parkison v. Thompson, 164 Ind. 609, 73 N. E. 109. 70 Washburn v. Walworth, 133 Mass. 499. 71 Rivers v. New Orleans, 42 La. Ann. 1196, 8 So. 484; Von Phul v. New Orleans, 24 La. Ann. 261. See also People v. Coleman, 44 Hun (N. Y.) 20. 72 Rivers v. New Orleans, 42 La. Ann. 1196, 8 So. 484. 73 1 Cooley Taxation (3 ed.), 659; 1 Desty Taxation, p. 289. See note Ann. Cas. 1912 B, p. 758 et seq.; Jackson v. Union, 82 Conn. 266, 7Z Atl. 773; Conn. Gen. Stat., § 2342; 111. Rev. Stat. (1893), ch. 120, § 13; Selz V. Cogwin, 104 111. 647; McCann V. Minot, 107 Maine 393, 78 Atl. 46S ; Rev. Stat. Maine, ch. 9, § 22; Hop- kins V. Baker, 78 Md. 363, 28 Atl. 284, 22 L. R. A. 477; Mass. Pub. Stat, ch. 11, § 24; Mass. Rev. Laws, ch. 12, § 27, Stat. 1909, ch. 490, p. 1, § 27; Williams v. Boston, 208 Mass. 497, 94 N. E. 808; Ricker v. Amer- ican Loan &c. Co., 140 Mass. 2A6, 5 N. E. 284; Mich. Tax Laws 1882, §§ 5, 10, 11; Osterhout v. Jones, 54 Mich. 228, 19 N. W. 964; Monroe v. Greenhoe, 54 Mich. 9, 19 N. W. 569; State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301, 90 N. W. 772; N. Y. Laws 1896, ch. 908, § 7; People V. Wells, 85 App. Div. 440, 82 N. Y. S. 866, 83 N. Y. S. 387; School Dist. V. Kittredge, 27 Vt. 650; Wis. Rev. Stat., § 1040; Sanford v. Spencer, 62 Wis. 230, 22 N. W. 465 ; Torrey v. Shawano County, 79 Wis. 152, 48 N. W. 246; Can. Stat. U. C. C. 55; In re Hatt, 7 U. C. L. J. 103; School Dist. V. Bowman, 178 Mo. 654, 77 S. W. 880; McCoy v. Anderson, 47 Mich. 502, 11 N." W. 290; Fair- banks V. Kittredge, 24 Vt. 9; Bemis V. Boston, 14 Allen (Mass.) Z66; Pea- body V. Essex County, 10 Gray (Mass.) 97; Louisville v. Tatum, 111 Ky. 747, 64 S. W. 836, 23 Ky. L. 1014; State v. Hynes, 82 Minn. 34, 84 N. W. 636. In Massachusetts the prop- erty has generally been held taxable at the principal place of business ; Cloutman v. Concord, 163 Mass. 444, 40 N. E. 762; Barker v. Watertown, 137 Mass. 227; Farwell v. Hathaway, 151 Mass. 242, 23 N. E. 849. Under Ind. Rev. Stat. 1881, § 6293, held a vessel owned by partners is taxed where one partner resides in the state and no- where else. Cook v. Port Fulton, 106 Ind. 170, 6 N. E. 321. Compare Ever- sole V. Cook, 92 Ind. 222. Under Gen. Stat. Kans., § 1023; Griffith v. Carter, 8 Kans. 565, partnership prop- erty was taxable to the owner at his residence. 7*Duxbury v. Plytnouth County, § 307 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 366 in another state/" Thus it was held in Nebraska that the credits of a partnership engaged in a Hve stock commission and money loaning business which maintains one office in Nebraska shall be taxed in the county, township precinct, city and school dis- trict where the office is located, though the credits are payable in another state, the principal place of business is in Chicago and the partners are nonresidents.''® In New Jersey the interest of each resident partner is taxed at his residence, and nonresident partners are taxed where the property is situated/' § 307. Transfer of property from partnership to partner. — Generally speaking, the members of a partnership have the same rights as other owners of property to transfer the title thereto. Where a partnership is held not to be an^entity, a trans- fer of title to firm property must, of course, be made by all the partners or by one partner authorized to act for all. The au- thority of one partner to act for all will not be implied as to transfers of property not within the scope of the firm business, and not for firm purposes.'* The authority of one partner to sell firm property will be discussed later.'* The conveyance of land by partnerships has been treated.*" The limitation on the right of a partnership to transfer property is the limitation on the right of persons owning property and competent to contract, namely, that it shall not be done so as to defraud creditors.*^ 172 Mass. 383, 52 N. E. S3S ; Clay v. ^^ See § 444 infra. Douglas County, 88 Nebr. 363, 129 «° See §§ 269, 305 ante. ' N. W. 548, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 756 and si Blake v. Sargent (D. C), 152 note; Tide-Water Pipe Co. v. State Fed. 263; Arnold v. Hagerman, 45 Board, 57 N. J. L. 516, 31 Atl. 220, N. J. Eq. 186, 17 Atl. 93, 14 Am. St. 27 L. R. A. 684 ; In re McMahon, 66 712. See § 431 infra. Jones v. Lusk, How. Pr. (N. Y.) 190. 2 Mete. (Ky.) 356. The creditors-of ^5 St. John V. Mobile, 21 Ala. 224 ; a partnership have a certain claim Spinney v. Lynn, 172 Mass. 464, 53 N. against its assets which, ''resembles E. 523. the claim which the general creditors ^^ Clay V. Douglas County, 88 Nebr. of an individual have upon his prop- 363, 129 N. W. 548, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, erty. It is neither an estate nor a 756. Hen. It is, ordinarily, but a right by '''' Taylor v. Love, 43 N. J. L. 142. lawful procedure to acquire a lien ''^ See §§413, 444 infra. during the ownership of the debtor; 367 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 307 This section is concerned especially with the transfer of part- nership property to a partner, or the conversion of firm property into separate property. If there is nothing about the transaction which will hinder, delay or defraud firm creditors, partnership property maybe transferred upon consideration to one or more of the members of the firm and become the separate property of such member or members.*^ This transfer must be by the joint act of all partners/^ If there is a consideration, the transfer is usually held valid, even though the firm is insolvent, where there is no pro'of of bad faith, and an assumption of the firm debts by the partner to yet under certain circumstances tTiat lien may be acquired after the debt- or's ownership has ended. This re- sults from the provisions of the an- cient statute for the prevention of fraud and perjuries, by force of which, when a person has alienated his property with intent to hinder, de- lay or defraud his creditors, the rights of those creditors remain as if no" alienation had taken place, except against the claims of bona fide pur- chasers, for good consideration, with- out notice. Equity . applies this stat- ute to a partnership, its property and creditors, just as it would in case of an individual, and therefore, while generally it is true that a partnership may defeat the equity of its creditors by the alienation of its property and consequent extinguishment of the rights of its partners inter sese, yet, if the alienation be effected with in- tent to hinder, delay or defraud the firm creditors by defeating their equity, the claims of creditors will be unimpaired, and the property will be treated as partnership assets, unless it shall have passed into the hands of those whom the statute protects." Arnold v. Hagerman, 45 N. J. Eq. 186, 17 Atl. 93, 14 Am. St. 712, quoted in Gilmore Partnership, p. 178. s^Huiskamp v. Moline Wagon Co., 121 U. S. 310, 30 L. ed. 971, 7 Sup. Ct. 899; Warner v. Grafton Wood- working Co., 210 Fed. 12, 126 C. C. A. 592; Sargent v. Blake, 160 Fed. 57, 87 C. C. A. 213, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1040n ; West v. Chasten, 12 Fla. 315 ; Upson v. Arnold, 19 Ga. 190, 63 Am. Dec. 302 ; Frederick v. Cooper, 3 Iowa 171 ; Jones v. Lusk, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 356; Richards v. Manson, 101 Mass. 482; Meadowcraft v. Walsh, IS Mont. 544, 39 Pac. 914 ; Lindley v. Davis, 7 Mont. 206, 14 Pac. 717.; Crosby v. Nichols, 3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 450; McKinney v. Baker, 9 Ore. 74; Beckwith v. Manton, 12 R. I. 442; Hickerson v. McFaddin, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 258; Allen v. Thrall, 10 Vt. 255 ; Fisher v. Vaughan, 75 Wis. 609, 44 N. W. 831, 833; Hobbs Hardware Co. V. Kitchen, 17 Ont. 363; Bolton V. Puller, 1 B. & P. 539; 4 Rev. Rep. 723; Ex parte Walker, 4 De G., F. & J. 509, 45 Eng. Reprint 1281; Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. 119. 83 Smith V. Heineman, 118 Ala. 195, 24 So. 364, 72 Am. St. 150 ; Upson v. Arnold, 19 Ga. 190, 63 Am. Dec. 302; 307 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 368 whom the property is conveyed is a sufficient consideration.^* A voluntary transfer without consideration is invalid in case of in- solvency.^° Some courts hold the transfer voluntary, where the only consideration is the promise to pay firm debts.*" A written or formal contract is not essential to the transfer,^^ but a mere executory agreement accomplishes no transfer.*' Nor does the use of firm property by one partner to pay individual debts with- out the consent of the copartners.** Where one partner in con- sideration of the sale of a horse to him, agreed to pay the claims of a third person against the firm for keeping a horse, the interest of the partners in the horse was severed.®" And where one part- ner, on retiring from the firm, sold to his copartner his right in Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 Am. Rep. 683 ; Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. Jr. 119, 5 Rev. Rep. 237. 8* Huiskamp v. Moline Wagon Co., 121 U. S. 310, 30 L. ed. 971, 7 Sup. Ct. 899; Reynolds v. Johnson, 54 Ark. 449, 16 S. W. 124 ; Sickman v. Aber- nathy, 14 Colo. 174, 23 Pac. 447; Al- ■ len V. Center Valley Co., 21 Conn. 130, 54 Am. Dec. 333 ; Ellison v. Lucas, 87 Ga. 223, 13 S. E. 445, 27 Am. St. 242; Purple V. Farrington, 119 Ind. 164, 21 N. E. 543, 4 L. R. A. 535 ; Hapgood V. Cornwell, 48 111. 64, 95 Am. Dec. 516; Myers v. Tyson, 2 Kans. App. 464, 43 Pac. 91 ; Richards v. Manson, 101 Mass. 482; Werner v. Her, 54 Nebr. 576, 74 N. W. 833; Dimon v. Hazard, 32 N. Y. 65^ Sigler v. Knox County Bank, 8 Oliio St. 511; Gal- lagher's Appeal, 114' Pa. 353, 7 Atl. 237, 60 Am. Rep. 350; Carver Gin &c. Co. V. Bannon, 85 Tenn. 712, 4 S. W. 831, 4 Am. St. 803. ^^Teague v. Lindsey, 106 Ala. 266, 17 So. 538; Jackson Bank v. Durfey, 72 Miss. 971, 18 So. 456, 31 L. R. A. 470, 48 Am. St. 596 ; Bannister v. Miller, 54 N. J. Eq. 121, 32 Atl. 1066 (aflfd. 54 N. J. Eq. 701, 37 Atl. 1117) ; In re Kemptner. L. R. 8 Eq. 286, 21 L. T. 223, 17 W. R. 818. ss Conroy v. Woods, 13 Cal. 626, 73 Am. Dec. 605 ; Jackson Bank v. Dur- fey, 72 Miss. 971, 18 So. 456, 31 L. R. A. 470, 48 Am. St. 596; Bannister v. Miller, 54 N. J. Eq. 121, 32 Atl. 1066 (affd. 54 N. J. Eq. 701, 37 Atl. 1117) ; Arnold v. Hagerman, 45 N. J. Eq. 186, 17 Atl. 93, 14 Am. St. 712; Darby v. GiUigan, 33 W. Va. 246, 10 S. E. 400, 6 L. R. A. 740; Ex parte Mayoti, 4 De G., J. & S. 664. 8' In re Great Western Tel. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 5740, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 363; West v. Chasten, 12 Fla. 315; Frederick v. Cooper, 3 Iowa 171 ; Pilling V. Pilling, 3 De G., J. & S. 162, 46 Eng. Reprint 599. 88 Fitzgerald v. Christi, 20 N. J. Eq. 90; Koningsburg v. Launitz, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 215; Ex parte Wheeler, Buck 25. 8» Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 221, 9 L. ed. 1063; Brickett v. Downs, 163 Mass. 70, 39 N. E. 776. 90 Simpson v. Ritchie, 86 Atl. 124, 110 Maine 299. 369 CAPITAL AND PROPERTY § 307 the use of the firm name, and afterward the retiring partner re- entered the firm, under an agreement which said nothing about the firm name, it was held that name remained the right of the copartner.'^ 91 Marcus v. McFarland, 119 Md. 269, 86 Atl. 337. 24 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 CHAPTER XII GOOD WILL 315. In general — Defined. 316. Sale, of good will in absence of restrictive covenant. 317. Retiring partner soliciting old customers — English rule. 318. Soliciting old customers — American holdings. 319. Cases holding old customers may be solicited. 320. Agreements by partners not to compete. 321. Breach of contract by entering employ of another. 322. Sale of good will at involun- tary sale. 323. Personal skill not good will. SECTION 324. Taxation of good will-^Assess- ment in condemnation pro- ceedings. 325. Action on good will alone. 326. Rights of surviving partner in good will. 327. Receiverships to save good will. 328. Implied disposal of good will by sale of place of business. 329. Firm name as part of good will. 330. Partnership rights in trade se- cret. 331. Good will and professional partnerships. § 315. In general — Defined. — The good will of a partner- ship may be said in a general way to be the value of its business, over and above the value of its tangible assets, and which grows out of the firm name, trade worked up and publicity obtained. It is as much an asset of the firm, to the amount of its actual value to the business, as is its physical property, and, conse- quently, is the subject of sale and other contract, or of a right of action for a tort concerning it, as is any other property of the firm. Like any other form of good will, the good will of a part- nership depends very largely upon the continuance of the busi- ness, and a cessation of the business for any extended time will generally, in whole or in part, destroy the value of the good will. Good will has been variously defined. Some of the definitions are narrow; others are broad. The narrowest definition is that 370 371 GOOD WILL § 315 of Lord Eldon perhaps which defines good will as, "nothing more than the probability that the old customers will resort to the old . place."^ It has been broadly defined as, "All that good disposition which customers entertain toward the house of business, identi- fied by the particular name or firm and, which may induce them to continue giving their custom to it.'' And further it, "must mean every advantage * * * that has been acquired by the old firm in carrying on its business, whether connected with the premises in which the business was previously carried on, or with the name of the late firm, or with any other matter carrying with it the benefit of the business."^ Lord Eldon's definition is not exactly correct in that it limits good will to a place. The firm might move their place of business to a new location, without losing the good will, as customers might follow the firm, owing to friendship, trade relations or otherwise. It might perhaps be stated better by saying that the good will is the probability that old customers will continue to do business with the firm and that on account of the worked-up business and pleased customers, new customers will be attracted to the firm. Good will, being an asset of the firm, is subject to a partial ownership of every mem- ber thereof and is ascertained in the same manner as any other asset, by a settlement of the partnership. As stated in one case :^ "This rule applies to the interest of a partner in the profits' or good will of the partnership business as well as to the tangible assets of the firm." Leaseholds on the property where a partner- ship business is conducted have been held to be part of the good will.* The good will includes the general credit and reputation of the firm and is not the same thing as its trade-mairks ; so a con- ^ Cruttwell V. Lye, 17 Ves. Jr. 335, a review of the various definitions of 11 Rev. Rep. 98. See also Lufkin good will see People v. Roberts, 159 Rule Co. V. Fringeli, 57 Oliio St. 596, N. Y. 70, 53 N. E. 685, 45 L. R. A. 49 N. E. 1030, 41 L. R. A. 185, 63 126. Am. St. 736. ' * Sindelare v. Walker, 137 111. 43, 2 Churton v. Douglas, John. 174, 19 27 N. E. 59, 31 Am. St. 353. Eng. Rul. Cas. 666; Von Breman v. * Kaufmann v. Kaufmann, 239 Pa. MacMonnies, 200 N. Y. 41, 93 N. E. 42, 86 Atl. 634.' ^ 186, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 293. For § 316 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 372 tinuing partner was required to account for the good will, in ad- dition to the trade-marks, where the trade-marks had been valued and carried on the books as part of the firm assets/ Partners may provide in the partnership agreement for the disposal of the good will or firm name on dissolution, even so far as to deprive one partner of any rights therein at that time° or place a valua- tion on it to be paid by a surviving or continuing partner/ § 316. Sale of good will in absence of restrictive covenant. — The law recognizes in good will a thing of value which may be sold, regardless, however, of whatever definition of good will may be adopted. It is held, as a general rule, that in the case of a transfer thereof the assignor, in the absence of any express agreement to the contrary, may carry on a similar business in the same locality. A mere sale of good will, in the absence of any express restrictive covenant, does not import an agreement by the vendor not again to engage in a competing business.* But while 5 Brooklyn Trust Co. v. McCutchen, 189 Fed. 273. 6 Withers v. Mills, 153 N. Y. S. 1016. ^Kaufmann v. Kaufmann, 86 Atl. 634, 239 Pa. 42. 8 Cottrell V. Babcock &c. Mfg. Co., 54 Conn. 122, 6 Atl. 791; Porter v. Gorman, 65 Ga. 11 ; Ranft v. Reimers, 200 III. 386, 65 N. E. 720, 60 L. R. A. 291; Beard v. Dennis, 6 Ind. 200, 63 Am. Dec. 380; Findlay v. Carson, 97 Iowa 537, 66 N. W. 759; Drake v. Dodsworth, 4 Kans. 159; Bergamini V. Bastian, 35 La. Ann. 60, 48 Am. Rep. 216 ; Hoxie v. Chaney, 143 Mass. 592, 10 N. E. 713, 58 Am. Rep. 149; Bassett v. Percival, 5 Allen (Mass.) 345 ; Reber v. Pearson, 155 Mich. 593, 119 N. W. 897; Counts v. Medley, 163 Mo. App. 546, 146 S. W. 465 ; Wessell V. Havens, 91 Nebr. 426, 136 N. W. 70, Ann. Cas. 1913 C, 1377; Smith v. Gibbs, 44 N. H. 335; Snyder Pas- teurized Milk Co. V. Burton, 80 N. J. Eq. 185, 83 Atl. 907; Von Breman v. MacMonnies, 200 N. Y. 41, 93 N. E. 186, 32 L. R. A. (N.. S.) 293; Close V. Flesher, 8 Misc. 299, 59 N. Y. St. 283, 28 N. Y. S. 737; White v. Jones, 1 Robt. (N. Y.) 321 ; Snowden V. Noah, Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) 347, 14 Am. Dec. 547; Moody v. Thomas, 1 Disney (Ohio) 294, 12 Ohio Dec. 630; Rupp V. Over, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 133; White V. Trowbridge, 216 Pa. 11, 64 Atl. 862 ; In re Hall's Appeal, 60 Pa. St. 458, 100 Am. Dec. 584; Palmer v. Graham, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 476; Zanturjian v. Boornazian, 25 R. I. 151, 55 Atl. 199; Moreau v. Edwards, 2 Tenn. Ch. 347; Bradford v. Mont- gomery Furniture Co., US Tenn. 610, 92 S. W. 1104, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.)- 979; Fish Bros. Wagon Co. v. La Belle Wagon Works, 82 Wis. 546, 52 N. W. 595, 16 L. R. A. 453, 33 Am. St. 72; Churton v. Douglas, Johns. 174; 373 GOOD WILL § 317 there is no implied covenant not to engage in a competing busi- ness in the absence of a restrictive covenant to that effect, some courts do, nevertheless, afford the vendee a measure of protec- tion and hold that by a voluntary sale of such good will the ven- dor precludes himself from setting up a competing business which will derogate from the good will which he has sold.* § 317. Retiring partner soliciting old customers — English rule. — In 1896, Lord Macnaghton, in the English case" of Trego V. Hunt,^" very clearly stated the law where a person has sold the good will of his business or who has been taken into part- nership upon the terms that the good will shall belong solely to his partner, as to whether or not he is at liberty after the sale or the expiration of the partnership to solicit the old customers of the business. The question had been decided in the negative in 1872 by Lord Romilly, in the case of Labouchere v. Dawson,^^ while in 1884 the Court of Appeals decided the question in the affirma- tive in Pearson v. Pearson.^^ The case of Labouchere v. Dawson was overruled by a divided court, Lord Justices Cotton and Baggallay giving the majority opinion, while Lord Justice Lindley held with Lord Romilly' s decision. "Authorities," said Lord Macnaghton in his opinion in the Trego case, "which it is now too late to question, undoubt- edly show that a man who has sold the good will of his business may do much to regain his former position, and yet keep on the windy side of the law. The common law has always been jeal- ous of any interference with trade. * * * Courts of equity could not of course enforce, even in a modified form and within reasonable limits, an agreement, express or implied, which the Trego V. Hunt, L. R. (1896) A. C. 7; C. 7. See also Jennings v. Jennings Labouchere v. Dawson, L. R. 13 Eq. (1898), 1 Ch. 378; Leggott v. Barrett, 322; Jennings v. Jennings (1898), 1- L. R. IS Ch. Div. 306; Ginesi v. Ch. 378; Gillingham v. Beddow, L. R. Cooper, L. R. 14 Ch. Div. 596; Mog- (1900), 2 Ch. 242. ford v. Courtenayi 45 L. T. 303. 8 Old Corner Book Store v. Upham, ^^ Labouchere v. Dawson, L. R. 13 194 Mass. 101, 80 N. E. 228, 120 Am. Eq. 322. St. 532. 12L. R.27Ch. D. 145. 10 Trego v. Hunt, L. R. (1896) A. § 317 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 374 law would have held void on the ground of public policy; nor could they treat the nonobservance of such an agreement, as fraudulent or inequitable. And so it has resulted that a person who sells the good will of his business is under no obligation to retire from the field. Trade he undoubtedly may and in the very same line of business if he has not bound himself by special stipuktion and if there is no evidence of the understanding of the parties beyond that which is to be found in all cases, he is free to carry on business wherever he chooses. But then, how far may he go? He may do everything that a stranger to the business, in ordinary course, would be in a position to do. He may thus interfere with the custom of his neighbor, as a stranger and an outsider might do ; but he must not, I think, avail himself of his special knowledge of the customers to regain, without con- sideration, that which he has parted with for value. He must not make his approaches from the vantage ground of his former position, moving under cover of a connection which is no longer his. He may not sell the custom and steal away the customers in that fashion. That, at all events, is opposed to the common un- derstanding of mankind and the rudiments of commercial moral- ity, and is not, I think, to be excused by any maxim of public policy. * * * It is said that you can not draw the line ; but I think that the line may be drawn at this point. * * * There is an implied covenant, on the sale of good will, that the vendor does not solicit the custom which he has parted with." The above quotation is a clear presentation of the" various ele- ments in the principle, and in brief, places the distinction be- tween what a partner or other person, disposing of good will in a business may or may not do, upon a broad moral as well as legal plane, allowing him, in the absence of actual agreement, to compete, with the old business, but as an entire stranger to the in- side affairs of the old business and not using the knowledge which goes to make up good will and which came from his, for- mer connection with the old business as a lever with which to build up his new business. The case of Trego v. Hunt may be considered to have settled the English rule. It has also been held 375 GOOD WILL § 318 that a retiring partner engaged in a competing business is not prohibited from dealing with those customers of the old firm who voluntarily and without solicitation choose to deal with him/' § 318. Soliciting old customers — American holdings. — In several American jurisdictions it is held in accordance with the latest English rule that the former owner, by his voluntary act of sale, has prohibited himself from competing with the pur- chaser of the good will to the extent of having impliedly agreed that he will not solicit trade from the customers of the old busi- ness and he will be enjoined from so doing,^*and thus, a copart- ner who sells his interest in the firm business, together with the good will, may not solicit trade from the customers of the old lirm,^^ as where two dentists dissolve partnership, one purchasing the business and good will from the other. The vendor may not 13 Leggott V. Barrett, L. R. 15 Ch. Div. 306. Compare, however, with Curl Bros. v. Webster (1904), 1 Ch. 685, which holds that the customers of the old firm can not be solicited who had voluntarily and before so- licitation become customers of the new firm. 1* Ranft V. Reimers, 200 111. 386, 65 N. E. 720, 60 L. R. A. 291 ; Myers v. Kalamazoo Buggy Co., 54 Mich. 215, 19 N. W. 961, 20 N. W. 545, 52 Am. Rep. 811. And see Wentzel v. Barbin, 189 Pa. St. 502, 42 Atl. 44; Zantur- jian V. Boornazian, 25 R. I. 151, 55 Atl. 199. "A man may not derogate from his own grant; the vendor is not at liberty to destroy or depreciate the thing which he has sold ; . there is an implied covenant, on the sale of good will, that the vendor does not solicit the custom which he has parted with: it would be a fraud on the contract to do so. These, as it seems to me, are only different turns and glimpses of a proposition which I take to be elementary. It is not right to profess and purport to sell that which you do not mean the pur- chaser to have; it is not an honest thing to pocket the price and then to recapture the subject of sale, to decoy it away or call it back before the pur- chaser has had time to attach it to himself and make it his very own.'' Trego V. Hunt (1896), A. C. 7, 65 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 1, 12 Eng. Rul. Cas. 442, quoted in Von Bremen v. Mac- Monnies, 200 N. Y. 41, 93 N. E. 186, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 293, 21 Ann. Cas. 423. 15 Burckhardt v. Burckhardt, 36 Ohio St. 261. But compare with this case Brass &c. Co. v. Payne, 50 Ohio St. 115, 33 N. E. 88, 19 L. R. A. 82 ; Gordon v. Knott, 199 Mass. 173, 85 N. E. 184, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 762n; Althen v. Vreeland (N. J.), 36 Atl. 479; Newark Coal Co. v. Spangler, 54 N. J. Eq. 354, 34 Atl. 932; Von Breman v. MacMonnies, 200 N. Y. 41, 93 N. E. 186, 32 L. R. A. -(N. S.) § 319 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 376 solicit the customers of the old firm or act so as to destroy the business he has sold/" And one who sells a grocery and cigar business, together with the good will thereof, will be enjoined from soliciting customers of the old firm, who were such at the time of the sale, to trade with the competing firm subsequently organized by him.^^ Even though the retiring partner reserves the right to engage in a competing business, it has been held that he can not personally or otherwise apply to customers of the old business and request them to deal with him in preference to the old firm.^^ § 319. Cases holding old customers may be solicited. — But the American cases are unsettled, as to the rights of the vendor to personally solicit old customers. In a strong Michigan case in favor of the principle of allowing personal solicitation it was said :^® "The doctrine that a retiring partner, who has con- veyed his interest in an established business, whether the good will be included or not, can not personally solicit the customers of the old firm, has no support in principle. A retiring partner conveys, in addition to his interest in the tangible effects, simply the advantages that an established business possesses over a new enterprise. * * * jjg (^^-j^^ retiring partner) does not agree 293, 21 Ann. Cas. 423; refusing to is Biirkhardt v. Burkhardt, 5 Ohio follow Marcus Ward & Co. v. Ward, Dec. 185. To same effect Gillingham 61 Hun 625, IS N. Y. S. 913, 40 N. v. Beddow, L. R. (1900), 2 Ch. 242. Y. St. 792; Kates v. Bok, 141 App. "Williams v. Farrand, 88 Mich. Div. 925, 126 N. Y. S. 606. 473, SO N. W. 446, 14 L. R. A. 161. 16 Foss V. Roby, 195 Mass. 292, 81 In this case the contract included N. E. 199, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1200, good will. The court took as its prin- 11 Ann. Cas. 571. cipal authority the case of Pearson v. 17 Acker, Merrall &c. Co. v. Mc- Pearson, L. R. 27 Ch. Div. 145, which Gaw, 144 Fed. 864. The court said: overruled Labouchere v. Dawson. L. "It would be a reproach to the law R. 13 Eq. 322, which was in turn dis- if no adequate remedy could be af- approved by the case of Trego v. forded for the protection of a prop- Hunt, 1896, A. C. 7, 12 Eng. Rul. erty so valuable as such a good will Cas. 442, and which restored the doc- against the attack of the vendor who trine of Labouchere v. Dawson. The had sold it, and who afterward at- Michigan court rendered its decision tempts to regain it to the damage of subsequent to the Pearson case but his vendee." prior to the Trego case. 377 GOOD will; § 319 that the benefit derived from his connection with that business shall continue. He does not agree that the old business shall continue to have the benefit of his name, reputation or service. * * * He does not pledge a continuance of conditions. * * * He sells only so much of the custom as will continue in spite of his retirement and activity. * * * The right to enter into the same line of business in the same locality, — next door, if you please, — to advertise his former connection with the old business, and to solicit generally the patronage of the public, is conceded by the clear weight of authority. * * * The right to engage in business in his own name attaches to the retiring partner and unless expressly so agreed, there is no re- straint upon that right." In a Connecticut case holding that a re- tiring partner may solicit the patrons of the old firm when he does not hold himself out as the successor of the business sold,^° "Cottrell," said the court, "did not require Babcock to agree, and the latter did not agree, to abstain from the manufacturing of printing presses. By purchasing the good will merely, Cottrell secured the right to conduct the old business at the old stand, with the probability in his favor that old customers would con- tinue to go there. H he desired more he should have secured it by positive agreement. The express agreement is the measure of his right; and since that conveys a good will in terms, but says no more, the court will not upon inference deny to the vendor the possibility of successful competition by all lawful means with the vendee in the same business. No restraint upon trade may rest upon inference. * * * (Some) courts have been of the opinion * * * that to deny the vendor personal access to old customers even would put him at such disadvantage in com- petition as to endanger his success; that they ought not upon 20 Cottrell V. Babcock Printing 453, 33 Am. St. 72; Vonderbank Press Mfg. Co., 54 Conn. 122, 6 Atl. v. Schmidt, 44 La. Ann. 264, 10 So. 791; Williams v. Farrand, 88 Mich. 616, IS L. R. A. 462, 32 Am. St. 336; An, SO N. W. 446, 14 L. R. A. 161. Close v. Flesher, 8 Misc. 299, 28 See also Fish Bros. Wagon Co. v. N. Y. S., 737, 59 N. Y. St. 283 ; Moore LaBelle Wagon Works, 82 Wis. v. Rawson, 199 Mass. 493, 85 N. E. S46, S2 N. W. S9S, 16 L. R. A. 586. § 320 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 378 inference to bar him from trade, either totally or partially, and that all restraint of that nature must come from positive agree- ment and such, we think, is the present tendency of the law." The following detailed propositions are considered established by the weight of authority: "1. Though a retiring partner may have assigned his interest in the partnership business, including the good will thereof, to his copartner, he may, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, engage in the same line of business in the same locality, and in his own name. 2. He may, by newspaper advertisements, cards and general circulars, invite the general public to trade with him and through the same me- diums advertise his long connection with the old business and his retirement therefrom. 3. He will not be allowed however to use his own name, or to advertise his business, in such a way as to lead the public to suppose that he is continuing the old busi- ness; hence will not be allowed to advertise himself as its suc- cessor. 4. The purchaser will not, in the absence of an, express agreement, be allowed to continue the business in the name of the old firm. 5. That no man has a right to sell or advertise his own business or goods as those of another and so mislead the public, and injure such other person."^^ § 320. Agreements by partners not to compete. — From a comparison of the above cases with the general law upon the sub- ject, it will be seen that very generally the American cases cited in preceding sections were cases where there is no stipula- tion as to non-competition, and where there is such a contract, that under proper conditions it will be enforced, not as a mat- ter of good will of itself, but simply as a matter of contract. It must be remembered, however, that such a restriction, even when provided for in the contract, is in the nature of restraint upon trade, upon which the law frowns, and it must be a reasonable restriction in order to be valid. It might be unlimited as to time in a limited and reasonable locality, or it might be unlimited as to place for a limited and reasonable period of time, but to 21 Williams v. Farrand, 88 Mich. 473, SO N. W. 446, 14 L. R. A. 161. 379 GOOD WILL § 320 attempt to make the restriction upon the withdrawing partner unlimited as to both time and place would be against public policy, and void.^^ Copartners who sell their interest in the partnership business at the same time agreeing not to again engage in that line of business are bound by such contract, if, under all the circumstances, it is reasonable.^^ A partner who sells his interest in the firm business may contract not to start a competitive business nor to work for a competitor.^* While a partner, as agent of his copartners, might sell the good will of the firm so as to bind the firm, it is not true that he may bind 22 Maier v. Homan, 4 Daly (N. Y.) 168; Chappel v. Brockway, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 1S7; Dunlop v. Gregory, 10 N. Y. 241, 61 Am. Dec. 746. 23Hursen v. Gavin, 59 III. App. 66 (affd. 162 111. Zn, 44 N. E. 73S) ; Hubbard v. Miller, 27 Mich. IS, 15 Am. Rep. 153 ; American Ice Co. v, Meckel, 109 App. Div. (N. Y.) 93, 95 N. Y. S. 1060; Curtis v. Gokey, 68 N. Y. 300; Thomas v. Miles, 3 Ohio St. 274; Lange v. Werk, 2 Ohio St. 519. "It is thoroughly ,settled that the good will of business concerns is, though intangible, a species of prop- erty transferable from hand to hand as other property." Southworth v. Davison, 106 Minn. 119, 118 N. W. ZdT,, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 769n. 2*Hursen v. Gavin, 59 III. App. (^ (affd. 162 111. m, 44 N. E. 735) ; O'Neal V. Hines, 145 Ind. 32, 43 N. E. 946 ; Western Dist. Warehouse Co. V. Hobson, 96 Ky. 550, 29 S. W. 308, 16 Ky. L. 869 (all members of the firm agreeing not to re-engage in business for ten years) ; Moorman v. Parkerson, 127 La. 835, 54 So. 47 (sale of interest in insurance busi- ness) ; Angier v. Webber, 14 Allen (Mass.) 211, 92 Am. Dec. 748; Bou- telle V. Smith, 116 Mass. Ill (bind- ing on both members of the firm) ; Ropes V. Upton, 125 Mass. 258 ; Curtis V. Gokey, 68 N. Y. 300; Wooten v. Harris, 153 N. Car. 43, 68 S. E. 898; Siegel v. Marcus, 18 N. Dak. 214, 119 N. W. 358, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 769n ; Lange v. Werk, 2 Ohio St. 519; Thomas v. Miles, 3 Ohio St. 274. A contract by a retiring partner not to engage in the same business, although containing no specific limitation as to territory or time, has, taking into con- sideration the circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the business, and the situation, objects and interests of the parties, been con- strued as applying to the entire United States, but not, to other parts of the world, and has been upheld to that extent. Frame v. Ferrell, 166 Fed. 702, 92 C. C. A. 374. See, however. Grand Union Tea Co. v. Lewitsky, 153 Mich. 244, 116 N. W. 1090; to the contrary, decided under a statute pro- viding, "All agreements and con- tracts by which any person, copart- nership or corporation promises or agrees not to engage in any avo- cation, employment, pursuit, trade, profession or business, whether rea- sonable or unreasonable, partial or general, limited or unlimited, are hereby declared to be against public policy and illegal and void." § 321 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 380 his copartners not to engage in the same line of business.^* A person, agreeing in general terms not to carry on business in a certain line, is not thereby precluded from acting as agent for another in the same business,^' even though he allow his name to be used as a partner by the firm for whom he is working, ifr in fact, he has no interest therein,^' and he may further loan money to a competitor of his vendee, upon a mortgage upon the trade premises of the competitor,^^ and the same rule ap- plies where he leases the premises to a competitor. ^^ However, if he agrees not to do any act interfering with the business of his vendee, he can not act even as the agent of a competing firm/" § 321. Breach of contract by entering employ of another. — It has already been mentioned that a retiring partner who sells his interest in a given business together with good will and without any restriction on his right to engage in a competing business may as a general rule establish a new and competing business ; but that he can not represent himself as a successor of the old firm or solicit its customers but that he may deal with them if they come to him voluntarily.^^ One who enters the employment of another may thereby breach a covenant not to engage in a rival business, as where on the dissolution of a part- nership the retiring partner engages not to conduct the same business heretofore conducted by them in the same city, or with any partner, partner's firm, company, or corporation for a period of two years, it was held that such retiring partner violated his agreement by entering into the employment of another who has engaged in a competing business and practically acting as agent and manager in the conduct thereof. ^^ 23 Moreau v. Edwards, 2 Tenn. Ch. si See ante, § 317 et seq. 347. ' 32 Siegel v. Marcus, 18 N. Dak. 214, 28 Bowers v. Whittle, 63 N. H. 147, 119 N. W. 3S8, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 56 Am. Rep. 499. 769n. For other cases to the same 27 Greenebaum v. Gage, 61 III. 46. effect, see Jefferson v. Markert, 112 28 Bird V. Lake, 1 H. & M. 338. Ga. 498, 37 S. E. 758 (employment 29 Bradford v. Peckham, 9 R. I. but a pretext to cover violation of the 250. agreement) ; Merica v. Burget, 36 30 Boutelle v. Smith, 116 Mass. 111. Ind. App. 453, 75 N. E. 1083 (held 381 GOOD WILL § 322 § 322. Sale of good will at involuntary sale. — The fore- going principles apply only in the case of voluntary sales. The good will which the owners thereof part with under a species of compulsion, as in bankruptcy proceedings or by operation of law, as in the liquidation of a partnership by the lapse of time or its termination by the death of one of the parties or pur- suant to the articles of the corporation, is a lesser property than the good will which is subject to the voluntary sale and transfer by the owner for a valuable consideration. In sales of the first class, the former owner remains under no legal obligation re- stricting competition on his part in the slightest degree.^^ Thus a bankrupt after discharge may set up a rival business^* and may solicit patronage from the customers of the old business.®^ A sale of good will forced upon the surviving partner by the death that vendor violated his agreement by taking stock in and becoming assist- ant cashier of a new bank) ; Pohl- man v. Dawson, 63 Kans. 471, 65 Pac. 689, 54 L. R. A. 913, 88 Am. St. 249 (barber who had sold out under a contract not to engage in the barber business in any way violating his agreement by becoming an employe of a rival shop) ; Meyer v. Labau, 51 La. Ann. 1726, 26 So. 463 (agree- ment not to engage in mercantile business violated by taking part in conducting a rival business although he had no interest as owner) ; Em- ery V. Bradley, 88 Maine 357, 34 Atl. 167 (the promisor carrying on or acting as clerk or agent). See also Anderson v. Ross, 14 Ont. L. Rep. 683; Boutelle v. Smith, 116 Mass. Ill; Geiger v. Cawley, 146 Mich. 550, 109 N. W. 1064; Finger v. Hahn, 42 N. J. Eq. 606, 8 Atl. 654 (affd. 44 N. J. Eq. 604, 17 Atl. 1104) ; Corwin v. Hawkins, 42 App. Div. (N. Y.) 571, 59 N. Y. S. 603 ; American Ice Co. v. Meckel, 109 App. Div. (N. Y.) 93, 95 N. Y. S. 1060 ; Peterson v. Schmidt, 13 Ohio C. C. 205, 7 Ohio C. D. 202. ^3 Von Breman v. MacMonnies, 200 N. Y. 41, 93 N. E. 186, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 293. See Slack v. Suddoth, 102 Tenn. 375, 52 S. W. 180, 45 L. R. A. 589, IZ Am. St. 881. 54 Walker v. Mottran, L. R. 19, Ch. Div. 335; Hudson v. Osborne, 21 L. T. 386; Crutwell v. Lye, 17 Ves. Jr. 335. See also Vinall v. Hendricks, ZZ Ind. App. 413, 71 N. E. 682. 55 Walker v. Mottram, L. R. 19, Ch. Div. 355 ; Cruttwell v. Lye, 17 Ves. Jr. 335. He can not so conduct a busi- ness, however, as to lead the public to believe that the business set up by him is the same or is a continuation of that which was formerly carried on by him. Hudson v. Osborne, 21 L. T. 386. See also Lawrence v. Times Printing Co., 90 Fed. 24, which holds that one who has acquired a paper and printing plant under fore- closure proceedings may enjoin the mortgagor from publishing a news- paper as the successor of one sold un- der the mortgage. § 323 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 382 of the other member of the firm does not prevent such surviving partner from setting up a competing business and soliciting cus- tomers of the old firm.^' § 323. Personal skill not good will. — By its very nature the personal skill of one partner can not be considered as consti- tuting any part of the good, will, as such, of the firm, which may be sold to pay its debts," although it may, perhaps, be the chief asset of the firm as a producer of income. This is because a partner may at any time withdraw from the firm, yet, as he makes himself liable in damages for such withdrawal unless he can show proper cause for such withdrawal, this personal skill of one partner may, indirectly, in this manner, be of great value to the other partners and creditors. § 324. Taxation of good will — Assessment in condemna- tion proceedings. — ^The value of good will will not .be added to. the value of shares of stock for the purposes of taxation,^* and as a general rule good will is not such a kind of property as can be considered for purposes of taxation. But in one Eng- lish case good will was valued and made liable to internal rev- enue.^^ In actions for damages in condemnation proceedings, destruction of the good will of a business in the /property is not a proper matter for consideration in arriving at the amount of damages.*" § 325. Action on good will alone. — It is not necessary for the good will to be coupled with any tangible property in order to become subject to sale, or upon which to base an action," and the good will, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, may 36 Hutchison v. Nay, 187 Mass. 262, ss Potter v. Inland Revenue, 10 72 N. E. 974, 68 L. R. A. 186, 105 Am. Exch. 147, 18 Jur. 778, 23 L. J. Exch. St. 390. 345. 37McCall V. Moschowitz, 14 Daly *<> Chicago v. Garrity, 7 111. App. (N. Y.) 16, 10 Civ. Proc. 107, 1 N. Y. 474. St. 99. *i Wallingford v. Burr, 17 Nebr. 38 Spring Valley Works v. Schot- 137, 22 N. W. 350. tier, 62 Cal. 69 (affd. 110 U. S. 347, 28 L. ed. 173, 4 Sup. Ct 48). 383 GOOD WILL § 326 afterward prove to be of little or no value, without afifecting the legality of the transaction.** § 326. Rights of surviving partner in good will. — Upon dissolution of the firm, the ^ood will, in the absence of a con- tract to the contrary, is an asset which any of the partners may use to the extent, at least, of using the inside information ac- quired while in the old firm, in competing for the old customers. However, as the good will of the firm is an asset, if one of the partners in settling up the affairs of the firm, obtains anything of value by reason of the sale of the good will, he must account to the other partner or partners therefor.*^ It has been repeat- edly held by the courts that a surviving partner may not claim, by survivorship, the good will of the firm, but must account to the estate of the deceased partner for returns obtained therefrom by him, a share in the good will being an asset of the estate** although the contrary rule, in earlier times, prevailed, holding that the good will became the property of the surviving partner upon the death of one member of the firm.*^ Another line of cases has held that the surviving partner has still the right of carrying on, at the old place, the same line of business,*^ although 42Cruess v. Fessler, 39 Cal. 336. Ohio St. 22; Holden v. McMakin, 1 See Smock v. Pierson, 68 Ind. 405, 34 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 270; Tennant v. Am. Rep. 269. Dunlop, 97 Va. 234, 33 S. E. 620; *3 Dyer v. Shove, 20 R. I. 259, 38 Rowell v. Rowell, 122 Wis. 1, 99 N. Atl. 498. See Rice V. Angell, 73 Tex. W. 473 ; Wedderburn v. Wedderburn, 350, 11 S. W. 338, 3 L. R. A. 769. 22 Beav. ,84; In re David, L. R. ** Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Mc- (1899), 1 Ch. 378; Beatty v. Dick- C'Jtchen, 215 Fed. 952 ; Joseph v. son, 3 Ont. W. R. 2. Compare Shear- Herzig, 198 N. Y. 456, 92 N. E. 103 ; man v. Cameron, 16 N. J. Eq. 426, 74 Matter of Welch, 17 Misc. (N. Y.) Atl. 979; Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Mc- 427, 137 N. Y. S. 941 ; Matter of Silk- Cutchen, 215 Fed. 952 ; Inman v. Ink- man, 121 App. Div. 202, 105 N. Y. S. ster, 90 Nebr. 704, 134 N. W. 265 ; 872 (affd. 190 N. Y. 560, 83 N. E. In re Welch, 137 N. Y. S. 941, 11 1131); Slater v. Slater, 175 N. Y, Misc. (N.Y.) 427. 143, 67 N. E. 224, 61 L. R. A. 796, 96 *= Mason v. Dawson, 15 Misc. (N. Am. St. 60S ; Williams v. Wilson, 4 Y.) 595, 37 N. Y. S. 90, 72 N. Y. St. Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 379; Dougherty 123; Hammond v. Douglas, 5 Ves. V. Van Nostrand, 1 Hoffm. Ch. (N. 539; Lewis v. Langdon, 7 Sim. 421. Y.) 68; Rammelsberg v. Mitchell, 29 . *6 Hutchinson v. Nay, 187 Mass. § 327 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 384 even this rule is not universal.*^ Although the cases are not entirely uniform upon the question of the rights of the surviv- ing partner to the good will of the firm business, Mr. Lindley*' draws a line of distinction between the two ideas. "While a surviving partner," said he, "acquires all the benefit of the good will, he does not do so by virtue of his survivorship. If he did, he might sell the good will for his own benefit, and this he can not do." This distinction is undoubtedly partially correct, from a certain angle, particularly under the English law of earlier periods, but under late American decisions, a somewhat un- satisfactory distinction must be given in order to reconcile the cases, and a rule thus stated, that the good will, strictly speak- ing, does not go to the surviving partner, but that rights analo- -.gous to good will, many of which may even be retained by a person selling the good will, do go to the surviving partner, such as continuing in business, soliciting former customers, etc. This distinction is not wholly logical Or satisfactory, but in its defense it may be submitted that the reported cases are open to the same criticism, and we must either take a distinction some- what vague, or else admit that the decisions are conflicting, which is not really so, taking therii as a whole. § 327. Receiverships to save good will. — A great part of the good will of a business accrues from the continuous opera- tion of the business, and often the greater part of the value of the good will is lost if the business of the firm ceases operation for a few weeks or months. Hence it is often necessary in closing the business of a partnership to have a receiver ap- pointed to carry on the business until it can be sold as a running business.*' The good will may be sold, at receiver's sale or 262, 72 N. E. 974, 68 L. R. A. 186, 105 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 228; Staats v. How- Am. St. 390; Witbeck v. Chittenden, lett, 4 Den. (N. Y.) SS9; Smith v. SO Mich. 426, IS N. W. S37; Scudder Everett, 27 Beav. 446. V. Ames, 142 Mo. 187, 43 S. W. *7 penn v. BoUes, 7 Abb. Pr. (N. 6S9; Lobeck v. Lee-Clarke- Andreesen Y.) 202. Hardware Co., Z1 Nebr. 1S8, SS N. «8 Lindley Partnership, p. 861. W. 650, 23 L. R. A. 79S ; Fisk V. Fisk, *» Levi v. Karrick,' 8 Iowa 150; n App. Div, 83, 79 N. Y. S. 37, 12 Jackson v. De Forest, 14 How. Pr. 385 GOOD WILL § 328 otherwise, separate and apart from the other assets of the firm, and there is no rule of law disqualifying partners from bidding upon the good will at public auction.'^* § 328. Implied disposal of good will by sale of place of business. — It has been said that the conveyance of the place of business of a firm ordinarily carries with it the good will of the business as an incident thereto,^^ and the rule has been car- ried so far that in one case^^ the rule is adopted that a mortgagee of a house, in possession thereof, need not account in bankruptcy or to the mortgagor for the good will of a business therein, as the court held that the good will of a business passed with the mortgage of the house. Under the rule of Lord Eldon, quoted above, the above cases would have been absolutely correct, as the good will would thereunder have been the probability that the old customers would return to the old place, yet, as has been shown. Lord Eldon's rule is too narrow, and there are other elements which now enter into good will which could, by no possi- bility, be connected with the location, hence the modern law does not seem to be in accordance with the cases last above quoted. If a partner disposes of all his interest in the firm to his copartner without any mention of the good will or trade- marks, such disposal nevertheless carries with it, by implication, according to some cases, the exclusive right to the trademarks,^^ (N. Y.) 81; Marten v. Van Schaick, 52 Ex parte Punnet, L. R. 16 Ch. 4 Paige (N. Y.) 479; Williams v. Div. 226. Contra: Santa Fe Electric Wilson, 4 Sand. Ch. (N. Y.) 379. Co. v. Hitchcock, 9 N. Mex. 156, 50 =0 Cook V. Collingridge, Jac. 607. Pac. 332. The lease of a business 81 Didlake v. Roden Grocery Co., carries the good will though not men- 160 Ala. 484, 49 So. 384, 22 L. R. A. tioned ; Lane v. Smythe, 46 N. J. Eq. (N. S.) 907, 18 Ann. Cas. 430 and 443, 19 Atl. 199; Mitchell v. Read, 19 note; Acme Harvester Co. v. Craver, Hun (N. Y.) 418 (affd. 84 N. Y. 110 III. App. 413 (affd. 209 111. 483, 70 556). N. E. 1047) ; Williams v. Farrand, 88 ^^ Durham Smoking Tobacco Case, Mich. 473, 50 N. W. 446, 14 L. R. A. Fed. Cas. No. 1475, 3 Hughes (U. S.) 161 ; Boon v. Moss, 70 N. Y. 465 ; 151 ; Hoxie v. Chaney, 143 Mass. 592, Fite V. Dorman (Tenn.), 57 S. W. 10 N. E. 713, 58 Am. Rep. 149; Glen 129; Chissum v. Dewes, 5 Russ. 29. &c. Mfg. Co. v. Hall, 61 N. Y. 226, See also Tomah Bank v. Warren, 94 19 Am. Rep. 278. Wis. 151, 68 N. W. 549. 25 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 §■ 329 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 386 and the good will.^* So where a partner retires from a firm, assenting or acquiescing to the use of the old place of business by the remaining partners and their use of the firm name, the good will remains with continuing partners as a mat- ter of course.°° As to the trade-marks, however, there are con- flicting decisions, some of which hold contrary to those given above.^^ In view of the conflicting opinions and decisions upon the subject of trade-marks, they should always be specified par- ticularly in the contract of sale, either as going with the other assets, or being retained. It is also well to specifically mention the good will, whether sold or retained. Under a general assign- ment of all of a firm's property for benefit of creditors it is held that the good will of the business passes to the purchaser at an assignee's sale^' and the right to use the trade-marks.^^ But where the business is of such a character that good will is not necessarily connected with the establishment, and there is no mention of good will in the contract for sale, it does not pass.^^ Where the business is divided and on dissolution each partner takes one of the offices of the firm in different cities, the one taking the branch office is not liable to account to the receiver of the firm for good will.*" § 329. Firm name as part of good will. — There are some cases holding that a sale of the good will of a partnership in- " Kellogg V. Totten, 16 Abb. Pr. W. S9S, 16 L. R. A. 453, 33 Am. St 72. (N. Y.) 35; Brass &c. Iron Works ^sjiegeman v. Hegeman, 8 Daly Co. V. Payne, SO Ohio St. 115, 33 N. (N. Y.) 1; Fish Bros. Wagon Co. v. E. 88, 19 L. R. A. 82 ; Gage v. Canada La Belle Wagon Works, 82 Wis. 546, Pub. Co., 11 Ont. App. 402. 52 N. W. 595, 16 L. R. A. 453, 33 B5 Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. 514, Am. St. 72. 32 L. ed. 526, 9 Sup. Ct. 143. =9 McMartin v. Stevens, 37 Wash. 58 Young V. Jones, Fed. Cas. No. 616, 79 Pac. 1099. See also Hebert v. 18159, 3 Hughes (U. S.) 274; Hazard Dupaty, 42 La. Ann. 343, 7 So. 580; V.' Caswell, 93 N. Y. 259, 45 Am. Rep. Costello v. Eddy, 58 Hun (N. Y.) 605, 198. ~ 34 N. Y. St. 565, 12 N. Y. S. 236 57 Iowa Seed Co. v. Dorr, 70 Iowa (affd. 128 N. Y. 650, 29 N. E. 146). 481, 30 N. W. 866, 59 Am. Rep. 446; eo gomers v. Harris, 161 App. Div. Fish Bros. Wagon Co. v. LaBelle 230, 146 N. Y. S. 572. Wagon Works, 82 Wis. 546, 52 N. 387 GOOD WILL § 329 eludes the right to use the firm name,*^ especially where one partner purchases and succeeds to the btisiness.*^ The firm name is usually a, part of the good will and yet there are some cases where it will not be so considered. For example, an outside pur- chaser of the property at dissolution sale has no right to use the old firm name, or represent himself as its successor."^ If one partner purchases the interest of his copartner he can not use the name of the retiring partner in the absence of express con- tract thereto, in such a manner as to mislead the public into a belief that the retiring partner is still connected with the firm/* If there is an express contract the purchasing partner acquires the sole right to use the firm name.^^ Although a firm may, with the consent of a person not a member thereof, use his name in its title, and may under certain conditions acquire an exclusive right thereto, it can not, nevertheless, pass on such right to a person to whom it may sell,*° and the same rule pre- vails where a retiring partner assigns to the continuing part- ner his interest in the old firm name, and the continuing partner 61 Rogers v. Taintor, 97 Mass. 291 ; N. C. 339, 25 N. Y. St. 421 ; Mc- Slater v. Slater, 175 N. Y. 143, 61 N. Gowan Bros. Pump. &c. Co. v. Mc- E. 224, 61 L. R. A. 796, 96 Am. St. Gowan, 22 Ohio St. 370. 605; Churton v. Douglas, Johns. 174 ss Marcus v. McFarland, 119 Md. 5 Jur. N. S. 887; Levy v. Walker, L. 269, 86 Atl. 337. See also Wright R. 10 Ch. Div. 436; Banks v. Gibson, Restaurant Co v. Seattle Restaurant 34 Beav. 566; Caswell v. Hazard, 50 Co., €1 Wash. 690, 122 Pac. 348. Hun (N. Y.) 230, 2 N. Y. S. 783, 19 asHorton Mfg. Co. v. Horton Mfg. N. Y. St. 727 (affd. 121 N. Y. 484, 24 Co., 18 Fed. 816. But compare Mar- N. E. 707, 18 Am. St. 833) ; Morgan cus v. McFarland, 119 Md. 269, 86 V. Schuyler, 79 N. Y. 490, 35 Am. Atl. ZZT, holding that where a father Rep. 543. and son formed a partnership under 62 Steinfeld v. National Shirt Waist the firm name of the father's name, Co., -99 App. Div. 286, 90 N. Y. S. followed by the words "and son," and 964; Brass & Iron Works Co. v. the firm name continued, though the Payne, 50 Ohio St. 115, ZZ N; E. 88, father retired, and the membership 19 L. R. A. 82. See Rankin v. New- of the firm changed, the firm name man, 114 Cal. 635, 46 Pac. 742, 34 L. was a fictitious one, and when the R. A. 265. son retired from the firm and sold to "^ Reeves v. Denicke, 12 Abb. Pr. his copartner the right to use the firm (N. S.) (N. Y.) 92. name this gave to the copartner the 6* Blumenthal v. Strauss, 53 Hun right to use the firm name in his busi- (N. Y.) 501, 6 N. Y. S. 393, 23 Abb. ness as against the son. § 330 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 388 then attempts to take in a new partner and continue the busi- ness under the old name.*"^ It must not be thought, however, that the continuing partner who buys out the business is thus prohibited from advertising himself as the successor of the old firm, or late of the old firm,*^ or even from using the old firm name, provided, of course, it is not so used as to deceive the public into believing the retiring partner is still a member of the firm.*' In New York the rule seems to be that upon the death of a member the right to use the firm name is not part of the good will, but remains in the survivors/" If one partner dies, and the surviving partner continues the business, he may- use the name of the surviving partner in the business, as the deceased partner's estate would not become liable thereby,^^ but ordinarily the business so carried on, in the absence of agree- ment to the contrary, will be subject to the claims of decedent's estate for their interest therein. Practically the same rules as to good will apply in the cases of both trade-marks and in trade names. Either party to the partnership, upon demand, can have them sold and the proceeds distributed. In case of dissolution, with no disposal of a trade-mark, it may be used by any former member in such a way as not to injure the other's rights to so use it.'"' § 330. Partnership rights in trade secret. — ^The mere ex- istence of a partnership which deals in a product manufactured by a secret process does not of itself determine the ownership of such trade secret.''^ But should such trade secret actually 67 Rowland v. Roosevelt, 5 N. Y. bell v. Campbell, 16 N. Y. S. 165, 70 S. 75. N. Y. St. 817; Blake v. Barnes, 12 N. "8 Rogers v. Taintor, 97 Mass. 291. Y. S. 69, 26 Abb. N. C. 208 (affd. 58 s^Hallett V. Cumston, 110 Mass. 29; Hun (N. Y.) 525, 12 N. Y. S. 354, 34 Peterson v. Humphrey, 4 Abb. Pr. N. Y. St. 919). (N. Y.) 394. Contra: Fite v. Dor- 'i Staats v. Hewlett, 4 Den. (N. Y.) man (Tenn.), 57 S. W. 129. 559. 70 Kirkman v. Kirkman, 20 Misc. ^2 Lewis v. Smith, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 327. (N. Y.) 211, 45 N. Y. S. 373; Mason " Morison v. Moat, 9 Hare 241, 68 V. Dawson, 15 Misc. (N. Y.) 595, 37 Eng. Reprint 492. N. Y. S. 90, 72 N. Y. St. 123; Camp- 389 GOOD wiLt J 331 belong to the partnership either partner may, upon the dissolu- tion of the firm and in the absence of any agreement to the con- trary, use the same/* § 331. Good will and professional partnerships. — Profes- sional associations are treated in many ways different from as- sociations for business purposes, owing to their peculiar nature. Some states, for example, prohibit any corporations for profes- sional ends, and the general law recognizes the distinction in partnerships for this purpose. Customers go to a business part- nership, as a rule, because of location, and of the price and quality of goods or services purchased, in addition to personal reasons, while in professional relations they come, as a usual rule, on account of their confidence in the personal skill and integrity of one or more of the partners. The office, or location, may have some good will value, but it is, as a rule, not very highly re- garded.^® Hence it is usually considered that the good will of a partnership has little value as such. However, if by any chance, there is a value, and a sale of the same, the proceeds become the property of all the partners, and this is even so regardless of the actual value of the good will sold.^® In many cases it has been held that good will can not arise in a professional business which depends on personal skill and confidence.'^ However, it is recognized that lawyers and physicians may sell their busi- ^* Baldwin v. VonMicheroux, S Mandeville v. Harman, 42 N. J. Eq. Misc. (N. Y.) 386, 25 N. Y. S. 857 185, 7 Atl. 37 (physicians) ; Rice v. (affd. 83 Hun (N. Y.) 43, 31 N. Y. Angell, 73 Tex. 350, 11 S. W. 338, 3 &. 696, 64 N. Y. St. 382). L. R. A. 769 (insurance agents) ; Mc- " Morgan v. Schuyler, 79 N. Y. 490, Call v. Moschowitz, 10 Civ. Proc. (N. 35 Am. Rep. 543. Y.) 107, 14 Daly 16, 1 N. Y. St. 99 76 Wiley's Appeal, 8 Watts & S. (dressmaking) ; Hirschberg v. Bacher, (Pa.) 244; Christie v. Clark, 16 Up. 159 Wis. 207, 149 N. W. 383 (insur- Can. C. P. 544. ance agency) ; Farr v. Pearce, 3 ^^Douthart v. Logan, 86 111. App. Madd. 74 (surgeons) ; Austin v. Boys, 294 (aiifd. 190 111. 243, 60 N. E. 507) 24 Beav. 598, 2 DeG. & J. 626 (solicit- (buying and selling produce on com- ors) ; Arundel v. Bell, 52 L. J. Ch. mission) ; Smith v. Smith, 51 La. Ann, 537 (solicitors) ; Steuart v. Glad- 72, 24 So. 618 (insurance agents) ; stone, 10 L. R. Ch. Div. 626 (commis- Tierney v. Klein, 67 Miss. 173, 6 So. sion merchants). 739, 8 So. 424 (insurance agents) ; § 331 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 390 ness or sell an interest in it to younger members in the profession who become partners, and gain some advantage from associating with an older man in the profession, and in that sense there is a good will in professional pursuits which is of value.''* 78 Webster v. Williams,' 62 Ark. 101, Parker, 16 R. I. 219, 14 Atl. 870, 27 34 S. W. 537; Tichenor v. Newman, Am. St. 733; Butler v. Burleson, 16 186 111. 264, 57 N. E. 826; Dwight v. Vt.,176; Bunn v. Guy, 4 East 190; Hamilton, 113 Mass. 175; Doty v. Snider v. McKelvey, 27 Ont. App. Martin, 32 Mich. 462; French v. 339. CHAPTER XIII RIGHTS OF PARTNERS INTER SESE SECTION 340. In general. 341. Utmost good faith — A right ' 342. Good faith — Partnership a trust relation. 343. Right to share profits. 344. Right to participate in man- agement — Exclusion from management. 345. Rights in firm property. 346. Right to information about business. 347. Right to benefit of informa- tion received by partner. 348. Right to conduct other busi- ness. 349. Right to reimbursement for expenses. 350. Right to compensation for services for firm. 351. Compensation where services are unequal. 352. Compensation for services after dissolution. 353. Compensation to surviving partner. 354. Implied contract for compen- sation. 355. Compensation for services rendered in other capacity than partner. § 340. In general. — This chapter will be given to a dis- cussion of the rights of partners inter sese, leaving their duties and liabilities to a later discussion in the succeeding chapter. Such a division is, of necessity, somewhat unsatisfactory and '391 SECTION 356. Partner failing or refusing to perform services — Miscon- duct. 357. Repayment of capital. 358. Repayment of advances. 359. Right of partner to interest in general. 360. Right to interest on capital. 361. Right to interest on advances. 362. Right to interest on balance. 363. When partner is chargeable with interest on debts owing by him to the firm. 364. Right to contribution. 365. Contribution — Limit. 366. Right to indemnity from loss caused by copartner. 367. Right to subrogation. 368. Right to sue firm or copartner for negligence as to individ- ual property. Right to keeping of accounts and accounting. Arbitration of differences be- tween partners. 371. Partner's lien. 369. 370. § 341 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 392 can not be logically followed, inasmuch as every right on one side implies a corresponding duty on the other side, and there must, necessarily, be a certain repetition of authorities, but it is submitted that this is the only method by which to view the question from all angles, and that it is better that there be some repetition than that some phases of the question be omitted entirely. § 341. Utmost good faith — ^A right. — Owing to the pe- culiarly confidential and hazardous nature of partnership, one of the first and most essential rights of each partner is that his copartners exercise the greatest good faith in all partnership matters.'- He has the right to require good faith during the negotiations from persons with whom he is contemplating form- ing a partnership.^ This principle is, however, as to persons who are about to enter into a partnership, not so well established or so universal of application as it is where the relationship has been established. This is shown by a New Jersey case' which holds that while partners are bargaining with each other for the formation of a partnership, the rule of caveat emptor applies, and each may obtain as large a share of advantages in the con- templated firm as he justly can. If one or rtiore copartners have abandoned the partnership enterprise, leaving the burdens thereof to be borne by their associates, they are thereby estopped from- afterward objecting as to some individual benefits the active partners may have acquired.* In a Georgia case^ the court held that, should a person, who is a member of a partnership organized 1 Warren v. Schainwald, 62 Cal. 56; 127; Peters v. Horbach, 4 Pa. St. 134; Pierce v. McCIellan, 93 111. 245; Yost v. Critcher, 112 Va. 870, 72 S. Scruggs V. Russell, McCahon (Kans.) E. 594. 39, 1 Kans. (Dass. ed.) 478; Ander- ^ See cases cited in note 40, § 400, son V. Whitlock, 2 Bush (Ky.) 398, on good faith a duty. 92 Am. Dec. 489 ; Jones v. Dexter, » Uhler v. Semple, 20 N. J. Eq. 288. 130 Mass. 380, 39 Am. Rep. 459; < Miller v. Chambers, 73 Iowa 236, Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 Majs. 264, 34 N. W. 830, 5 Am. St. 675 ; Lowry 3 Am. Dec. 156; Herrick v. Ames, 8 v. Cobb, 9 La. Ann. 592. Bosw. (N. Y.) 115, 21 N. Y. Super, s Parnell v. Robinson, 58 Ga. 26. Ct. 115; Beam v. Macomber, 33 Mich. 393 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 342 for the purpose of storing cotton, erect buildings at his own ex- pense, after his partner had decHned to supply other warehouses, and store cotton in them in his own interest, the other part- ner could not claim any interest in the profits thereof, espe- cially if the partner thus dealing individually did not allow it to interfere with his duties to the partnership. Two Ohio cases* both decided by the Supreme Court in the same year, carry the principle to a. considerable length, holding that the greatest good faith is required, not alone for a general partnership, but as well in a partnership for a single transaction. Lack of good faith is, in effect, practically a form of fraud, and consequently will not be presumed, but must be established by satisfactory proof.'^ In many respects good faith includes many of the other rights and powers given herein, but in order to avoid confusion, each will be treated separately. § 342. Reynaud v. Peytarin, 13 La. 12L 134 Pa. St 486, 19 AtL 753; Carhart *i Glover v. Hembree, 82 Ala. 324, V. Brown, 86 Tex. 425, 25 S. W. 415; 8 So. 251. ■401 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 350 while away from home on firm business.*^ So where a partner pays debts of the firm or pays an individual judgment against him on a firm debt, or takes other necessary risks for the firm, he is entitled to repayment.** But a partner may make an agreement depriving himself of the right to reimbursement for expenses.** § 350. Right to compensation for services for firm. — One question which has been the subject of as much controversy and litigation as any other in partnership relations, is whether or not a partner is, in the absence of agreement therefor, en- titled to compensation for services rendered to the firm. Of course, if there is a contract for compensation, whether it be express or implied, there is an undoubted right to the benefits thereunder.*' In general, however, the "loss or expense" cate- gory to which contribution attaches does not, unless it has been otherwise expressly or impliedly agreed,*® include services ren- *2 Withers v. Withers, 8 Pet (U. S.) 355, 8 L. ed. 972. « Butler V. Butler, 164 IlL 171, 45 N. E. 426 (affg. 61 111. App. 51); Stone V. Wendover, 2 Mo. App. 247; Erben v. Heston, 202 Pa. 406, 51 Atl. 1025; Hoxie v. Farmers' &c. Nat. Bank, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 462, 49 S. W. 6S1; Wright v. Hunter, 5 Ves. 792. ** Consolidated Bank v. State, 5 La. Ann. 44; Fairfield v. Day, 71 N. H. 63, 61 Atl. 263; Sibley v. Stark- weather, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 631, 6 N. Y. S. 81, 25 N. Y. St. 776, 2 Silv. 472; Magruder v. McCandlis, 3 Ohio Dec. '269. *^ Gaston v. Kellogg, 91 Mo. 104, 3 S. W. 589; Caldwell v. Leiber, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 483; Marsh's Ap- peal, 69 Pa. St. 30, 8 Am. Rep. 206; Godfrey v. Templeton, 86 Tenn, 161, 6 S. W. 47; Emerson v. Durand, 64 Wis. Ill, 24 N. W. 129, 54 Am. Rep. 26 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 ^^LjTnan v. Ljniian, 2 Paine (U. S.) 11, Fed. Cas. No. 8628; Adams V. Warren (Ala.), 11 So. 754; Weeks V. McClintock, SO Ark. 193, 6 S. W. 734; Pierce v. Scott, Zl Ark. 308; Haller v. WilHamowicz, 23 Ark 566; Van Housen v. Copeland, 180 111. 74, 54 N. E. 169; Askew v. Springer, 111 111. 662; Heckard v. Fay, 57 111. App. 20; Lee v. Davis, 70 Ind. 464; Levi V. Karrick, 13 Iowa 344; Stone v. Mattingly, 14 Ky. L. 113, 19 S. W. 402; Keiley v. Turner, 81 Md. 269, 31 AtL 700; Winchester v. Glazier, 152 Mass. 316, 25 N. E. 728, 9 L. R. A. 424; Pierce v. Pierce, 89 Mich. 233, 50 N. W. 851; Major v. Todd, 84 Mich. 85, 47 N. W. 841 ; Godfrey v. White, 43 Mich. 171, 5 N. W. 243 Cramer v. Bachman, 68 Mo. 310 Coddington v. Idell, 29 N. J. Eq. 504 Caldwell V. Leiber, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 483; Hagenbuchle v. Schultz, 69 Hun (N. Y.) 183, 53 N. Y. St. 598, 23 N. Y. S. 611; Myers v. Kirby, 9 § 350 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 402 dered in carrying on the partnership business, — a member of the firm not being thus permitted to add to his profits by de- manding allowance and receiving compensation for that which he is ordinarily under obligation to donate, for in the absence of a contract for compensation, each partner must give his best efforts to the business of the partnership without any compensa- tion therefor other than the benefit he may derive by reason of his interest in the firm. In other words, the law presumes that the absence of any agreement for compensation necessarily im- plies that each partner relies upon the profit arising from the business and his partnership interest therein for his compensa- tion.*'^ According to the Uniform Partnership Act : "No part- Ohio Dec. 297, 12 Cine. L. Bui. 78; Mann v. Flanagan, 9 Ore. 425; ,Mc- CuUough V. Barr, 145 Pa. St. 459, 22 Atl. 962; Emerick v. Moir, 124 Pa. St. 498, 17 Atl. 1; Shriver's Appeal, 118 Pa. St. 427, 12 Atl. 553; Godfrey v. Templeton, 86 Tenn. 161, 6 S. W. 47; Eakin v. Shumaker, 12 Texas 51; Emerson v. Dvirand, 64 Wis. Ill, 24 N. W. 129, 54 Am. Rep. 593. And compare Williams v. McKee, 13 Ky. L. 143; Kinney v. Maher, 156 Mass. 252, 30 N. E. 818; Frank v. Webb, 67 Miss. 462, 6 So. 620; Hunter v. Lit- tle, 17 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 500; Gresham v. Harcourt (Tex. Civ. App.), SO S. W. 1058. *^ Uniform Partnership Act, § 18(f). Where "the firm was insolvent, neither partner had the right to draw a salary." Miller v. Electrical Supply &c. Co., 46 Colo. 221, 103 Pac. 290. "The general rule is that, though each partner is bound to bestow his serv- ices and labor with diligence and skill, he is not entitled to any reward or compensation, unless there be an express stipulation between the part- ners for that purpose." Major v. Todd, 84 Mich. 85, 47 N. W. 841, "The general rule is well settled, * * * that 'in the absence of spe- cial agreement, a partner is not -enti- tled to compensation for his services for the partnership, but must be con- tent with his share of the profits, if any.'" Ruggles v. Buckley, 175 Fed. 57, 99 C. C. A. 73, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 541. See also Denver v. Roane, 99 U. S. 355, 25 L. ed. 476; Glover v. Hembree, 82 Ala. 324, 8 So. 251 ; Hal- ler v. Willamowicz, 23 Ark. 566; Griggs V. Clark, 23 Cal. 427; Tillotson V. Tillotson, 34 Conn. 335 ; Reybold v. Jefferson 1 Harr.. (Del.) 401, 26 Am. Dec. 401 ; Bishop v. Pendley, 138 Ga. 738, 16 S. E. 63; Valentin v. Sarrett, 25 Idaho 517, 138 Pac. 834; Burgess V. Badger, 124 111. 228, 14 N. E. 850; McBride v. Stradley, 103 Ind, 465, 2 N. E. 358; Starr v. Case, 59 Iowa 491, 13 N. W. 645 ; Lee v. Lashbrooke, 8 Dana (Ky.) 214; Mills v. Fellows, 30 La. Ann. 824; Bevans v. Sullivan, 4 Gill (Md.) 383; Duff v. Maguire, 107 Mass. 87; Loomis v. Armstrong, 49 Mich. 521, 14 N. W. 505: Frank v. Webb, 67 Miss. 462. 6 So. 620; Scud- der v. Ames, 89 Mo. 496, 14 S. W. 525; Younglove v. Liebhardt, 13 403 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 350 ner is entitled to remuneration for acting in the partnership business, except that a surviving partner is entitled to reason- Nebr. 557, 14 N. W. S26; Bradford V. Kimberly, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 431; Butner v. Lemly, S8 N. Car. 148; Philips v. Turner, 22 N. Car. 123; Cameron v. Francisco, 26 Ohio St. 190; Mann v. Flanagan, 9 Ore. 425; Lindsey v. Stranahan, 129 Pa. St. 635, 18 Atl. 524; Lane v. Roche, Riley Eq. (S. Car.) 215; Piper v. Smith, 1 Head. (Tenn.) 93; Steb- bins V. Willard, 53 Vt. 665; Frazier V. Frazier, 77 Va. 775; Kyle v. Grif- fin (W. Va.), 85 S. E. 559; Gay v. Householder, 71 W. Va. 277, 76 S. E. 450, Ann. Cas. 1914 C, 297n; Roots V. Mason City Salt &c. Co., 27 W. Va. 483; Sandberg v. Scougale, 75 Wash. 313, 134 Pac. 1051 ; Jardine v. Hope, 19 Grant's Ch. (Up. Can.) 76; Robinson v. Anderson, 20 Beav. 98. See further Glover v. Hembree, 82 Ala. 324, 8 So. 251; Lyman v. Ly- man, 2 Paine (U. S.) 11, Fed. Cas. No. 8628; Adams v. Warren (Ala.), 11 So. 754; Zimmerman v. Huber, 29 Ala. 379; Pierce v. Scott, 37 Ark. 308; Haller v. Willamowicz, 23 Ark. 566; Reybold v. Jefferson, 1 Har. (Del.) 401, 26 Am. Dec. 401 ; McAl- lister V. Payne, 108 Ga. 517, 34 S. E. 165; Van Duzer v. McMillan, 37 Ga. 299; Askew v. Springer, 111 111. 662; Ligare v. Peacock, 109 111. 94; O'Brien v. Hanley, 86 111. 278; Hanks V. Baber, 53 111. 292; Cook v. Phil- lips, 16 111. App.' 446; Gerard v. Ga- teau, IS 111. App. 520; Strattan v. Tabb, 8 111. App. 225; Lee v. Davis, 70 Ind. 464; Boardman v. Close, 44 Iowa 428; Levi v. Karrick, 13 Iowa 344; Insley v. Shire, 54 Kans. 793, 39 Pac. 713, 45 Am. St. 308; Edelen v. Walker, 21 Ky. L. 839, 53 S. W./ 38; Chamberlain v. Sawyers, 17 Ky. L. 716, 32 S. W. 475; Tilford v. For- sythe, 14 Ky. L. (abstract) 335 ; Hay- den V. Crouch, 12 Ky. L. (abstract) 893; Herndon v. Terrell, 12 Ky. L. (abstract) 96; Atherton v. Cochran, 11 Ky. L. 185, 9 S. W. 519, 11 S. W. 301 ; Sims v. Banta, 9 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 286; Glenn v. Sims, 5 Ky. L. (abstract) 775; Boyd v. Tabb, 5 Ky. L. (abstract) 516; Taylor v. Ragland, 42 La. Ann. 1020, 8 So. 467; Mills' V. Fellows, 30 La. Ann. 824; Hill v. Matta, 12 La. Ann. 179; Dunlap v. Watson, 124 Mass. 305; Bevans v. Sullivan, 4 Gill (Md.) 383; Pierce v. Pierce, 89 Mich. 233, SO N. W. 851 ; Major V. Todd, 84 Mich. 85, 47 N. W. 841; Frank v. Webb, 67 Miss. 462, 6 So. 620; Randle v. Richardson, S3 Miss. 176; Gaston v. Kellogg, 91 Mo. 104, 3 S. W. 589; Scudder v. Ames, 89 Mo. 496, 14 S. W. 525 ; In- glis v. Floyd, 33 Mo. App. 565 ; War- ren v. Raben, 33 Nebr. 380, 50 N. W. 2^7; Folsom v. Marlette, 23 Nev. 459, 49 Pac. 39; Coddington v. Idell, 29 N. J. Eq. 504; Mumford v. Murray, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 1; Bradford V. Kimberly, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 431; Nicoll v. Huntington, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 166; Franklin v. Robin- son, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 157; Eck- ert V. Clark, 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 18, 69 N. Y. St. 491, 35 N. Y. S. 118; Paine V. Thacher, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 450 Lyon v. Snyder, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 172; Coursen v. Hamlin, 2 Duer (N, Y.) 513; Dougherty v. Van Nos trand, 1 Hoffm. Ch. (N. Y.) 68 Parker v. Day, 12 Misc. (N. Y.) 510, 33 N. Y. S. 676, 67 N. Y. St. 378 Skinner v. White, 1 Hopk. Ch. (N, 3S1 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 404 able compensation for his services in winding up the partner- ship aflfairs."** It has been held, that where certain partners, in the articles of partnership, agree to give another partner a certain amount to manage the business, it is really a firm obliga- tion and not a personal one of the other partner's, and must be paid out of partnership funds.*' § 351. Compensation where services are unequal. — The general rule that a partner is not entitled to compensation for services to the firm has been approved and applied, from time to time, even where the services of the several partners in behalf of the common enterprise have not been equal either in extent or Y.) 107; Gilhooly v. Hart, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 176; Salomon v. Shinner, 5 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 491; Butner v. Lemly, 58 N. Car. 148; Anderson v. Taylor, 37 N. Car. 420, 38 Am. Dec. 689; Philips v. Turner, 22 N. Car. 123; Buford v. Neely, 17 N. Car. 481 ; Cameron v. Francisco, 26 Ohio St. 190; Myers v. Kirby, 9 Ohio Dec. 297, 12 Cine. L. Bui. 78; Rohr v. Pearson, 16 Ore. 325, 14 Pac. 297; Mann v. Flanagan, 9 Ore. 425; Delp V. Edlis, 190 Pa. St. 25, 42 Atl. 462; Lindsey v. Stranahan, 129 Pa. St. 635, 18 Atl. 524; Shriver's Appeal, 118 Pa. St. 427, 12 Atl. 553; In re Marsh's Appeal, 69 Pa. St. 30, 8 Am. Rep. 206; Cunliff v. Dyerville Mfg. Co;, 7 R. I. 325 ; Cothran v. Knox, 13 S. Car. 496; Godfrey v. Templeton, 86 Tenn. 161, 6 S. W. 47; Berry v. Jones, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 206, 27 Am. Rep. 742; Hooker v. Williamson, 60 Tex. 524; Redfield v. Gleason, 61 Vt. 220, 17 Atl. 1075, 15 Am. St. 889; Steb- bins V. Willard, 53 Vt. 665; Scott v. Boyd, 101 Va. 28, 42 So. 918; Forrer V. Forrer, 29 Grat. (Va.) 134; Tay- lor V. Dorr, 43 W. Va. 351, 27 S. E. 317; Roots v. Mason City Salt & Mining Co., 27 W. Va. 483 ; Emerson V. Durand, 64 Wis. Ill, 24 N. W. 129, 54 Am. Rep. 593; Drew v. Person, 22 Wis. 651. See also Osment v. Mc- Elrath, 68 Cal. 466, 9 Pac. 731, 58 Am. Rep. 17; Nevills v. Moore Min. Co., 135 Cal. 561, 67 Pac. 1054; May- nard v. Richards, 166 111. 466, 46 N. E. 1138, 57 Am. St. 145; Burgess v. Badger, 124 III. 288, 14 N. E. 850; Lassiter v. Jackman, 88 Ind. 118; Young V. Scoville, 99 Iowa 177, 68 N. W. 670; Smith v. Smith, 51 La. Ann. 72, 24 So. 618; Godfrey y. White, 43 Mich. 171, 5 N. W. 243; Younglove v. Liebhardt, 13 Nebr. 557, 14 N. W. 526; Lamb v. Wilson, 3 Nebr. (Unof.) 496, 92 N. W. 167; Wisner v. Field, 11 N. Dak. 257, 91 N. W. 67. And compare Parker v. Day, 155 N. Y. 383, 49 N. E. 1046. A managing partner, who employs his minor children, with the consent of the other partner, is entitled to com- pensation for their services. Taylor V. Ragland, 42 La. Ann. 1020, 8 So. 467. See further Zimmerman v. Hu- ber, 29 Ala. 379. *8 Uniform Partnership Act, § 18(f). *» Weaver v. Upton, 7 Ired. (N. Car.) 458. 405 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 351 in value."" "It is undoubtedly true, as a general rule, that part- ners are not entitled to charge each other, or the firm of which they are members, for their services in the copartnership business, unless there is a special agreement to that effect, or such agree- ment can be implied from the course of dealing between them. By the well-settled law of partnership, every partner is bound to work to the extent of his ability for the benefit of the whole, without regard to the services of his copartners, and without comparison of value ; for services to the firm can not, from their very nature, be estimated and equalized by compensation of dif- ferences. In the absence, therefore, of any special provision al- lowing compensation for services, the law will not make any, nor infer one from the greater industry or greater ability of any one 60 "We believe the rule to be well settled that, in the absence of a stip- ulation to that effect, one partner is not entitled to charge his copartners for his services, or because he has done more than his just proportion of work. The law never undertakes to measure and to settle between the partners their various and unequal services bestowed on the joint busi- ness." Burgess v. Badger, 124 111. 288, 14 N. E. 8S0. "The general rule, no doubt, is that a partner is enti- tled to nothing extra for any inequal- ity of services rendered by him as compared with that rendered by his copartner. * * * Though courts will not undertake to equalize part- ners with reference to the personal services rendered by them, respective- ly, in conducting the firm business, there is no reason why the parties can not and should not do it by their own voluntary agreement, whether made before or after the services are ren- dered." Gray v. Hamil, 82 Ga. 375, 10 S. E. 205, 6 L. R. A. 72. See also Boothe v. Summit Coal Mining Co., 72 Wash. 679, 131 Pac. 252; Williams v. Pedersen, 47 Wash. 472, 92 Pac. 287, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 384 and note; Baker v. Cummings, 8 App. D. C. 515; McAllister v. Payne, 108 Ga. 517, 34 S. E. 165; Burgess v. Badger, 124 111. 288, 14 N. E. 850; King v. Hamilton, 16 111. 190; Roach V. Perry, 16 111. 37; Lewis v. Moffett, 11 111. 392; Heckard v. Fay, 57 111. App. 20; Brownell v. Steere, 29 111. App. 358 (affd. 128 111. 209, 21 N. E. 3); Justice v. Lairy, 19 Ind. App. 272, 49 N. E. 459, 65 Am. St. 405 ; Insley v. Shire, 54 Kans. 793, 39 Pac. 713, 45 Am. St. 308; Adam's Admr. v. Ringo, 79 Ky. 211, 1 Ky. L. (abstract) 251 ; Lee v. Lashbrooke, 8 Dana (Ky.) 214; Godfrey v. White, 43 Mich. 171, 5 N. W. 243; Heath v. Waters, 40 Mich. 457 ; Reily v. Rus- sell, 34 Mo. 524; Beatty v. Wray, 19 Pa. St. 516, 57 Am. Dec. 677; Mur- ray V. Johnson, 1 Head. (Tenn.) 353; Piper V. Smith, 1 Head. (Tenn.) 93; Stebbins v. Willard, 53 Vt. 665 ; Drew V. Person, 22 Wis. 651. See cases cited in § 354, implied contract for compensation. § 351 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 406 partner. The doctrine seems to be that partners are considered as meeting on common ground, each engaged to do all he can for the common good; and whatever any one does, he has no claim for anything beyond his equal share of the common benefit without the consent of his copartners."^^ As said in another case :°^ "Where there is no special agreement to that effect, part- ners are not entitled to charge each other for their services in the management of the concern; and the law never undertakes to settle between them their various and unequal services in the transaction of their private affairs. * * * The attempt would be altogether impracticable. One: man may possess advan- tages over his partner in one respect, which, may be made up to the latter in the possession of some quality in which the former is deficient. One may have an established reputation in the neighborhood in which he lives for honesty and fair dealing; he may be surrounded by numerous and powerful friends; he may enjoy in an eminent degree the confidence of his fellow citizens; he may possess wisdom and sagacity in directing the general management of his affairs. Another, though destitute of some of these aidvantages, may nevertheless be a valuable part- ner, for his activity in business, his knowledge and skill as an accountant, or his tact as a salesman. These things are all taken into the account by the parties when they form a connection. They deal with each other, in making the bargain, at arm's length, and each trusts to his own wisdom to secure as many of the advantages resulting from the copartnership as he can. A bill in equity could not be sustained by a partner, at the close of the concern, to compel a copartner to make up deficiencies arising from his want of business talent. I apprehend nothing short of a breach of good faith, amounting to fraud, will justify the in- terference of the court in estimating the value of a partner's services to the firm." Although a partner takes full charge of Bi In re Marsh's Appeal, 69 Pa. St. 52 Caldwell v. Leiber, 7 Paige Ch. 30, 8 Am. Rep. 206, citing Beatty v. (N. Y.) 483. Wray, 19 Pa. St. 516, 57 Am. Dec. 677. 407 EIGHTS INTER SESE § 352 the affairs and business of the partnership, his managerial serv- ices will not per se increase the share of the profits to which he will otherwise be entitled.^^ There must be an agreement for compensation before he can recover'* although he performs all the services for the firm/' § 352. Compensation for services after dissolution. — The rule against allowing compensation for services in absence of agreement undoubtedly holds good in general not only during the actual existence of the partnership relation but until, follow- ing dissolution, the business is wound up and the final word said.'® 53 Taylor v. Ragland, 42 La. Ann. 1020, 8 So. 467; Pierce v. Pierce, 89 Mich. 233, 50 N. W. 851; Major ,v. Todd, 84 Midi. 85, 47 N. W. 841; Evans v. Warner, 20 App. Div. 230, 47 N. Y. S. 16; Weaver v. Upton, 29 N. Car. 458; Smith v. Brown, 44 W. Va. 342, 30 S. E. 160. 5* Pierce v. Scott, 17 Ark. 308; Peck v. Alexander,' 40 Colo. 392, 91 Pac. 38; Brownell v. Steere, 128 111. 209, 21 N. E. 3 (affg. 29 111. App. 358) ; Cook v. Phillips, 16 111. App. 446; Atherton v. Cochran, 11 Ky. L. 185, 9 S. W. 519, 11 S. W. 301; Myers v. Kirby, 9 Ohio Dec. 297; Miller v. Mackay, 31 Beav. 11, 34 Beav. 295. See Mattingly v. Stone, 18 Ky. L. 187, 35 S. W. 921. 55 Cole V. Cole (Ark), 177 S. W. 915. 58 "One partner can not be allowed compensation for extra service in be- half of the firm, either before or after its dissolution, without an ex- press stipulation to that effect." Berry V. Jones, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 206, 27 Am. Rep. 742. See also Consoul v. Cummings, 24 App. D. C. Z(>; Osment V. McElrath, 68 Cal. 466, 9 Pac. 731, 58 Am. Rep. 17 ; McElroy v. Whitney, 12 Idaho 512, 88 Pac. 349; McFarland v. McCormick, 114 Iowa 368, 86 N. W. 369; In re Curlee, 118 La. 563, 43 So. 165; Inglis v. Floyd, 33 Mo. App. 565; Lamb v. Wilson, 3 Nebr. (Unof.) 496, 92 N. W. 167; Clausen V. Puvogel, 114 App. Div. (N. Y.) 455, 100 N. Y. S. 49; Cameron v. Francisco, 26 Ohio St. 190; Stockdale V. Maginn, 207 Pa. 226, 56 Atl. 439; Gyger's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. li, 1 Am. Rep. 382 ; Beatty v. Wray, 19 Pa. St. 516, 57 Am. Dec. 677; Condon v. Cal- lahan, 115 Tenn. 285, 89 S. W. 400, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 643, 112 Am. St. 833; Liggett v. Hamilton, 24 Can. Sup. Ct. 665 ; Burden v. Burden, 1 Ves. & B. 170, 12 R. R. 210; Stocken V. Dawson, 6 Beav. 371. See further Kimball v. Lincoln, 5 111. App. 316; Denver v. Roane, 99 U. S. 355, 25 L. ed. 476; Lyman v. Lyman, 2 Paine (U. S.) 11, Fed. Cas. No. 8628; Mc- Farland v. McCormick, 114 Iowa 368, 86 N. W. 369; Smith v. Knight, 88 Iowa 257, 55 N. W. 189; Wiggins v. Brand, 202 Mass. 141, 88 N. E. 840; Anderson v. Taylor, Zl N. Car. 420, 38 Am. Dec. 689; Philips v. Turner, 22 N. Car. 123 ; Buford v. Neely, 17 N. Car. 481 ; Stockdale v. Maginn, 207 Pa. 226, 56 Atl. 439; Garretson v. Brown, 185 Pa. St. 447, 40 Atl. 293 ; § 352 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 408 "The rule of law is well settled by the weight of authorities, that neither partner of a dissolved firm is entitled to compensation for services rendered in winding up the partnership affairs unless it is expressly agreed otherwise, or can be fairly implied from the cir- cumstances. It seems, however, that the rule should not be ex- tended beyond the requirement of merely winding up the part- nership affairs, by collecting its outstanding claims, paying debts, and distributing the surplus among the members, and that when it appears that time, skill and labor have been expended by a partner in the continuance of the partnership business, which inure to the general benefit, he ought to receive, from the profits from his skill and labor, a reasonable compensation, varying ac- cording to the nature of the business, the difficulties and results of the tmdertaking and its necessity or desirability. While few cases are found which directly support this view, it seems to be founded upon the plainest principles of equity and justice, especially when applied to partnerships among professional men, Dodson V. Dodson, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) SS8, 4 Am. St. 299." See further Hite 110; Griffey v. Northcutt, 5 Heisk. v. Hite's Exrs., 1 B. Mon. (Ky.) 177; (Tenn.) 746; Piper v. Smith, 1 Head Honore v. Colmesnil, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Tenn.) 93. And compare Griggs v. (Ky.) 506; Schenkl v. Dana, 118 Clark, 23 Gal. 427; Van Duzer v. Mc- Mass. 236; Royster v. Johnson, 73 N. Millan, 37 Ga. 299; Hutchinson v. Car. 474 ; In re Zell's Appeal, 126 Pa. Onderdonk, 2 Halst. Ch. (N. J.) 277, St. 329, 17 Atl. 647; Godfrey v. Tem- 300. Any attempt, however, to put pleton, 86 Tenn. 161, 6 S. W. 47; this proposition in the form of a gen- Bradley v. Chamberlin, 16 Vt. 613. eral statement has been disapproved In the case of Shumard v. Gano, 8 in Thayer v. Badger, 171 Mass. 279, Ohio C. D. 370, 18 Ohio C. Ct. 871, SO N. E. 541, in which Holmes, J., two persons had agreed to form a delivering the opinion of the court, partnership, but, through lack of com- says : "It is true, no doubt, that there pliance by one of them, the. partner- is a disinclination to allow pay to a ship was never launched. And it was surviving partner for winding up held that the delinquent party could (Dunlap V. Watson, 124 Mass. 305), not recover from his cocontractor for but the tendency is to deal with such services rendered by him during the questions on their particular circum- inchoate agreement to form a part- stances, rather than by absolute nership, there having been no express rules. TurnbuU v. Pomeroy, 140 promise on the part of the defendant Mass. 117, 118, 3 N. E. 15; Robinson to pay for such services. V. Simmons, 146 Mass. 167, 15 N. E. 409 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 353 where the profits are almost wholly the result of professional skill and labor."" § 353. Compensation to surviving partner. — Under the Uniform Partnership Act, "a surviving partner is entitled to reasonable compensation for his services in winding up the part- nership affairs.^^ This is contrary to the general rule followed by the weight of American authority, although there is not unanimity on this point. "But where the partnership is dis- solved by death of one of the partners, or by a decree of the court * * * tijg j-ule is not so well settled. Indeed, there seems to be a diversity of decisions in relation thereto. After all, the holding in any given case must at last turn upon the facts of that particular case. * * * Tj^e greater weight of au- thority sustains the proposition that, in cases wherein the part- nership is dissolved -by death of one of the partners or operation of law, the partner who winds up the business would not be en- titled to compensation in the absence of an agreement to that effect. Where such partner so winding up the partnership busi- ness enters into new business, and assumes obligations and risks not imposed upon him by the partnership agreement, and such new business is successful, and the other partner, or, if he be dead, his representatives, elect to share in the profits of the new business, the partner so conducting such new business under the partnership name might properly be allowed compensation for his services."^^ It was said in one leading case f° "At the for- 67 Lamb v. Wilson, 3 Nebr. (Unof .) 49 S. W. 1067 ; Loomis v. Armstrong, 496, 92 N. W. 167. 49 Mich. 521, 14 N. W. SOS, 63 Mich. 58 Uniform Partnership Act, § 3SS, 29 N. W. 867; Slater v. Slater, 18(f). 78 App. Div. 449, 80 N. Y. S. 363 59 Ruggles V. Buckley, 175 Fed. 57, (mod. 175 N. Y. 143, 67 N. E. 224, 61 99 C. C. A. 73, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) L. R. A. 796, 96 Am. St. 60S) ; Beatty 541. See also Kimball v. Lincoln, 99 v. Wray, 19 Pa. St. 516, 57 Am. Dec. 111. 578 (affg. 5 111. App. 316) ; May- 677. Contra: Royster v. Johnson, 73 nard v. Richards, 166 111. 466, 46 N. N. Car. 474. Compare Sangsten v. E. 1138, 57 Am. St. 145; Smith v. Hack, 52 Md. 173. Knight, 88 Iowa 257, 55 N. W. 189; eo Beatty v. Wray, 19 Pa. St. 516, Coakley v. Hazelwood, 21 Ky. L. 40, 57 Am. Dec. 677. § 353 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 410 mation of a partnership, its dissolution by death is rarely con- templated. It is an unwelcome subject; for no man who enters on a speculation can bear to think he may not live to finish it. Herlce the contract is usually framed for operations during the proposed period; and when the parties anticipate the expiration of it, they dispose of the unfinished business by a new arrange- ment. Consequently, in articles or a parol contract of partner- ship, there is seldom, if ever, an express provision for a case like the present; and where compensation is not allowed a sur- viving partner by a commercial custom, the contract, based on the law of partnership, binds him by an implied covenant or promise to settle the accounts, pay the debts, and hand over a proportionate part of the capital and profits as his proper business. As each partner is clothed with all the power of the firm, each is burdened with all the duties of it; and when one of them dies, this power and these duties devolve on the survivor as the representative of the firm, or rather as the firm itself. Now the difficulty is to conceive how a party can entitle himself to a reward for doing what the law and his contract had bound him to do. * * * At first view, it might seem unjust that a co-operator should contribute more than his share to the suc- cess of an enterprise without remuneration for the excess; but his share depends on the nature of the bargain. By the con- tract of association, every partner is bound to work to the ex- tent of his ability for the benefit of the whole, without regard to the services of his copartners, and without comparison of values ; for services to the firm can not, from their very nature, be estimated and .equalized by compensation of differences. They are inappreciable, and unsusceptible of specific charge. A part- ner could not keep an account of every hoop or nail driven by him; and if this be the nature of services to the firm before dis- solution, it is the nature of services to the firm after it. A partner might as well pretend to charge for doing his partner's duties during sickness or temporary insanity, which does not necessarily work a dissolution of the partnership, as to charge for doing what his dead partner might have possibly done had 411 RIGHTS INTER SESE 353 he lived. The difference is, that the disability is temporary in the one case and perpetual in the other; but the legal conse- quences of it between the partners are the same." Generally, a surviving partner who continues the business instead of wind- ing it up can not receive compensation for his services unless there is an agreement.®^ There are some cases to the contrary, however, especially in England.®^ The general rule that there is no right to compensation in the absence of agreement applies when a surviving partner carries on the business in conformity with a testamentary direction of the deceased partner,"^ although with the consent of the heirs or executor compensation is sometimes allowed.®* The general rule applies when the surviving partner is the deceased partner's executor.^' Consent of the next of kin°® or provision in the deceased partner's will, may authorize the payment for services." Still the express right of a partner 81 Young V. Scovil, 99 Iowa 177, 68 N. W. 670; Smith v. Smith, 51 La. Ann. 72, 24 So. 618 ; SchenkI v. Dana, 118 Mass. 236; In re Taft, 55 Hun 603, 8 N. Y. S. 282, 28 N. Y. St. 315; Buford v. Neely, 17 N. Car. 481 ; Cameron v. Francisco, 26 Ohio St. 190; Newell v. Humphrey, 37 Vt. 265. 82 Brown v. De Tastet, Jacob 284. See criticism of this case in Beatty V. Wray, 19 Pa. St. 516, 57 Am. Dec. 677; Cook v. Collingridge, Jacob 607, 1 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 74, 23 R. R. 155, 767; Yates v. Finn, L. R. 13 Ch. Div. 839, 49 L. J. Ch. 188, 28 W. R. 387; Featherstonhaugh v. Turner, 25 Beav. 382, 28 L. J. Ch. 812 ; Griggs v. Clark, 23 Cal. 427; McElroy v. Whitney, 12 Idaho 512, 88 Pac. 349; Robinson v. Simmons, 146 Mass. 167, IS N. E. 558, 4 Am. St. 299; Cameron v. Fran- cisco, 26 Ohio St. 190. «3TiIlotson V. Tillotson, 34 Conn. 335; Berry v. Folkes, 60 Miss. 576; Evans v. Weatherhead, 24 R. I. 394, 53 Atl. 286. 6* In re Bach, 12 N. Y. S. 712; Bar- ber V. Murphy, 23 Ky. L. 286, 62 S. W. 894. Contra : Kimball v. Lincoln, 5 111. App. 316 (affd. 99 111. 578). 85 Co%in V. Cummins, 1 Port. (Ala.) 148; Terrell v. Rowland, 86 Ky. 61, 4 S. W. 825, 9 Ky. L. 258; Gregory v. Menefee, 83 Mo. 413; Ames V. Downing, 1 Bradf. Sur. (N. Y.) 321; In re Harris, 4 Dem. (N. Y.) 463 ; Clausen v. Puvogel, 114 App. Div. 455, 100 N. Y. S. 49; Matter of Dummett, 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 477, 11 N. Y. S. 1118; Beatty v. Wray, 19 Pa. St. 516, 57 Am. Dec. 611; Dod- son V. Dodson, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 110; In re Pickens Estate, 14 W. N. C. (Pa.) 407; Burden v. Burden, 1 Ves. 6 B. 170, 12 R. R. 210. 88 Clausen v. Purvogel, 114 App. Div. 455, 100 N. Y. S. 49. 87 Allen's Appeal, 125 Pa. St. 544, 17 Atl. 453. § 354 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 412 to receive a certain salary during the time for which the part- nership was created would seem to vest in him the right to re- ceive compensation at the salary rate for such period as the business is continued after the expiration of its predetermined existence.^* Sometimes a surviving partner is allowed com- pensation for extraordinary or unusual services, as upon an im- plied contract/® It has been said, as to compensation for a liquidating or surviving partner, that: "there may possibly be some reason for applying a different rule to cases of winding up partnerships between lawyers and other professional men, where the profits of the firm are the result solely of professional skill and labor."'" But other cases hold such partnerships no exception to the general rule/^ § 354. Implied contract for compensation. — "The rule, that each partner must be assumed to render his services in the partnership business gratuitously, is not inflexible nor of universal application. It has its exceptions founded in wisdom and ex- perience. Where it can be fairly and justly implied from the course of dealing between the partners, or from circumstances of equivalent force, that one partner is to be compensated for his services, his claim will be sustained.''^ "The partnership es Godfrey v. Tetnpleton, 86 Tenn. Cal. 553, 36 Pac. 107, 40 Am. St. 89; 161, 6 S. W. 47; Griffey v. Northcutt, Justice v. Lairy, 19 Ind. App. 272, 49 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 746; Gresham v. N. E. 459, 65 Am. St. 405; Lamb v. Harcourt (Tex. Civ. App."), 50 S. W. Wilson, 3 Nebr. (Unof.) 496, 92 N. 1058. Contra: O'Neill v. Duff, 11 W. 167; Sterne v. Goep, 20 Hun (N. Phila. (Pa.) 244. But compare Kei- Y.) 396 (affd. 84 N. Y. 641). ley V. Turner, 81 Md. 269, 31 Atl. 'i Starr v. Case, 59 Iowa 491, 13 700; Comstock v. McDonald, 126 N. W. 645. Mich. 142, 85 N. W. 579. t2 Emerson v. Durand, 64 Wis. Ill, 69 Maynard v. Richards, 166 111. 24 N. W. 129, 54 Am. Rep. 593. See 466, 46 N. E. 1138, 57 Am. St. 145; also Mondamin Bank v. Burke (Iowa), Hite V. Hite, 1 B. Men. (Ky.) 177; 147 N. W. 148; Morris v. Griffin, 83 Zell's Appeal, 126 Pa. St. 329, 17 Atl. Iowa 327, 49 N. W. 846; Lassiter v. 647; Hanks v. Wilcox, 2 Hawaii 509. Jackman, 88 Ind. 118; Whitney v. 70 Denver v. Roane, 99 U. S. 355, Whitney, 27 Ky. L. 1197, 88 S. W. 311 ; 25 L. ed. 476. See also Osment v. Cramer v. Bachman, 68 Mo. 310 ; Fol- McElrath, 68 Cal. 466, 9 Pac. 731, 58 som v. Marlette, 23 Nev. 459, 49 Pac. Am. Rep. 17; Little v. Caldwell, 101 39; Wisner v. Field, 11 N. Dak. 257, 413 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 354 may be of such a peculiar kind, and the arrangements and the course of deahng of the partners in regard to it may be such as pretty plainly to show an expectation and understanding, without an express agreement upon the subject, that certain services of a copartner should be paid for. Such cases, present- ing unusual conditions, are exceptions to the general rule," how- ever/^ On more than one occasion it has been denied that a gross inequality in the service to the credit of the several part- ners creates the presumption of an agreement to compensate specifically for the superior services rendered/* But where one partner has full charge of the business and others have acquiesced and devoted their time to their own affairs, an agreement to compensate will be implied more readily than where all are giving equal attention to the , business/^ And a partner who is em- ployed to render services which neither under the law nor the articles of association he is required to perform may recover compensation therefor on an implied agreement for the same.^" Again a partner who gives his undivided services to the partner- ship business has been held entitled to extra compensation even without any agreement to that effect when his associate is em- ployed by a third person on a salary from which the partnership derives no benefit.'^'' So a partner who has supplied all the capital and has himself alone managed and controlled the firm affairs, under partnership articles requiring each member of the firm to give their services to the common business, is entitled to a salary in the form of a credit on final settlement.''^ And 91 N. W. 67; Main v. Flanagan, 9 '^ Mondamin Bank v. Burke Ore. 425; Lindsey v. Stranahan, 129 (Iowa), 147 N. W. 148. Pa. St. 635, 18 Atl. 524. See cases 7« Levi v. Karrick, 13 Iowa 344. See cited in note 45, § 350, on right to com- cases cited in § 355, on services ren- pensation for services. dered in capacity other than partner. '3 Hoag v. Alderman, 184'Mass. 217, " Morris v. Griffin, 83 Iowa 327, 49 68 N. E. 199. N. W. 846. 1* McAllister v. Payne, 108 Ga. 517, " Mattingly v. Stone, 18 Ky. L. 187, 34 S. E. 165 ; Roach v. Perry, 16 111. 35 S. W. 921. See also, Emerson v. 37; Lewis v. Moffett, 11 111. 392. See Durand, 64 Wis. Ill, 24 N. W. 129, further Burgess v. Badger, 124 111. 54 Am. Rep. 593. 288, 14 N. E. 850; Cook v. Phillips, 16 III. App, 446. § 355 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 414 yet where a partner is compelled through sickness to abandon the business in violation of the articles of partnership, it is held that his copartner will not thereby become entitled to compensa- tion for his services.'" So again it is not altogether clear in the absence of an express agreement defining the services to be per- formed by the several partners, that even the wilful inattention to business by a member of the firm which entails upon his co- partners services otherwise unnecessary will entitle the latter or any one of them to any extraordinary share of the profits as such of the firm."* § 355. Compensation for services rendered in other ca- pacity than partner. — A partner may recover compensation for services to the firm not required of him as a partner but rendered outside of that relation and in another capacity, usually such work as another must have been hired to perform had he not done it, such as acting as general clerk, where the other partners did not personally enter into the business,*^ or as agent "MacDowell v. North, 24 Ind. death." Scudder v. Ames, 89 Mo. App. 435, SS N. E. 789. See also 496, 14 S. W. S2S. "So long as a Heath v. Waters, 40 Mich. 457. Cer- partnership continues, the sickness or tain it is, that it does not require any inability of a partner is one of the formal adjudication to accept as a risks incidental to the business, and fact the proposition that a partner works no forfeiture or deduction." will not be able to charge the firm Heath v. Waters, 40 Mich. 457. specifically for extra services de- ^o Denver v. Roane, 99 U. S. 355, volved upon him by reason of the 25 L. ed. 476; Gray v. Hamil, 82 Ga. illness of his copartner. A partner 375, 10 S. E. 205, 6 L. R. A. 72 ; In is "bound to discharge his duties in re Marsh's Appeal, 69 Pa. St. 30, 8 relation to preserving and caring for Am. Rep. 206; Emerson v. Durand, the partnership estate without extra 64 Wis. Ill, 24 N. W. 129, 54 Am. compensation, duties which the com- Rep. 593. And compare Lindley Part- mon law implies are incident to the nership, *381 ; Morris v. Griffin, 83 contract of copartnership — duties Iowa 327, 49 N. W. 846; Clement v. which remain in the absence or dis- Ditterline's Admr., 11 Ky. L. 294, 11 ability of the copartner, whether oc- S. W. 658; Airey v. Borham, 29 casioned by causes of a temporary na- Beav. 620, 4 L. T. 391. ture, as, for instance, sickness, or a ^^ Godfrey v. White, 43 Mich. 171, permanent nature, as, for, instance, 5 N. W. 243. 415 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 356 for a special purpose^^ or selling goods.^^ And it seems that one partner may recover the value of his services from his co- partner when the same have been performed for the latter in- dividually and not as a member of the firm, and there exists no agreement that such liability shall not attach.®* Where the minor children of a managing partner are, with the consent of the other member of the firm, employed in the partnership busi- ness, it has been held that their father is entitled to be compen- sated for their services.^^ If there is an express or implied agreement, one may recover from another for services rendered in contemplation of a partnership which was not launched,^^ or where one contemplated partner was engaged specially to in- vestigate the property as to which a partnership was afterward formed,®'^ or a prospective partner rendered services and was afterward excluded from the partnership.'® § 356. Partner failing or refusing to perform services — Misconduct. — If one partner refuses without good cause to perform the services to which he has agreed, the other will usually be given an allowance therefor, or a deduction will be made from the share of the partner who did not perform his agreed service.®'' And it has been held that where a partner was prevented by sickness from rendering to the firm agreed services not of a personal character, he was chargeable with the ssDuflf V. Maguire, 107 Mass. 87; 158, 54 Pac. 853; Lane v. Roche, Riley Bradford v. Kimberly, 3 Johns. Ch. Eq. (S. Car.) 215. (N. Y.) 431; Butner v. Lemly, 58 N. s? Duflf v. Maguire, 107 Mass. 87. Car. 148; Philips v. Turner, 22' N. ss-yvilliams v. McKee, 13 Ky. L. Car. 123. (abstract) 143; White v. Rodemann, 83 Lewis V. Moffett, 11 111. 392; 44 App. Div. 503, 60 N. Y. S. 971. But Shirk's Appeal, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 119. compare Gullich v. Alford, 61 Miss. 8* Lell V. Hardesty, 23 Ky. L. 2073, 224; Dunlap v. Watson, 124 Mass. 66 S. W. 643. And compare Will- 305. iams V. Knibbs, 213 Mass. 534, 100 N. 89 Stegman v. Berryhill, 72 Mo. 307; E. 666. Miller v. Hale, 96 Mo. App. 427, 70 8= Taylor v. Ragland, 42 La. Ann. S. W. 258; Cald-well v. Leiber, 7 1020, 8 So. 467. See also Zimmerman Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 483; Marsh's Ap- V. Huber, 29 Ala. 379. peal, 69 Pa. St. 30, 8 Am. Rep. 206. 88Waugh V. Eden, 12 Colo. App. § 356 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 416 amount paid to other persons who did the work.®" So in some cases where, on account of a default of the other partner or partners, in attending to their duties relative to the firm busi- ness, he is forced to assume a greater burden than he would o'therwise have done, the active partner may receive compensa- tion for such extra services.'^ For example: If one partner goes out of the country and leaves the other to wind up the affairs of the partnership, the latter is entitled to such an amount as would reasonably compensate him for the services so, per- formed.^^ The rule just stated is, however, it would seem, only applied in exceptional cases, and our courts have held that even though one partner has worked continuously at the partnership business for many years, while the others have given it little, if any, attention, in the absence of any agreement therefor, the active partner can not claim compensation for the services so rendered.®^ So, also, where a partnership agreement is rescinded on the ground of fraud, the one who was fraudulently induced to engage in the business may be entitled in addition to his con- tributions thereto with interest, to reasonable compensation for his services in attending to the same."* A partner by fraud or miisconduct may forfeit his right to compensation, although it has been provided for by express contract.®^ This rule does not apply where both partners were negligent.®^ Nor is a part- ner who contracted to give his entire time to the business, en- titled to compensation for a portion of the time during which 90 Hart V. Myers, 25 Abb. N. Cas. »* Caplen v. Cox, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 478, 12 N. y. S. 140 (affd. S9 Hun 297, 92 S. W. 1048, citing Richards v. 420, 13 N. Y. S. 388, 36 N. Y. St. Todd, 127 Mass. 167. 641). 95 Blair v. Shaeffer, 33 Fed. 218; 91 Gray v. Hamil, 82 Ga. 375, 10 S. Honore v. Colmesnil, 1 J. J. Marsh. E. 205, 6 L. R. A. 72; Zell's Appeal, (Ky.) 506; Young v. Berryman, N. 126 Pa. St. 329, 17 Atl. 647. B. Eq. Cas. 110. 92 Clement v. Ditterline, 11 Ky. 294, 96 Morris v. Griffin, 83 Iowa 327, 11 S. W. 658. 49 N. W. 846. 93 Strattan v. Tabb, 8 111. App. 225. See Forrer v. Ferrer, 29 Grat. (Va.) 134. 417 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 357 he was otherwise employed."'' One partner who excludes the others from the business is not entitled to compensation. °* § 357. Repayment of capital. — In a consideration of the right of a partner to have his capital repaid to him upon dis- solution of the firm, the subject must be approached from sev- eral angles. In a leading Massachusetts case"^ Chief Justice Gray, in his opinion, quoting from Kent's Commentaries, recog- nizes the different cases, where there is a definite stipula- tion and where there is none, in the following words : "'In the absence of controlling agreement, partners must bear the losses in the same proportion as the profits of the partnership, even if one contributes the whole capital and the other nothing but his labor or services." Further quoting from Story on Part- nership, he draws a further distinction as to general partner- ships and partnerships for a single transaction, as follows : "If, as is not infrequently the case in a partnership for a single ad- venture, the mere use of the capital is contributed by one part- ner, and the partnership is in the profits and losses only, the capital remains the property of the individual to whom it orig- inally belonged, any loss or destruction of it falls upon him as the owner and, as it never becomes the property of the partner- ship, the partnership owes him nothing in consideration thereof. But where, as is usual in an ordinary mercantile partnership, a partnership is created not merely in profits and losses, but in the property itself, the property is transferred from the original owners to the partnership and becomes the joint property of the latter; a corresponding obligation arises on the part of the part- nership to pay the value thereof to the individuals who contrib- uted it; such payment can not, indeed, be demanded during the continuance of the partnership, nor are the contributors in the absence of agreement or usage entitled to interest; but if the assets of the partnership, upon a final settlement, are insufficient 9''Lay V. Emery, 8 N. Dak. SIS, 79 s'Whitcomb v. Converse, 119 N. W. 1053. Mass. 38, 20 Am. Rep. 311. 88 Frazier v.' Frazier, 77 Va. 77S. 27— Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 357 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 418 to satisfy this obligation, all the partners must bear it in the same proportion as other debts of the partnership."^ So if there is no contrary agreement,^ and the capital has passed to the firm, it is a debt owing to the contributing partner by the firm on dissolution, which is to be paid after debts and liabilities to outsiders, and advances, loans and indemnities to partners, that is, after all other firm debts, to outsiders and to partners, have been paid.* If the firm assets are insufficient to pay all the capital he is paid in ratable proportion to his contribution.^ The Uni- form Partnership Act provides :^* "Each partner shall be repaid his contributions, whether by way of capital or advances to the partnership property and share equally in the profits and surplus remaining after all "liabilities, including those to partners are sat- isfied ; and must contribute toward the losses, whether of capital or otherwise, sustained by the partnership according to his share 2 Bradbury v. Smith, 21 Maine 117; Julio V. Ingalls, 1 Allen (Mass.) 41; Taft V. Schwamb, 80 111. 289; Bar- field V. Longborough, L. R. 8 Ch. 1, 42 L. J. Ch. 179, 27 L. T. 499, 21 W. R. 86; In re Anglesea Colliery Co., L. R. 2 Eq. 379 ; Nowell v. Now- ell, L. R. 7 Eq. S38; In re Hodges Distillery Co., L. R. 6 Ch. 51 ; 1 Lind- ley Partnership (3d ed.) pp. 696, 827. sQroth V. Kersting, 23 Colo. 213, 47 Pac. 393; Scutt v. Robertson, 127 III. 13S, 19 N. E. 851, 17 N. E. 14; Burger v. Robinson, 81 Misc. (N. Y.) 678, 143 N. Y. S. 530; Wood v. Scoles, L. R. 1 Ch. 369, 35 L. J. Ch. 547, 12 Jur. (N. S.) 555, 14 W. R. 621. * Bullock V. Ashley, 90 111. 102; Jackson v. Crapp, 32 Ind. 422; Fred- erick V. Cooper, 3 Iowa 171 ; Johnson V. Jackson, 130 Ky. 751, 114 S. W. 260 ; Thomas v. Winchester Bank, 105 Ky. 694, 49 S. W. 539, 20 Ky. L. 1502 ; Frigerio v. Crottes, 20 La. Ann. 351 ; Levingston v. Blanchard, 130 Mass. 341; Jones v. Butler, 87 N. Y. 613; Buie v.. Kennedy, 164 N. Car. 290, 80 S. E. 445; Rowland v. Miller, 7 Phila, (Pa.) 362; In re Hall, 32 R. I. 424 79 Atl. 966; Wilson v. Wilson, 74 S. Car. 30, 54 S. E. 227; Johnston v. Ballard, 83 Tex. 486, 18 S. W. 686; Gore V. Vines, 72 W. Va. 783, 79 S. E. 820; Fouse v. Shelly, 64 W. Va. 425, 63 S. E. 208; Hall v. Antrobus, 44 N. S. 96; Cameron v. Peters, 8 Ont. W. R. 359. 5 Capitol Food Co. v. Globe Coal Co., 142 Iowa 134, 120 N: W. 704; Hasbrouck v. Childs, 16 N. Y. Super. Ct. 105; Kennedy v. Hill, 89 S. Car. 462, 71 S. E. 974. Compare Brewer V. Johnson, 87 Ark. 641, 112 S. W. 364. If one partner contributes in ex- cess of the agreed amount it has been held this excess should be re- paid first and the remaining assets divided equally. Chamberlain v. Saw- yers, 17 Ky. L. 716, 32 S. W. 495. 5a Uniform Partnership Act, § 18(a). 419 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 358 in the profits." The right to a repayment of capital may be lost by agreement on consideration* or, misconduct/ it is readily seen by the above that still another element sometimes creeps in; namely, whether or not the property used by the firm is itself turned over to the partnership, or simply the use of it. To sum- marize the above briefly, it may be stated that in case there is a contract covering the question, it must govern. Where there is no contract governing, and the property is simply used by the firm, but the ownership is retained by one partner, there is no right to repayment by reason of the partnership itself. In this latter case, it may perhaps be said that the property is not strictly capital. If the property does become the property of the firm, then there is a right to repayment from the firm, in case of loss of the capital, the same, and in the same proportions, as profits or other losses are shared, as to each partner. , § 358. Repayment of advances. — The question of what is an advancement properly suggests itself at this point. As a matter of fact, it is often difficult to distinguish whether prop- erty turned over to the firm by a partner, for its use, is in the nature of a contribution to the capital, or as an advancement as a loan. If the property was turned over to the firm, and as a consideration therefor the partner surrendering it became the owner of a share in the partnership, whether it be his original entrance or not, it can only be considered a contribution to the capital, and not an advancement. If, on the contrary, he sim- ply allows the firm the use of the money or other property, and does not take the absolute ownership of an interest in the firm by reason thereof, it is then considered a loan or advancement, and, as a general rule, is to be repaid, as was said in a Nevada case,® which quotes from Lindley on Partnership, as follows: "An advance by a partner to a firm is not treated as an increase e Kibby V. Kimball, 63 Iowa 665, Va. 490, 71 S. E. 532, Ann. Cas. 1913 19 N. W. 825; Neudecker v. Kohl- B, llS9n. 1)erg, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 407; Shea v. '' Escallier v. Baines, 40 Wash. 176, Donahue, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 160, 54 82 Pac. 181. Am. Rep. 407; Smiley v. Smiley, 112 ^Folsom v. Marlette, 23 Nev. 459, § 358 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 420 of his capital, but rather as a' loan, on which interest ought to be paid; and, by usage, interest is payable on money bona fide advanced by one partner for partnership purposes, at least when the advance is made with the knowledge of the other partners." The court, continuing, approves the quotation as correct beyond question. In a Pennsylvania case® the same reasoning is fol- lowed. In this case one party furnished all the capital, with the agreement that in case of loss he should only be liable to a certain stipulated amount, and should be reimbursed by the others, and the agreement was upheld by the court as joint and several liability. This case differed slightly from the preceding one in that it was not a partnership liability to repay the ad- vancement, but an individual one ; however, in a general way it is in accordance with the general rule that in the absence of agreement, which will determine rights as to advancements,^" each partner is a creditor of the firm as to money loaned it or personal obligations incurred in its business, or for purposes beneficial to the partnership, and has a right to repayment after the debts of the firm to outsiders have been met.^^ ^The Uniform 49 Pac. 39. See also Baker v. Mayo, ' iams v. Henshaw, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 129 Mass. 517; Berry v. Folkes, 60 378, 23 Am. Dec. 614; Harrison v. Miss. S76; Morris v. Allen, 14 N. J. Dewey, 46 Mich. 173, 9 N. W. 152; Eq. 44; CoUender v. Phelan, 79 N. Lamb v. Rowan, 83 Miss. 45, 33 So. Y. 366. 427, 690; Finney v. Brant, 19 Mo. 42; 9 Magilton V. Stevenson, 173 Pa. St. Murphy v. Warren, 55 Nebr. 215, 75 560, 34 Atl. 235. N. W. 573;. Sells v. Hubbell, 2 Johns. "Von Schmidt v. Von Schmidt, 115 Ch. (N. Y.) 394; Sattler v. Sauer, 28 Cal. 239, 46 Pac. 1056; Flynn v. Scale, Pitts. Leg. J. (N. S.) 143; Wilson v. 2 Cal. App. 665, 84 Pac. 263; Mc- Wilson, 74 S. Car. 30, 54 S. E. 227; Fadden v. Leeka, 48 Ohio St. 513, 28 Martin v. Taylor (Tex. Civ. App.), N. E. 874; Magilton v. Stevenson, 141 S. W. 1009 ; Maitland v. Purdy, 49 173 Pa. St. 560, 34 Atl. 235; Evans v. Wash. 575, 96 Pac. 154; Green v. Weatherhead, 24 R. L 394, 53 Atl. Stacy, 90 Wis. 46, 62 N. W. 627; 286; Looh v. Bailey (Tex. Civ. App.), Burdon v. Barkus, 4 DeG., F. & J. 42, 164 S. W. 407. 8 Jur. (N. S.) 656; Wright v. Hunter, iiNichol V. Stewart, 36 Ark. 612; 5 Ves. 792; Sanders v. Herndon, 110 Silveira v. R?ese, 138 Cal. xix, 71 S. W. 862, 33 Ky. L. 669. Compare Pac. 515; Keaton v. Mayo, 71 Ga. Armstrong v. Hollen, 58 Ore. 534, 115 649; Topping v. Paddock, 92 111. 92; Pac. 423; Capital Food Co. v. Globe Stevens v. Lunt, 19 Maine 70; Will- Coal Co., 142 Iowa 134, 120 N. W. 421 SIGHTS INTER SESE 359 Partnership Act provides for the repayment of advances." If the funds are insufficient to repay the advance, the partner mak- ing the advance must share the loss, unless his loss is limited by agreement.^^ § 359. Right of partner to interest — In general. — Owing to the difference of opinion among the courts, any discussion of the allowance of interest in taking partnership accounts must descend almost to the point of being a mere digest of cases.^* Of course, whenever a partner demanding interest can point either to an express or an implied agreement therefor, his ac- count will in general receive credit in consonance therewith/^ 704; Whitney v. Whitney, 115 Ky. 552, 74 S. W. 194, 24 Ky. L. 2465; Mason v. Gibson, IZ N. H. 190, 60 Atl. 9(>; Leserman v. Bernheimer, 113 N. Y. 39, 20 N. E. 869; Shamokin Banking Co. v. Focht, 21 Pa. Dist. 551. ^2 Uniform Partnership Act, § 18 (a), quoted in § 357 ante. ^^ See cases cited in note 11, ante; Ramsay v. Meade, 2>7 Colo. 465, 86 Pac. 1018; Stark v. Howcott, 118 La. 489, 43 So. 61; Raymond v. Putnam, 44 N. H. 160. i^Lindley Partnership, *389; Buck- ingham V. Ludlum, 29 N. J. Eq. 345; Johnson v. Hartshorne, 52 N. Y. 173 ; In re Gyger's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 73, 1 Am. Rep. 382. See note, on right of partner to interest on capital or other funds due to him from firm. Ann. Cas. 1913 A, 173. It was said in a note on "Allowance of interest in fa- vor or against a partner during the continuance of the firm," 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 220, that: "There are, broadly speaking, three grounds upon which interest is allowable: (1) As the fruit of a contractual provision there- for, either express, or implied from the situation of the parties or mer- cantile usage ; (2) as damages for the detention of a sum of money after it has become due; (3) as an equitable equivalent for the use of money fraudulently withheld from its right- ful owner. There is, therefore, no' basis for the allowance of interest, as between partners, on either capital, advances, balances between them, or indebtedness to the firm, unless the circumstances of the case bring it within one or another of these rules." 15 "Where one partner furnishes all or more than his share of the capital of the business, he may contract for any rate of interest on the surplus of capital so furnished by him, to be paid out of the profits of the busi- ness, as preferred profits. If there are no profits, or the business fails, he gets no interest and loses his cap- ital. It is for this additional risk that he is permitted to charge and re- ceive from the business as a pre- ferred profit, in the event it is earned, a return exceeding the legal rate of interest upon the capital so ad- vanced." Ruggles V. Buckley, 158 Fed. 950, 86 C. C. A. 154. See further Ex parte Chippendale, 4 DeG., M. & G. § 360 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 422 Apparently, even this rule, which has been stated so broadly, is not absolute, there being certain cases which seem to demand its qualification.^^ § 360. Right to interest on capital. — If in the partnership agreement it is stipulated that the partners will be allowed in- terest, on the capital invested, such agreement will be enforced.^'^ 19, 18 Jur. 712; Pond v. Clark, 24 Conn. 370; Prentice v. Elliott, 72 Ga. 154; Taft v. Schwamb, 80 III. 289; Doyle V. Duckworth, 149 Iowa 623, 129 N. W. 59; Meguiar v. Helm, 91 Ky. 19, 14 S. W. 949, 12 Ky. L. 751 ; Pratt V. McHatton, 11 La. Ann. 260; Juilliard v. Orem's Exrs., 70 Maine 465, 17 Atl. 333 ; Keiley ' v. Turner, 81 Md. 269, 31 Atl. 700 ; Montague v. Haye?, 10 Gray (Mass.) 609; Win- chester V. Glazier, 152 Mass. 316, 25 N. E. 728, 9 L. R. A. 424; Whitcomb V. Converse, 119 Mass. 38, 20 Am. Rep. 311 ; Wells v. Babcock, 56 Mich. 276, 22 N. W. 809, 27 N. W. 575; Beck V. Thompson, 22 Nev. 109, 36 Pac. 562; Morris v. Allen, 14 N. J. Eq. 44; Hajme v. Sealy, 71 App. Div. (N. Y.) 418, 75 N. Y. S. 907; Matter of Laney, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 15, 18 N. Y. St. 463, 2 N. Y. S. 443 (affd. 119 N. Y; 607, 23 N. E. 1143); Bullock' V. Bemis, 51 Hun (N. Y.) 637, 20 N. Y. St. 836, 3 N. Y. S. 309; Payne v. Freer, 91 N. Y. 43, 43 Am. Rep. 640; Moore v. Westbrook, 156 N. Car. 482, 72 S. E. 842, Ann. Cas. 1913 A, 168n; Wayne v. Hinkle, 9 Ohio Dec. 389, 12 Wkly. L. Bui. 282 (affd. 20 Wkly. L. Bui. 19) ; Cunningham v. Green, 23 Ohio St. 296; Piper v. Smith, 1 Head (Tenn.) 93; Hodges v. Parker, 17 Vt. 242, 44 Am. Dec. 331 ; Emerson v. Du- rand, 64 Wis. Ill, 24 N. W. 129, 54 Am. Rep. 593. And compare Barfield V. Loughborough, L. R. 8 Ch. 1, 42 L. J. Ch. 179, 27 L. T. 499, 21 W. R. 86; Smith v. Knight, 88 Iowa 257, 55 iSr. W. 189; Lockwood v. Roberts, 171 Mass. 109, 50 N. E. 517; Robinson v. Simmons, 156 Mass. 123, 30 N. E. 362; Bradley v. Brigham, 137 Mass. 545; Johnson v. Hartshorne, 52 N. Y. 173; Jones v. Jones, 36 N. Car. 332. 1^ "In the absence of an express agreement, partners are not ordina- rily erititled to interest against each other." Ames v. Ames, 113 Minn. 137, 129 N. W. 156. See further Os- born V. Gheen, 5 Macke'y (D. C.) 189 (affd. 136 U. S. 646, 34 L. ed. 552, 10 Sup. Ct. 1072) ; Moss v. McCall, 75 III. 190; Taylor v. SneU, 79 111. App. 462 (affd. 182 111. 473, 55 N. E. 545) ; Whitcomb v. Converse, 119 Mass. 38, 20 Am. Rep. 311 ; St. Paul Trust Co. V. Finch, 52 Minn. 342, 54 N. W. 190; Sanfo'rd v. Barney, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 108, 19 ;N. Y. St. 16, 4 N. Y. S. 500; In re James, 146 N. Y. 78, 40 N. E. 876, 48- Am. St. 774; In re Brown's Appeal, 89 Pa. St. 139. " Ruggles V. Buckley, 86 C. C. A. 154, 158 Fed. 950; Doyle v. Duck- worth, 149 Iowa 623, 129 N. W. 59; Whitcomb v. Converse, 119 Mass. 38, 20 Am. Rep. 311; Montague v. Hayes, 10 Gray (Mass.) 609; Juilliard v. Orem, 70 Maine 465, 17 Atl. 333; Beck V. Thompson, 22 Nev. 109, 36 Pac. 562- Oppe v. Webendorfer, 43 Hun (N. Y.) 640, 7 N. Y. St. 283; 423 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 360 As a rule, interest is not allowed on unwithdrawn profits, unless it is so provided by contract,^^ nor will such profits be consid- ered as capital where the agreement is to pay interest on cap- ital.^* Ordinarily when it has not been otherwise agreed, cap- ital cpntributed is noninterest-bearing, at least prior to disso- lution of the partnership relation.^" "Each partner is presumed to look to his share of profits for his compensation and not to Hayne v. Sealy, 71 App. Div. 418, 75 N. Y. S. 907; Daniels v. McCormick, 87 Wis. 2SS, SB N. W. 406; Piper v. Smith, 1 Head (Tenn.) 93. Interest may be allowed on capital at" more than the legal rate. Cunningham v. Green, 23 Ohio St. 296; Ruggles v. Buckley, 86 C. C. A. 1S4, 158 Fed. 950. If each is to receive interest, it is proper to allow it only on the ex- cess contributed by one over the other. Scheuer v. Berringer, 102 Ala. 216, 14 So. 640. >8 Winchester v. Glazier, 152 Mass. 316, 25 N. E. 728, 9 L. R. A. 424; Gilman v. Vaughan, 44 Wis. 646. " Tutt V. Land, 50 Ga. 339; Dinham V. Bradford, L R. 5 Ch. 519. If one partner receives interest on capital, the other should receive it also on salary 'or profits which he left in the firm. Keiley v. Turner, 81 Md. 269, 31 Atl. 700. 2* "The rule applicable to general partnerships is that a partner is not entitled to interest on capital which he contributes to the firm, although his contribution be greatly in excess of that of his copartners, unless they have agreed that he may have inter- est." Bartlett v. Boyles, 66 W. Va. 327, (iS S. E. 474. See further, Cooke V. Benbow, 3 DeG., J. & S. 1, 6 New Rep. 135; Rishton v. Grissell, L. R. 5 Eq. 326; Jardine v. Hope, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 76; Osborn v. Gheen, 5 Mackey (D. C.) 189 (affd. 136 U. S. 646, 34 L. ed. 552, 10 Sup. Ct. 1072) ; Desha v. Smith, 20 Ala. 747; Car- penter V. Hathaway, 87 Cal. 434, 25 Pac. 549; Tirrell v. Jones, 39 Cal. 655 ; Day v. Lockwood, 24 Conn. 185 ; Topping V. Paddock, 92 111. 92 ; Doyle V. Duckworth, 149 Iowa 623, 129 N. W. 59; Smith v. Knight, 88 Iowa 257, 55 N. W. 189; Lee v. Lashbrooke, 8 Dana (Ky.) 214; Seibert's Assignee V. Ragsdale, 103 Ky. 206, 19 Ky. L. 1869, 44 S. W. 653 ; Ashbrook v. Ash- brook, 16 Ky. L. 593, 28 S. W. 660; Burgher v. Burgher, 12 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 95 ; Adkinson v. Dent, 5 Ky. L. (abstract) 118; Harris v. Carter, 147 Mass. 313, 17 N. E. 649; Baker V. Mayo, 129 Mass. 517; Clark v. Pierce, 74 Mich. 638, 42 N. W. 357; Ames V. Ames, 113 Minn. 137, 129 N. W. 156; St. Paul Trust Co. v. Finch, 52 Minn. 342, 54 N. W. 190; Clark v. Worden, 10 Nebr. 87, 4 N. W. 413; Rodgers v. Clement, 162 N. Y. 422, 56 N. E. 901, 76 Am. St. 342; Grant v. Smith, 70 App. Div. (N. Y.) 301, 75 N. Y. S. 82; Sanford v. Barney, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 108, 4 N. Y. S. 500, 19 N. Y. St. 16; Moore v. Westbrook, 156 N. Car. 482, 72 S. E. 842, Ann. Cas. 1913 A, 168; Holden v. Peace, 39 N. Car. 223, 45 Am. Dec. 514; Brenner v. Carter, 10 Pa. Dist. Ct. 457; Stokes v. Hodges, 11 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 135; Frierson v. Morrow (Tenn.), 48 S. W. 245; Hatzfeld v. Walsh, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 573, 120 S. § 360 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 424 count upon interest as making any element of his profits."^^ By the Uniform Partnership Act, "A partner shall receive interest on the capital contributed by him only from the date when re- payment should be made."" Further, the weight, unaffected by prior agreement, to be attached to the demand for interest of a partner who has done that which his copartner. has not, — namely, contributed the share of capital assigned to him — is a point on which the decisions do not speak with united voice."^ However this may be, it will no doubt be proper to penalize an offending partner by debiting him with interest upon the con- tribution to the capital which for one reason or another he did not make.^* On the other hand the allowance of interest can not apparently be used as a tool to smooth off the sharp edges of inequality in the matter of the different shares placed to the credit of the firm capital, whatever their nature may have been, unless there has been an agreement to that effect.^^ Further, it seems that a partner who brings in tangible property as cap- ital can not obtain equalization of his contribution and that of his copartner, whose prescribed offering to the common fund consisted of time and labor only by the interest method, as of right.^^ If there is a contract for interest upon contributions W. S2S; Smith v. Putnam, 107 Wis. S. W. 949, 12 Ky. L. 751; Pratt v. ISS, 82 N. Y. 1077, 83 N. W. 288. McHatton, 11 La. Ann. 260; Hart- 2iOsborn v. Gheen, S Mackey (D. jnan v. Woehr, 18 N. J. Eq. 383; In C.) 189 (affd. 136 U. S. .646, 34 L. ed. re Laney, SO Hun (N. Y.) IS, 18 N. SS2, 10 ,Sup. Ct. 1072). Y. St. 463, 2 N. Y. S. 443 (affd. 119 22 Uniform Partnership Act, § 18 N. Y. 607, 23 N. E. 1143); Emerson (d). V. Durand, 64 Wis. Ill, 24 N. W. 129, 23Ligare V. Peacock, 109 111. 94; 54 Am. Rep. 593. Contra: Stokes v. Montague v. Hayes, 10 Gray (Mass.) Hodges, 11 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 135; 609; Clark v. Warden, 10 Nebr. 87, 4 Wilson v. McCarty, 25 Grant Ch. (U. N. W. 413; Hartman v. Woehr, 18 N. C.) 152. J. Eq. 383; Stokes v. Hodges, 11 . 25 Desha v. Smith, 20 Ala. 747; Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 135; Hill v. King, Thompson v. Noble, 108 Mich. 19, 65 3 DeG., J. & S. 418, 1 N. R. 161. N. W. 563; Ames v. Ames, 113 Minn. 2* Reynolds v. Mardis, 17 Ala. 32; 137, 129 N. W. 156. Turnipseed v. Goodwin,, 9 Ala. 372; 26Tirrell v. Jones, 39 Cal. 655; Ligare v. Peacock, 109 111. 94; Krapp Tutt v. Land, 50 Ga. 339; O'Bryan v. V. Aderholdt, 42 Kans. 247, 21 Pac. Brumback, 11 Ky. L. (abstract) 405; 1063; Meguiar v. Helm, 91 Ky. 19, 14 Berry v. Koikes, 60 Miss. 576; San- 425 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 361 it is assumed that interest will cease upon dissolution of the partnership by agreement.^^ § 361. Right to interest on advances. — By the Uniform Partnership Act, "A partner who, in aid of the partnership makes any payment or advance beyond the amount of capital which he agreed to contribute, shall be paid interest from the date of the payment or advance."^* But on looking to the cases not under the act, when the question of interest on advances comes under consideration, a prima facie conflict at once in- trudes itself,^* in some instances it having been indicated that ford V. Barney, SO Hun (N. Y.) 108, 19 N. Y. St. 16, 4 N. Y. S. 500; Lewis V. Whitehall Lumber Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.) 637, 14 N. Y. St. 302; Jackson v. Johnson, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 509 (revd. 74 N. Y. 607) ; Rodgers v. Clement, 15 App. Div. (N. Y.) 561, 44 N. Y, S. 516; Bartlett v. Boyles, 66 W. Va. 327, 66 S. E. 474; Stevens • v. Cook, S Jur. (N. S.) 1415; Jardine V. Hope, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 76. 27 Mosapp V. Stevens, 142 N. Y. S. 690, 158 App. Div. 874. 28 Uniform Partnership Act, § 18(c). 29 An attempt has been made in a note in 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 220, ap- pended to Kilworth v. Ice, 84 Kans. 458, 114 Pac. 857, to explain this seeming discord among authorities. In this note at page 223 it is said, citing Buckingham v. Ludlum, 29 N. J. Eq. 345, and Rodgers v. Clement, 162 N. Y. 422, 56 N. E. 901, 76 Am. St. 342: "The apparent conflict be- tween the decisions as to the allow- ance of interest to a partner on his advances is due to a failure on the part of some of the courts to state whether they refer to advances of money to be employed as capital, or to advances by way of loan. In the one case, as the partner is considered as looking to the profits for compen- sation, there is no basis upon which an agreement on the part of the firm to pay interest may be implied ; while, on the other hand, if it is shown that the advance was not intended as other than a loan, such an agreement may be implied from mercantile usage." When capital itself can ordinarily be regarded as something altogether dif- ferent from a loan to the firm, the reasoning here employed may be ac- cepted as logical. Until then this ex- planation must be regarded as being based upon a false distinction — not upon any practical difference. It may be as is stated that courts in allowing or disallowing interest on advances, have this attempted distinction in mind. Even though this be so, it is undoubt- edly true that the same courts could not themselves with invariable exact- ness discover when an advance was intended as a "loan'' and when as a contribution to an agreed increased capital. Hence it seems that until a more practical suggestion is offered, no rule, clearly defined, can be laid down whereby to determine when ad- vances will and when they will not bear interest. § 361 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 426 such advances possess intrinsically the interest-drawing quality.^" — in others, that they do not.^^ A comparatively recent New York case states the rule in the following language: "Where the share of the several partners in a partnership venture de- pends upon the capital furnished by them, respectively, it is very so "As between partners, there is no doubt that a partner who makes ad- vances for partnership purposes be- yond the amount of his agreed con- tribution is entitled to collect interest thereon, at the customary legal rate, even in the absence of any express agreement therefor with his copart- ners." Mack V. Engel, 165 Mich. 540, 131 N. W. 92. See further Ex parte Chippendale, 4 DeG., M. & G. 19, 18 Jur. 710; Osborn v. Gheen, 5 Mackey (D. C.) 189 (affd. 136 U. S. 646, 34 L. ed. 552, 10 Sup. Ct. 1072) ; Reyn- olds V. Mardis, 17 Ala. 32; Turnip- seed V. Goodwin, 9 Ala. 372 ; McMil- lan V. James, 105 111. 194; Coldren v. Clark, 93 Iowa 352, 61 N. W. 1045; Boreing v. Wilson, 128 Ky. 570, 108 S. W. 914; Wolf V. Levi, 17 Ky. L. 1024, 33 S. W. 418; Matthews v. Adams, 84 Md. 143, 35 Atl. 60; Keiley v. Turner, 81 Md. 269, 31 Atl. 700; Baker v. Mayo, 129 Mass. S17; Mack V. Engel, 165 Mich. 540, 131 N. W. 92; Berry v. Folkes, 60 Miss. 576; Coddington v. Idell, 29 N. J. Eq. 504; Lloyd V. Carrier, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 364; Rensselaer Glass Factory v. Reid, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 587; Evans v. Weatherhead, 24 R. L 394, S3 Atl. 286; Hodges v. Parker, 17 Vt. 242, 44 Am. Dec. 331 ; Bartlett v. Boyles, 66 W. Va. 327, 66 S. E. 474; In re .Cleverdon, 4' Ont. App. 185; David- son v. Thirkell, 3 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 330 ; Consaul v. Cummings, 24 App. D. C. 36; McAllister v. Payne, 108 Ga. 517, 34 S. E. 165 ; Jordan v. Wilsbn, 64 111. App. 665 ; Folsom v. Marlette, 23 Nev. 459, 49 Pac. 39; Rodgers v. Clement, 162 N. Y. 422, 56 N. E. 901, 76 Am. St. 342 ; Grant v. Smith, 70 App. Div. (N. Y.) 301, 75 N. Y. S. 82 ; Atherton v. Whitcomb, 66 Vt. 447, 29 Atl. 674; Bartlett v. Boyles, 66 W. Va. 327, 66 S. E. 474. And compare Hart v. Clarke, 3 DeG., M. & G. 232, 24 L. J. Ch. 137, 3 Eq. Rep. 264, 3 Week. Rep. 147; Holloway v. Turner, 61 Md. 217; Winchester v. Glazier, 152 Mass. 316, 25 N. E. 728, 9 L. R. A. 424; Brown v. Schackel- ford, S3 Mo. 122. 31 Prentice v. Elliott, 72 Ga. 154; Topping V. Paddock, 92 111. 92; Kil- worth V. Ice, 84 Kans. 458,. 114 Pac. 857, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 220; Sei- bert's Assignee v. Ragsdale, 103 Ky. 206, 19 Ky. L. 1869, 44 S. W. 653; Ashbrook v. Ashbrook, 16 Ky. L. 593, 28 S. W. 660; Lee v. Lashbrook, 8 Dana (Ky.) 214; Millaudon v. Syl- vestre, 8 La. 262; Miller v. Lord, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 11; Harris v. Carter, 147 Mass. 313, 17 N. E. 649; Thomp- son V. Noble, 108 Mich. 19, 65 N. W. 563; Godfrey v. White, 43 Mich. 171, S N. W. 243, 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 562; Morris v. Allen, 14 N. J. Eq. 44; Lewis V. Whitehall Lumber Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.) 637, 14 N. Y. St. 302; Buford V. Ashcroft, 72 Tex. 104, 10 S. W. 346; Cooke v. Benbow, 3 De G. J. & S. 1, 6 New Rep. 135. And compare Wells v. Babcock, 56 Mich. 276, 22 N. W. 809, 27 N. W. 575; Jones v. Jones, 36 N. Car. 332. 427 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 362 clear that interest should not be iallowed on moneys furnished to the partnership as capital, either under the original agree- ment or as additions thereto; but when the amount to be fur- nished by each partner is fixed and certain, and the share of the respective partners in the profits of the partnership venture is a fixed proportion thereof, advances by one of the partners in excess of his prescribed proportion, although credited to the special account of such partner, and called 'capital' of the firm, are in fact, as between the partners, loans and advancements for the benefit of the partnership; and equity requires that interest should be allowed thereon."^^ § 362. Right to interest on balance. — So also in the pres- ent state of the law, it is unwise to attempt to prescribe with any degree of accuracy, the boundary within which a balance between partners is entitled to interest, this depending largely on the way in which the circumstances of th6 case have appealed to a court of equity,^^ although it is the tendency of most cases to hold that in the absence of an agreement, there is no right to 32 Grant v. Smith, 70 App. Div. (N. 70 Mo. App. 221; McCormick v. Mc- Y.) 301, 75 N. Y. S. 82. See also Cormick, 7 Nebr. 440; Buckingham Mack V. Engel, 165 Mich. 540, 131 N. v. Ludlum, 29 N. J. Eq. 345 ; Johnson W. 92. V. Hartshorne, 52 N. Y, 173 ; Stough- 33 Forsyth v. Butler, 152 Cal. 396, ton v. Lynch, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 93 Pac. 90; Solomon v. Solomon, 2 467; Stiles v. Haight, 124 App. Div. Ga. 18; Taylor v. Peterson, 1 Idaho 60, 108 N. Y. S. 136; Masury v. 513; King v. Hamilton, 16 111. 190; Whiton, 43 Hun (N. Y.) 638, 6 N. Y. Cooper V. McNeill, 14 111. App. 408; St 697 (affd. Ill N. Y. 679, 18 N. E. Wendlihg v. Jennisch, 85 Iowa 392, 638, 2 Silv. Ct. App. 123) ; Goodwill 52 N. W. 341; Kemmerer v. Kem- v. Heim, 212 Pa. 595, 62 Atl. 24; merer, 85 Iowa 193, 52 N. W. 194; Brenner v. Carter, 203 Pa. 75, 52 Atl. Boreing v. Wilson, 128 Ky. 570, 108 178;. Brown's Appeal, 89 Pa. St. 139; S. W. 914; Burgher V. Burgher, 12 Atherton v. Whitcomb, 66 Vt. 447, 29 Ky. L. (abstract) 95; Masonic Say. Atl. 674; Daniels v. McCormick, 87 Bank V. Bang's Admr., 10 Ky. L. 743, Wis, 255, 5g N. W. 406; Dimond v. 10 S. W. 633; Hilligsberg's Exrs. v. Henderson, 47 Wis. 172, 2 N. W.,73; Burthe, 6 La. Ann. 170; Gridley v. Meymott v. Meymott, 31 Beav. 445, Conner, 2 La. Ann. 87; Harris v. 32 L. J. Ch. 218, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 426,; Carter, 147 Mass. 313, 17 N. E. 649; Wilson v. McCarty, 25 Grant Ch. (U. Miller V. Lord, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 11; C.) 152. C. D. Smith Drug Co. v. Saunders, § 362 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 428 interest on balances due during the continuance of a partner- ship.^* Even when interest does actually attach to such "bal- ance," the latter must be understood ordinarily as referring to the one on final dissolution and settlement and not to any peri^ odical balance struck off from time to time.^^ "Interest should not be allowed on partnership accounts before there has been an accounting or settlement of the same, unless under the pe- culiar facts and circumstances surrounding the case the equities demand that interest be charged."^® 3* See cases cited in preceding note. In re Stevens, 104 Fed. 323; Tutt V. Land, SO Ga. 339; McFarland v. McCormick, 114 Iowa 368, 86 N. W. 369; Smith v. Knight, 88 Iowa 257, 55 N. W. 189; Sweeney v. Neeley, S3 Mich. 421, 19 N. W. 127; Lamb v. Rowan, 83 Miss. 45, 35 So. 427; Goodwill V. Heim, 212 Pa. S9S, 62 Atl. 24; Waggoner v. Gray, 2 Hen. & Mun. (Va.) 603; Hart v. Hart, 117 Wis. 639, 94 N. W. 890; Gilman v. Vaughan, 44 Wis. 646; Rhodes v. Rhodes, 1 Johns. Ch. 653, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 600, 29 L. J. Ch. 418, 8 W. R. 204 ; Dinham v. Bradford, L. R. S Ch. 519. 2^ "Interest can never be allowed on an unsettled or an unliquidated ac- count without an agreement, express or clearly implied, and the case must be a very strong one * * * to warrant its allowance without ex- press agreement to that effect." Sweeney v. Neeley, 53 Mich. 421, 19 N. W. 127. So Burnam, J., in Sei- bert's Assignee v. Ragsdale, 103 Ky. 206, 19 Ky. L. 1869, 44 S. W. 653, ap- proves an instruction which states in part: "nor would one party have the right to interest on the balance, from time to time in the partnership ac- co,unts, before a general settlement or dissolution of the partnership, in the absence of a special agreement to that effect." See further Colgin v. Cummins, 1 Port. (Ala.) 148; Dex- ter V. Arnold, 3 Mason (U. S.) 284, Fed. Cas. No. 3855; In re Stevens, 104 Fed. 323; Gage v. Parmelee, 87 III. 329; Lee v. Lashbrooke, 8 Dana (Ky.) 214; Bowling's Heirs v. Do- byn's Admrs., 5 Dana (Ky.) 434; Glenn v. Sims, S Ky. L. (abstract) 775 ; Moore v. Westbrook, 156 N. Car. 482, 72 S. E. 842, Ann. Cas. 1913 A, 168; Holden v. Peace, 39 N. Car. 223, 45 Am. Dec. 514; In re Brown's Es- tate, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 127, 89 Pa. St. 139; McKay v. Overton, 65 Tex. 82; Gilman v. Vaughan, 44 Wis. 646. And compare In re Cleverdon, 4 Ont App. 185; Moss v. McCall, 75 111. 190; Cooper V. McNeill, 14 111. App. 408; Kemmerer v. Kemmerer, 85 Iowa 193, 52 N. W. 194; Smith v. Knight, 88 Iowa 257, 55 N. W. 189. 3« Goodwill V. Heim, 212 Pa. 595, 62 Atl. 24. See also Gage v. Par- melee, 87 111. 329; Dexter v. Arnold, 3 Mason (U. S.) 284, Fed. Cas. No. 3855; Seibert v. Ragsdale, 103 Ky. 206, 44 S. W. 653, 19 Ky. L. 1869; McKay v. Overton, 65 Tex. 82; Oil- man V. Vaughan, 44 Wis. 646. 429 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 364 § 363. When, a partner is chargeable with interest on debts owing by him to the firm. — Whether a partner will be charged with interest on debts owing by him to the firm, must depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.''' The general rule seems to be that in the absence of an express agreement, an agreement to pay interest will not be implied.'^ But in certain instances it has. seemed to the courts to be in- equitable to the other partners unless one partner is charged with interest on debts owed the firm, as where one withdraws funds for his individual use, unless there is an agreement that interest is not to be paid,^^ or the withdrawal was unnecessary*" or there is an agreement that capital shall bear interest*^ or an incorrect statement of the amount withdrawn was made to the firm by one who had control of the books. But if the copartner assents to the withdrawal, it is held he can not charge the withdrawing partner with interest until his refusal to account for the sums taken out.*^ § 364. Right to contribution. — Contribution between part- ners is the right of one partner, who has paid more than his just proportion of firm debts, where the partnership assets are in- sufficient to meet the indebtedness, to compel his partners to pay him their just piroportion of the deficit paid by him, and is S7 Atherton v. Whitcomb, 66 Vt. S. 1, 6 N. R. 135 ; Meymott v. Mey- 447, 29 Atl. 674. mott, 31 Beav. 445, 32 L. J. Ch. 218, 38 Taylor v. Peterson, 1 Idaho 513; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 426. Wendling v. Jennisch, 85 Iowa 392, ^9 Forsyth v. Butler, 152 Cal. 396, 52 N. W. 341; Kemmerer v. Kem- 93 Pac. 90; Burgher v. Burgher, 12 merer, 85 Iowa 193, 52 N. W. 194 Ky. L. (abstract) 95; Stiles v. (unless there is fraud in the party Haight, 124 App. Div. 60, 108 N. Y. to be charged, or interest is allowed S. 136; Wilson v. McCarty, 25 Grant by mercantile usage) ; Miller v. Lord, Ch. (U. C.) 152. Under Civil Code, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 11; Harris v. Car- Gridley v. Conner, 2 La. Ann. 87. ter, 147 Mass. 313, 17 N. E. 649; *» Stoughton v. Lynch, 1 Johns. Ch. Sweeney v. Neeley, 53 Mich. 421, 19 (N. Y.) 467. N. W. 127; McCormick v. McCor- *iBoreing v. Wilson, 128 Ky. 570, mick, 7 Nebr. 440 ; Brenner v. Carter, 108 S. W. 914 ; Dimond v. Hender- 203 Pa. 75, 52 Atl. 178; Daniels v. son, 47 Wis. 172, 2 N. W. 73. McCormick, 87 Wis. 255, 58 N. W. *2 Solomon v, Solomon, 2 Ga. 18. 406; Cooke v. Benbow, 3 DeG., J. & § 364 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 430 a right well settled in partnership law. According to the Uni- form Partnership Act : "The partnership must indemnify every partner in respect of payments made and personal liabilities reasonably incurred by him in the ordinary and proper conduct of its business, or for the preservation of its business or prop- erty."*^ The fact that a partner can be held by a third person for the entire amount of a firm contract upon which, as to his copartners, he is but pro rata Hable," invests him necessarily, from an equitable standpoint, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary,*^ or illegality inherent in the partnership,*^ with the right to exact contribution from his copartners,*^ in the matter of all losses and expenses which he has bona fide incurred for the benefit of the partnership in the course of its business while acting within the scope of his authority as a member of *3 Uniform Partnership Act, § 18(b). ^* See § 495 et seq. *5Northen v. Tatum, 164 Ala. 368, 51 So. 17; McCormick v. Stofer, 11 Ky. L. 398, 12 S. W. 151; Baker v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 90 Md. 744, 45 Atl. 1028, 78 Am. St. 463 ; Hart v. Myers, 25 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 478, 12 N. Y. S. 140 (affd. 59 Hun (N. Y.) 420, 13 N. Y. S. 388, 36 N. Y. St. 641); McFadden v. Leeka, 48 Ohio St. 513, 28 N. E. 874; GiUan v. Mor- rison, 1 rJeG. & Sm. 421, 11 Jur. 861 ; In re Worcester Corn Exchange Co., 3 DeG., M. &. G. 180, 22 L. J. Ch. 593, 17 Jur. 721, 1 W. R. 171. See further Mussetter v. Timmerman, 11 Colo. 201, 17 Pac. 504; Warring V. Hill, 89 Ind. 497; Myers v. Smith, IS Iowa 181 ; Neal v. Berry, 86 Maine 193, 29 Atl. 987; Hanna v. Hyatt, 67 Mo. App. 308; Gilmore v. Ham, 61 Hun (N. Y.) .1, 15 N. Y. S. 391, 39 N. Y. St. 664, 21 Civ. Proc. (N. Y.) 102, (affd. 133 N. Y. 664, 31 N. E. 624) ; Curtis V. Monteith, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 356; Gray v. Williams, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 503 ; Long v. Garnett, 59 Tex. 229. 45 See §§ 175, 176, 177. *'' Sears v. Starbird, 78 Cal. 225, 20 Pac. 547; Downs v. Jackson, 33 111. 464, 85 Am. Dec. 289 ; Evans v. Clapp, 123 Mass. 165, 25 Am. Rep. 52 ; Flower V. Millaudon, 19 La. 185 ; Phillips v. Blatchford, 137 Mass. 510; Smith v. Ayrault, 71 Mich. 475, 39 N. W. 724, 1 L. R. A. 311; Lyons v. Murray, 95 Mo. 23, 8 S. W. 170, 6 Am. St. 17; Edison Electric Illuminating' Co. v. DeMott, 51 N. J. Eq. 16, 25 Atl. 952; Gilmore v. Ham, 61 Hun (N. Y.) 1, IS N; Y. S. 391, 39 N. Y. St. 664, 21 Civ. Proc. (N. Y.) 102 (affd. 133 N. Y. 664, 31 N. E. 624) ; Brasher's Exrs. V. Cortlandt, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 400; Mendez v. Schleuter, 30 N. Y. St. 150, 9 N. Y. S. 278; Forbes V. Webster, 2 Vt. 58. In the case of Clayton v. Davett (N. J.), 38 Atl.- 308, the contribution sought of the equitable mortgagee of a partner's share was refused. See, however, Hax V. Burnes, 98 Mo. App. 707, 73 S. W. 928. 431 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 364 the firm.*® There is a right to contribution for money iadvanced to purchase property used in the firm business, and purchased *8 "Unless otherwise provided in the articles of partnership, the expenses and losses of a partnership' are to be borne by all the members in the pro- portion they share in the profits ; and losses occasioned by conduct or omis- sion of a managing partner will not be charged against him unless he has been guilty, in the conduct or omis- sion, of fraud, bad faith, or culpable negligence." Northen v. Tatum, 164 Ala. 368, 51 So. 17. See further Christian &c. Grocery Co. v. Hill, 122 Ala. 490, 26 So. 149; Brownell v. Steere, 128 111. 209, 21 N. E. 3; Mor- rison V. Smith, 81 111. 221 ; Campbell V. Stewart, 34 111. 151; Savery v. Thurston, 4 111. App. 55 ; Price v. Ca- vins, 50 Ind. 122 ; Olleman v. Reagan, 28 Ind. 109; Easton v. Strother, 57 Iowa 506, 10 N. W. 877 ; Atherton v. Cochran, 11 Ky. L. 185, 9 S. W. 519, 11 S. W. 301; Craig v. Alverson, 6 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 609; Savage v. Car- ter, 9 Dana (Ky.) 408 ; Jones v. More- head, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) Zll ; Gard- ner V. Salyer, 1 Ky. L. (abstract) 420; Bayly v. Becnel, Z6 La. Ann. 496; Tuyes v. Avegno, 23 La. Ann. 177; Flower v. Millaudon, 19 La. 185; Pratt V. McHatton, 11 La. Ann. 260; Maginnis v. Crosby, 11 La. Ann. 400; Burleigh v. White, 70 Maine 130; Phillips V. Blatchford, 137 Mass. 510; Sweeney V. Neeley, S3 Mich. 421, 19 N. W. 127; Wheelef v. Arnold, 30 Mich. 304; Vaiden v. Hawkins (Miss.), 6 So. 227; Cockrell v. Thompson, 85 Mo. 510; Inglis v. Floyd, 33 Mo. App. 565; Converse v. Hobbs, 64 N. H. 42, 5 Atl. 832; Edison Elec- tric Illuminating Co. v. De Mott, 51 N. J. Eq. 16, 25 Atl. 952; Coleman v. Coleman, 12 Rich. L. (S. Car.), 183; Babb V. Mosby, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 105; Gray v. Williams, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 503; Martin v. Taylor (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 S. W. 1009; Logan v. Trayser, 77 Wis. 579, 46 N. W. 877; Bufford V. Ashcroft, 72 Wis. 104, 10 S. W. 346; Wells v. McGeoch, 71 Wis. 196, 35 N. W. 769. See further Ex parte Chippendale, 4 DeG., M. & G. 19, 18 Jur. 710; Durant v. Rogers, 87 III. 508; Noel v. Bowman, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 46; Matthews v. Adams, 84 Md. 143, 35 Atl. 60 ; Laylin v. Knox, 41 Mich. 40, 1 N-. W. 913 ; Preston v. Fitch, 137 N. Y. 41, ZZ N. E. 77; May v. Troutman, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 42; Stebbins v. Willard, 53 Vt. 665; Wright V. Hunter, 5 Ves. 792 ; Brad- bury V. Barnes, 19 Cal. 120; Burgess V. Badger, 124 111. 288,, 14 N. E. 850; powns v. Jackson, 33 111. 464, 85 Am. Dec. 289; Meserve v. Andrews, 106 Mass. 419; Bates v. Lane, 62 Mich. 132, 28 N.' W. 753; Lee's Exrx. v. Dolan's Admx., 39 ,N. J. Eq. 193 (affd. 40 N. J. Eq. 338) ; Sell's Admr. v. Hubbell's Admrs., 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 394; Leserman v. Bernheimer, 113 N. Y. 39, 20 N. E. 869. In this connection it is hardly necessary to cite authority to support the proposition that contribution will not be enforced when it has become desirable by reason of the demanding partner's culpable negligence or wil- ful misconduct — in which latter is included the exceeding of his author- ity, the disregard of instructions given, and the like. Thomas v. Ath-' erton, 10 Ch. Div. 185, 48 L. J. Ch. 370, 40 L. T. n ; Cragg v. Ford, 1 Y. & C. Ch, 285; McFadden v. Leeka, 364 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 432 after partnership liability began/' and for money expended for the purchase of patent rights under a firm agreement, although the patent rights were worthless/" This right to exact contri- bution, however, must not be misunderstood. It consists, or- dinarily, of the right to be credited on the taking of an account ;and the making of a settlement with all property, owned privately and individually, that has been expended in the carrying out of any firm undertaking." Further, the right of a partner to contribution can not, in general, be defeated by the illegality of the transaction from which loss has resulted,^^ unless the partnership is itself illegal,'^ or the act involved has been com- 48 Ohio St. 513, 28 N. E. 874. See further Rockefeller v. Morehouse, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 247, 1 Cleve. L. Rep. 164. As to contribution where one partner has put in labor and skill, see In re Aldridge (1894), 2 Ch. 97, 8 Reports 189, 70 L. T. 724, 42 W. R. 409, 63 L. J. Ch. 465 ; Morris v. Neel, 78 Ga. 797, 3 S. E. 643; Manley v. Taylor, 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 26, fol- lowing Hasbrouck v. Childs, 16 N. Y. Super. Ct. 105; Emerick v. Moir, 124 Pa. St. 498, 17 Atl. 1. *9Sperry v. Tulley (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 1067. so Martin v. Taylor (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 S. W. 1009. SI While this holds good in general, it does not by any means apply in every instance, there being apparent authority to support the proposition that, the circumstances requiring it, one former partner may, at least aft- er dissolution and final settlement, bring an action at law against his one-time copartner to compel con- tribution. Bishop V. Bishop, 54 Conn, 232, 6 Atl. 426; Crossley v. Taylor, 83 Ind. 337; Clarke v. Mills, 36 Kans. 393, 13 Pac. 569; Wright v. Eastman, 44 Maine 220 ; Torrey v. Twombly, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 149; Farmer v. Putnam, 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 32, 70 N. Y. S. 179; McDonald v. Holmes, 22 Ore. 212, 29 Pac. 735; Rush Centre Creamery Co. v. Hillis, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 527; Murray v. Herrick, 171 Pa. 21, 32 Atl. 1125 ; Compton v. Thorn's Admr., 90 Va. 653, 19 S. E. 451; Newman v. Ruby, 54 W. Va. 381, 46 S. E. 172. But compare Sebastian v. Booneville Academy Co., 22 Ky. L. 186, 56 S. W. 810; Hennegin v. Wil- coxin, 13 La. Ann. 576; Phillips v. Blatchford, 137 Mass. 510; Bond v. Bemis, 55 Mo. 524. '^Adamson v. Jarvis, 4 Bing. 66, 5 L. J. (0. S.) C. P. 68; Thomas V. Atherton, 10 Ch. Div. 185, 48 L. J. Ch. 370, 40 L. T. 77; Betts v. Gibbins, 2 Ad. & El. 57, 4 L. J. K. B. 1, 4 N. 6 M. 64; RamskiU v. Edwards, 31 Ch. Div. 100, 55 L. J. Ch. 81, 53 L. T. 949, 34 W. R. 96; Lingard v. Brom- ley, 1 V. & B. 114, 2 Rose 118, 12 R. R. 195; Baynard v. WooUey, 20 Beav. 583; Ashurst v. Mason, L. R. 20 Eq. 225, 44 L. J. Ch. 337, 23 W. R. 506; Clayton v. Davett (N. J. Eq.), 38 Atl. 308. But see Smith v. Ayrault, 71 Mich. 475, 39 N. W. 724, 1 L. R. A. 311. 53 Watson V. Fletcher, 7 Grat. (Va.) 1. And compare In re Long worth's 433 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 364 mitted by the partner seeking contribution, when he was at least chargeable with knowledge that it was unlawful.^* This rule was applied and contribution allowed where one partner settled for a trespass in cutting timber on land formerly owned by the partnership but sold by the state for taxes, he in good faith believing he had a right to cut the timber,"^ and where one member of a firm of lawyers refunded a fee which had been il- legally, but in good faith under a mistake as to law, allowed.^® Where there is moral guilt by the person seeking contribu- tion, through which the claim paid arose, no right of contribu- tion exists. A forcible illustration in point i^ a case^'^ where the party seeking contribution had been compelled, in an action of deceit, to pay certain notes which had been held by the firm, and which had been sold by the partner seeking contribution from his partners, through his false and fraudulent representa- tions concerning the solvency of the maker of the notes. How- ever, even where an "unlaw;ful act has been knowingly performed by all the partners, so that all are in pari delicto," it seems "that the. loss ought to be apportioned between all the partners, unless, the illegal act in question is a pure tort,^* or a direct violation of some statute, or unless the contract of partnership is itself Executor's Case, Johns. 465, on ap- S R. R. 624; Campbell v. Campbell, peal, 1 DeG., F. & J. 17 ; Pf euffer v. 7 CI. & F. 166. See further Wooley Maltby, 54 Tex. 454, 38 Am. Rep. v. Batte, 2 Car. & P. 417 ; Pearson v. 631. ■ Skelton, 1 M. & W. 504, 1 Tyr. & G. 6* Smith V. Ayrault, 71 Mich. 475, 848 ; Pratt v. McHatton, 11 La. Ann. 39 N. W. 724, 1 L. R. A. 311 ; Davis 260. V. Gelhaus, 44 Ohio St. 69, 4 N. E. ^s Edwards v. Zuck, 171 Mich. 29, 593; Cumpston v. Lambert, 18 Ohio 136 N. W. 1122. 81, 51 Am. Dec. 442; Spalding v. =6 in ^g Ryan's Estate, 157 Wis. Oakes, 42 Vt. 343 ; In re Ryan's Es- 576, 147 N. W. 993. tate, 157 Wis. 576, 147 N. W. 993; "Clayton v. Davett (N. J. Eq.), 38 Thomas v. Atherton, 10 Ch. Div. 185, Atl. 308 (1897). 48 L. j: Ch. 370, 40 L. T. 77; Adam- ^sBaynard v. WooUey, 20 Beav. son V. Jarvis, 4 Bing. 66, 5 L. J. (0. 583. See further Ashurst v. Mason, S.) C. P. 68; Betts v. Gibbins, 2 Ad. L. R. 20 Eq. 225, 44 L. J. Ch. 5Z7, 23 & El. 57, 4 N. & M. 64, 4 L. J. K. B. W. R. 506. And compare Thomas v. 1; Aubert v. Maze, 2 Bos. & P. 371, Atherton, 10 Ch. Div. 185, 48 L. J. 28 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 365 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 434 void on the ground of illegality.''^" As between joint wrong- doers, where a part only of the joint wrongdoers are compelled to pay the claim, even though they pay more than their propor- tionate share, there is no right of contribution if the act done must have been presumed by the doers to be unlawful,*" and, inasmuch as every one is presumed to know the law, an act which is made criminal by statute is necessarily presumed to ex- clude any right to contribution from the other partners, if the offending partner suffer loss by reason of the commission of such act."^ § 365. Contribution — Limit. — In the absence of an agree- ment defining the limit of contribution,*^ such limit is not arbi- trarily fixed either by the amount of stipulated partnership cap- ital,*^ or by the extent, relatively considered, of the interest of the partner from whom contribution is sought, in the property of the firrn.** In a Kentucky case*^ the court quotes from Lind- ley on Partnership the following general rule: "Partners must contribute ratably to their shares toward the losses and debts of the firm" and the court further accepts this statement as the accepted doctrine on the subject. It is there laid down, in ad- dition to the fact that the right o£ contribution exists, that it exists in proportion to the shares of the partners in the firm. In the absence of any agreement as to the respective shares, there Ch. 370, 40 L. T. 11; Attorney-Gen- W. 525; Magilton v. Stevenson, 173 eral v. Fishmongers Co., Cr. & Ph. 1. Pa. St. 560, 34 Atl. 235. s" Lindley Partnership, *379. ^^ Ex parte Chippendale, 4 DeG., eoGrund v. Van Vleck, 69 111. 478; M. & G. 19, 18 Jur. 710. See further Acheson v. Miller, 2 Ohio St. 203, 59 Taylor v. Coffing, 18 111. 422. Am. Dec. 663; Bryan v. Landon, S «* Smith v. Ayrault, 71 Mich. 475, Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 594, 3 Hun 39 N. W. 724, 1 L. R. A. 311 ; Scott v. (N. Y.) 500; Adarason v. Jarvis, 4 Bryan, 96 N. Car. 289, 3 S. E. 235; Bing. 66, S L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 68. In re Maria Anna & Steihbank Coal «i Davis V. Gelhaus, 44 Ohio St. 69, & Coke Co., 6 Ch. Div. 447, 46 L. J. 4 N. E. 593. Ch. 819, Zl L. T. 201, 25 W. R. 857. «2 In re Worcester Corn Exchange See further Maginnis v. Crosby, 11 Co., 3 DeG., M. & G. 180, 22 L. J. La. Ann. 400; Kincaid v. Hocker, 7 Ch. 593, 17 Jur. 721, 1 W. R. 171 ; J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 333. Scudder v. Ames, 89 Mo. 496, 14 S. "= Warring v. Arthur, 98 Ky. 34, 32 S. W. 221, 17 Ky. L. 60S (1896). 435 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 366 would probably arise an implication that the shares were equal shares. § 366. Right to indemnity from loss caused by copartner. — Where a member of a partnership causes it to sustain a loss by his misconduct, by violation of the partnership agreement, or, in a proper case, by lack of skill and diligence, his copartners have the right to obtain from him indemnity for the loss, and his duty is to indemnify them.^^ It is well settled and definitely understood that partners sustain a relation of trust and confidence one to the other. Each must adhere to the partnership agreement and con- fine his acts within the scope of the partnership business. If any one of the partners fails to do this, and the other member or members of the firm sustain a loss by reason of their co- partner's default, he must indemnify them.*'^ This rule has been applied where a partner gave credit to an insolvent relative in violation of express agreement,^® accepted worthless commercial paper in violation of a partnership agreement,°^ made and sold goods of inferior quality, rendering the firm liable to the vendee in damages,'" stored perishable goods negligently in violation of agreement,'^ tortiously removed necessary parts from a partner- ship sawmill, causing it to be idle,'^ used the partnership name in place of his own in indorsing notes,'* canceled a firm contract for the sale of lands and sold lands of his own instead,'* or can- es Loy V. Alston, 172 Fed. 90, 96 C. Forney v. Adams, 74 Mo. 138; Me- C. A. 578 ; Charlton v. Sloan, 16 chem's Cases 227 ; Marsh's Appeal, 69 Iowa 288, 41 N. W. 303 ; Yorks v. Pa. St. 30, 8 Am. Rep. 206. Tozer, 59 Minn. 78, 60 N. W. 846, 28 es McCoy v. Crossfield, 54 Ore. 591, L. R. A. 86, SO Am. St. 395 ; Hollister 104 Pac. 423. V. Simonson, 36 App. Div. 63, 55 N. Y. ^9 Murphy v. Crafts, 13 La. Ann. S. Zn, 170 N. Y. 357, 63 N. E. 342; 519, 71 Am. Dec. 519. Newby v. Harrell, 99 N. Car. 149, ^o Kintrea v. Charles, 12 Grant Ch. 5 S. E. 284, 6 Am. St. 503; Holden v. (U. C.) 123. Thurber (R. I.), 72 Atl. 720; Brown " Bohrer v. Drake, ZZ Minn. 408, V. Orr, 110 Va. 1, 65 S. E. 499, 135 23 N. W. 840. Am. St. 912. '2 Ball v. Levin, 48 La, Ann. 359, " Campbell v. Campbell, 7 Cla,rk & 19 So. 118. F. 166; Givens v. Berry, 21 Ky. L. " Smith v. Loring, 2 Ohio 440. 680, 52 S. W. 942 ; Murphy v. Crafts, '''^ Wiggins v. Markham, 131 Iowa 13 La. Ann. 519, 71 Am. Dec. 519; 102, 108 N. W. 113. § 367 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 436 celed firm contracts just before his withdrawal from the partner- ship, and then obtained them for individual benefit after with- drawal.''^ § 367. Right to subrogation. — In general the right of sub- rogation does not during the continuance of the partnership exist between partners, and one partner who has paid from his own means debts or liabilities against the firm is not. usually subro- gated to the rights of creditors in the debts he has paid, unless there is an agreement of partners creating the relation of prin- cipal and surety." The rights of partners to contribution and accounting for such liabilities paid, are such as to do away with the necessity of subrogation. But if there is such an agreement that the partner can be said to be a surety for the firm, then on paying its debt, he is subrogated to all rights of the holder of the debt,"^ or if the debt is that of the partners as individuals and one partner pays them.''® Some cases seem to allow the right to subrogation after an accounting has been had and a balance due found,'® and a few authorities hold that where a mortgage debt of the firm is paid by a partner he may keep the mort- gage alive until the other partner's share is repaid.®" As a rule after dissolution, if a partner pays judgments against,' or debts of, the firm, he is subrogated to the rights of the creditors whose claims were satisfied by him,®^ but in some cases the right, under ■fSAxton V. Kentucky Bottlers' &c. ^7 McMillan v. James, lOS III. 194; Co., 159 Ky. SI, 166 S. W. 776, Ann. AveriU v. Loucks, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) Cas. 1915 D, 74. 470; National Bank v. Gushing, 53 'sColemanv. Coleman, 78 Ind. 344; Vt. 321; Field v. Hamilton, 45 Vt Evans v. Rhea, 12 Ky. L. 224, 14 S. 35 ; Buchanan v. Clarke, 10 Grat. W. 82; Gordon v. His Creditors, 6 (Va.) 164. Rob. (La.) 328; Lyons v. Murray, 95 ^sQ'Bryan v. Neil, 84 Ga, 134, 10 Mo. 23, 8 S. W. 170, 6 Am. St. 17; S. E. 598. Booth V. Farmers &c. Nat. Bank, 74 ^gpessler v. Hickernell, 82 Pa. ISO; N. Y. 228 (aflfg. 11 Hun (N. Y.) 258) ; Baily v. Brownfield, 20 Pa. 41. ' Sterling v. Brightbill, 5 Watts (Pa.) so Stebbins v. Willard, S3 Vt. 665. 229, 30 Am. Dec. 304; Le Page v. Mc- See Laylin v. Knox, 41 Mich. 40, 1 Crea, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 164, 19 Am. N. W. 913. Dec. 469; Hinton v. Odenheimer, 57 "in re Smith, Fed. Cas. No. 12991, N. Car. (4 Jones Eq.) 406; Dana v. 16 Nat. Bankr, Reg. 113; Tibbetts v. Conant, 30 Vt. 246; Sand's Admr. v. Magruder, 9 Dana (Ky.) 79; Hall v. Durham, 36 S. E. 472, 98 Va. 392. Gaiennie, 18 La. 442; In re Swayne, i 437 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 368 the circumstances, has been denied.^^ To a partner or partners who assume debts of the firm, on dissolution the other members occupy the position of sureties, so that if any of them pay debts which another partner or partners have assumed, they are en- titled to subrogation to the creditors' rights.*^ If the dissolu- tion of the firm is by death, on paying more than the propor- tionate share of firm debts, either the surviving partner or the estate of the deceased partner is entitled to subrogation to the , rights of creditors.®* § 368. Right to sue firm or copartner for negligence as to individual property. — It has been held in one case that w^here the business of a partnership is carried on by an agent and one ' partner's individual property is injured by the negligent con- duct of the business, the partnership is liable to the partner in damages. In this case the partners operated a threshing ma- chine for hire, serving the members and the public alike, and the management was in the hands of a board who appointed a man- ager who transacted all the business, and who was aware of a defect in the engine which caused a spark to set fire to the barn of one partner, while threshing his wheat.®^ It has also been Clark (Pa.) 457, 3 Pa. Law J. 121; (Tenn.) 282; JEtna Ins. Co. v. Wires, Stebbins v. Willard, S3 Vt. 665 ; Sands 28 Vt. 93 ; Highland v. Highland, 5 V. Durham, 99 Va. 263, 38 S. E. 145, W. Va. 63. Contra: Griffin v. Or- 54 L. R. A. 614, 86 Am. St. 884; Row- man, 9 Fla. 22. lett V. Grieve's Syndics, 8 Mart. (O. s^Harter v. Songer, 138 Ind. 161, S.) (La.) '483, 13 Am. Dec. 296. 27 N. E. 595 ; Dahlgren v. Duncan, 7 82 Dill V. Voss, 94 Ind. 590; Rich- Smed. & M. (Miss.) 280; Sells v. mond V. Marston, IS Ind. 134; Hubbell, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 394; Pearce v. Yost, 1 Wkly. Notes Cas. Morris v. Morris, 4 Grat. (Va.) 293 ; (Pa.) 472; Conrad v. Buck, 21 W. Gee v. Humphries, 49 S. Car. 253, Va. 396. 27 S. E. 101. But see denying right 83 Chandler v. Higgins, 109 111. 602; of subrogation, Bartlett v. McRae, 4 Conwell V. McCowan, 81 III. 285; Ala. 688 ; Hogan v. Reynolds, 21 Ala. Swan V. Smith, 57 Miss. 548; Wad- 56, 56 Am. Dec. 236; Ferris' v. Van dington V. Vredenbergh, 2 Johns. Cas. Ingen, 110 Ga. 102, 35 S. E. 347; (N. Y.) 227; Butler v. Birkey, 13 Singizer's Appeal, 28 Pa. St. 524. Ohio St. 514; Scott's Appeal, 88 Pa. s^Bigelow v. Powers, 25 Ont. L. St. 173; In re Frow, 73 Pa. St. 459; 28, Ann. Cas. 1912 C, 959. The court Buck Stove Co. v. Johnson, 7 Lea said: "So far as the facts are con- § 368 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 438 held that where one partner in the course of partnership busi- ness, negligently injures the individual property of a copartner, cerned, it is a fallacy to say that the firm's acts were the plaintiff's acts, and that Dowson's negligence was his negligence, and that Dowson's knowl- edge was his knowledge. Is it not equally fallacious in law ? Suppose the case of a firm carrying on its business in a building beside or near the dwell- ing house of a copartner, which is owned solely by him in his private and individual capacity, and has nothing to do with the partnership or its prop- erty. Suppose that, owing to negli- gence on the part of the firm or its employes, neither participation in or knowledge of which is imputable to the partner in his individual capacity, an explosion occurs on the firm's premises which wrecks the partner's dwelling. Can it be the law that un- der such circumstances, the loss of his dwelling must be borne by the partner alone, I am unable to see why the other members of the firm should be allowed to shelter the firm and themselves under the argument that, though true, it is that the firm, and not the partner who suffered, caused the injury and loss, the law says that the partner was the author of his own injury and must him- self bear the loss. I see no reason why it should be so more than it is where there is an incorporated com- pany, and the injury and loss is in- flicted upon a shareholder. There is, of course, the long-existing technical objection that the firm not being a le- gal entity, the partner can not be both plaintiff and defendant, and that, if he sues the firm, he is suing himself, but that objection has been removed in cases of promissory notes and the like, to which I have referred, and there seems no good reason why it should bar an action founded on a claim such as the present. * * * Nor, with great respect, do I think the case can be likened to the case of a partner injured through the negli- gence of a servant of the partnership while actually, engaged by the partner to render him a service which it was the servant's duty to render to him and which he had a right to require the servant to render him at the time. Here the service Dowson was render- ing was not a service rendered to the plaintiff as a duty owing to him be- cause of his position as a partner. He was giving the service as the employe and servant of the firm in the course of its business. It was part of the firm's business to render these serv- ices to the plaintiff in the same way and not otherwise than they would be rendered to any other person who sought and paid for them. The firm was dealing with the plaintiff in the same way and on the same terms as its other customers. The plaintiff's loss arose in the course of the busi- ness, and not in the course of any service that he was individually re- ceiving because he was a member of the firm. And there is no authority for saying that for such a loss he should not be recouped by the firm, just as others would be. The negli- gent act of the firm's servant in such a case ought not to be so attributed to the plaintiff as to preclude him from saying to the firm that the loss resulting to him was the outcome of its servant's negligence, and that it should make good the consequences. 439 RIGHTS INTER SESE | 369 the latter riiay maintain an action against the former for dam- ages.^* § 369. Right to keeping of accounts and accounting. — Among the basic rights of each member of the partnership are accuracy in accounting in all matters of firm business, and ac- cessibility at all reasonable times to all partnership records/^ The rule is thus stated in the Uniform Partnership Act: "The partnership books shall be kept, subject to any agreement be- tween the partners, at the principal place of business of the partnership, and every partner shall at all times have access to and may inspect and copy any of them."*^ And the chancellor will not be diligent in shaping partnership accounts so that a Probably this is only another manner 1052. And compare Trego v. Hunt of enforcing contribution; but if so, (1896), A. C. 7, 65 L. J. Ch. 1, Th there seems to be no reasonable ob- L. T. 514, 44 W. R.'225; United States jection to it on that ground. Why Bank v. Binney, 5 Mason (U. S.) 176, should the fact that the loss is the Fed. Cas. No. 16791 ; Doane v. Cum- loss of the plaintiff's own property mins, 11 Conn. 152; Gage v. Parmelee, place him in any different or worse 87 III. 329; Over v. Hetherington, 66 position? He is out of pocket to the Ind. 365; Kemp v. Smith, 88 Iowa same extent as if he had paid it or 725, 55 N. W. 2>6; Meguiar v. Helm, made it good to a third person. His 91 Ky. 19, 14 S. W. 949, 12 Ky. L. position ought not be any worse than 751 ; Joplin v. Cordrey, 9 Ky. L. 445, if that was what he had been obliged 5 S. W. 397; Funk v. Leachman, 4 to do." Dana (Ky.) 24; Theall v. Lacey, 5 La. 88Haller v. Willamowicz, 23 Ark. Ann. 548; Bevans v. Sullivan, 4 Gill 566; Newby v. Harrell, 99 N. Car. (Md.) 383; Pomeroy v. Benton, 11 149, S S. E. 284, 6 Am. St. 503. Mo. 64 ; Pierce v. Ten Eyck, 9 Mont. 87 Pierce v. Scott, 37 Ark. 308; 349,- 23 Pac. 423; Allen v. Coit, 6 Chandler v. Sherman, 16 Fla. 99; Hill (N. Y.) 318; Burchell v. Voght, Webb V. Fordyce, 55 Iowa 11, 7 N. W. 35 App. Div. 190, 55 N. Y. S. 80 385; O'Brien v. Pentz, 48 Md. 562; (affd. 164 N. Y. 602, 58 N. E. 1085) ; Hall V. Clagett, 48 Md. 223; Lilly Heartt v. Corning, 3 Paige (N. Y.) V. Kroesen, 3 Md. Ch. 83 ; Godfrey v. 566 ; Jung v. Weyand, 9 Ohio Dec. White, 43 Mich. 171, S N. W. 243; (Reprint) 485, 14 Wkly. Law Bui. McAlpine V. Miller, 104 Minn. 289, 116 143; Keys v. Baldwin. 10 Ohio Dec. N. W. 583; Saunders v. Duval, 19 (Reprint) 271, 19 Wkly. Law Bui. Tex. 467; Dimond v. Henderson, 47 Ttld; In re Fulmer's Appeal, 90 Pa. Wis. 172, 2 N. W. 1Z; Wood v. Beath, St. 143; Knapp v. Edwards, 57 Wis. 23 Wis. 254; Rowe v. Wood, 2 Jac. 191, 15 N. W. 140. & W. 559, 22 R. R. 208 ; Greatrex v. ^s Uniform Partnership Act, § 19. Greatrex, 1 DeG. & Sm. 692, 11 Jur. § 369 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 440 partner who has failed to keep them accurately may profit by his own negligence,*® and presumptions are indulged against a partner who keeps accounts unintelligibly, does not keep them at all or destroys or hides them.®" But one partner can not com- plain that the books kept by his associate are incomplete and fail to show all they should show when for more than twenty years he has tolerated and seems to have authorized such a crude and deficient system of bookkeeping.®^ So, also, it has been held that entries upon partnership books which have remained unques- tioned for a period of twelve years, can not be attacked after the expiration of such time.®^ Likewise where a partner cov- enants to keep proper accounts of the transactions of his firm and fails to do so but there is nothing which can be justly taken as an impeachment of his integrity or which raises a suspicion that his delinquency was wilful, and it appears that he did as well as he could, considering his absolute incompetency and that his associate condoned or waived his lack of capacity, the maxim omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem is inapplicable.®* And where a partner at the time a transaction was carried on ac- quiesced in the keeping of statements showing gross expenses, he is estopped from demanding details later.®* As to the right to a;n accounting the Uniform Partnership Act provides that: "Any partner shall have the right to a formal account as to partnership affairs: (a) If he is wrongfully excluded from the partnership business or possession of its property by his co- partners, (b) If the right exists under the terms of any agree- ment, (c) As provided by Section 21, [which renders a partner liable to account for benefits or profits received from the prop- erty or its use without the consent of copartners] (d) Whenever other circumstances render it just and reasonable."®^ And under 89 Hume V. McNees, 10 Ky. L. 947, si Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 29 Ky. 10 S. W. 384. L. 134, 92 S. W. 546. so Pierce v. Scott, il Ark. 308; s^ Lewis v. Leper, 54 Fed. 237. Knapp V. Edwards, 57 Wis. 191, 15 N. "3 Knapp v. Edwards, 57 Wis. 191, W. 140; Walmsley v. Walnisley, 3 15 N. W. 140. Jo. & La. T. 556; Gray v. Haig, 20 s* House v. Linn, 179 111. App. 114. Beav. 219. 9= Uniform Partnership Act, § 22. 441 felGHTS INTER SESE § 371 the general holdings the right of a partner to demand an ac- counting of his copartner of copartners under certain conditions can not be denied, but will not be here discussed, as the question of accounting is deemed of sufHcient importance to be discussed in a chapter by itself, and will there be considered.'^ § 370. Arbitration of differences between partners. — It is sometimes provided in partnership agreements that in the event of disagreement between the partners as to matters connected with the conduct or dissolution of the business, they shall sub- mit to the decision of arbitrators, the manner of whose selec- tion is provided for. When the partners have lawfully sub- mitted differences between them to arbitration and the award has been made, it will be enforced by courts in a proper case,®' unless the award proceeded on a mistake,'^ and a settlement by arbitra- tion is a bar to a suit for breach of a partnership agreement.^" However, it does not seem that a stipulation for. arbitration is a bar to a suit for accounting by a partner who refuses to comply with it, or that the courts will decree specific performance of an arbitration.^ The arbitration of matters arising on final distribu- tion and settlement will be considered in a later chapter.^ § 371. Partner's lien. — A partner's lien may be denomi- nated or described as the right of each member of the firm, against each other member thereof and against each of those asserting partnership rights thereunder, to demand that the prop- erty of the partnerships be finally applied originally in discharge 96 See chs. 21, 23. 99 Madison v. Henderson, 86 111. s^Fulmore v. McGeorge, 91 Cal. App. 113. 611, 28 Pac. 92 ; De Pusey v. Du Pont, i Meaher v. Cox, Zl Ala. 201 ; Page 1 Del. Ch. 82; Gibson v. Moore, 6 N. v. Vankirk, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 282; 6 H. 547; Piper -v. Smith, 1 Head Phila. (Pa.) 264; Dawson v. Fitz- (Tenn.) 93; Lamphire v. Cowan, 39 gerald, 1 Ex. Div. 257; Agar v. Mack- Vt. 420; Smith v. Clark, 22 Tex. Civ. lew, 1 Eng. Ch. 418, 2 Sim. & L. 418, App. 485, 54 S. W. 1052; Lingood v. 4 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 16. Eade, 2 Atk. 501 ; Green v. Warning, 2 See ch. 21. 1 W. Bl. 475. 3 Hoyt v. Spra^e, 103 U. S. 613, 98 Spencer v. Spencer, 2 Y. & J. 249, 26 L. ed. 585 ; Nichol v. Stewart, 36 31R. R. 583. Ark. 612; Duryea v. Burt, 28 Cal. § 371 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 442 of the debts and liabilities of the common business and then to have all over and above the same used in satisfaction of the amounts owing the separate partners first as such, and secondly as individuals.* As said in one case: "In settling partnership 569;. Roberts v. McCarty, 9 Ind. 16, 68 Am. Dec. 604; Evans v. Hawley, 35 Iowa 83 ; Divine v. Mitchum, .4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 488, 41 Am. Dec. 241; Sebsistian v. Booneville Academy Co., 22 Ky. L. 186, 56 S. W. 810; Collins V. Decker, 70 Maine 23; Buffum v. Buffum, 49 Maine 108, 11 Am. Dec. 249; Crooker v. Crooker, 46 Maine 250; Mann v. Higgins, 7 Gill (Md.) .265; Arnold v. Wainwright, 6 Minn. 358, 80 Am. Dec. 448; Dilworth v. Mayfield, 'i6 Miss. 40; Priest v. Chouteau, 85 Mo. 398, 55 Am. Rep. 373 ; Murphy v.- Warren, 55 Nebr. 215, 75 N. W. 573; HIscock'v. Phelps, 49 N. Y. 91; Wade v. Rusher, 17 N. Y. Super. Ct. 537; Mendenhall v. Ben- bow, 84 N. Car. 646 ; Betts v. Letcher, 1 S. Dak. 182, 46 N. W. 193; Lane V. Jones, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 627; Will- iams V. Love, 2 Head (Tenn.) 80, n Am. Dec. 191; Cowan McClung v. Gill, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 674; Digg v. Brown, 78 Va. 292; West v. Skip, 1 Ves. 456; Payne v. Hornby, 25 Beav. 280; Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. 119, 5 R. R. 237; Nerot v. Burnaud, 4 Russ. 247. * "Each partner has a lien on the partnership assets for the protection of his rights upon the settlement of partnership accounts." In re Kessler, 174 Fed. 906. "The rule is well settled, especially by courts of equity, that the assets of a partnership must be first applied to the payment of partnership creditors before any- thing can be applied to the claims of the individual partners thereof or their creditors. This does not result from any lien which the cred- itors have upon the assets, because they as such have no lien; but it re- sults from the lien which each part- ner has to have the assets of the partnership applied first to the pay- ment of the firm's debts, and then to the payment of whatever may be due to him from the other partners or partnership accounts. The part- nership creditors are practically sub- rogated to the partner's lien upon the partnership property, and their rights to priority depend upon these.'' Lacey v. Cowan, 162 Ala. 546, 50 So. 281. See further West v. Skip, 1 Ves. 456; Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. 119, 5 R. R. 237; Case v. Beauregard, 99 U. S. 119, 25 L. ed. 370; Goldsmith v. Eichold, 94 Ala. 116, 10 So. 80, ZZ Am. St. 97; Evans v. Winston, 74 Ala. 349; Warren v. Taylor, 60 Ala. 218; Hart v. Clark, 54 Ala. 490; Cof- fin V. McCullough's Admr., 30 Ala. 107; McGown v. Sprague, 23 Ala. 524; Donelson's Admrs. v. Posey, 13 Ala. 752; Smith v. Rainey, 9 Ariz. 362, 83 Pac. 463; Lewis v. Buford, 93 Ark. 57, 124 S. W. 244; Summers v. Heard, 66 Ark. 550, SO S. W. 78, 51 S. W. 1057; Leedom v. Ham, 116 Cal. xvi, 48 Pac. 222; Shinn v. Mac- pherson, 58 Cal. 596; McCauley v. Fulton, 44 Cal. 355 ; Crane v. Dryer, 9 Cal. App. 290, 98 Pac. 1072 ; Beecher V. Stevens, 43 Conn. 587 ; Griffin v. Or- man, 9 Fla. 22; Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 142, 63 Am. Dec. 198 ; John Spry Lumber Co. y. Chappell, 184 111. 539, 56 N. E. 794; Davies v. Atkin- son, 124 111. 474, 16 N. E. 899, 7 Am. 443 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 371 St. 373; Rainey v. Nance, 54 III. 29; Hapgood V. Cornwell, 48 111. 64, 95 Am. Dec. 516; Reeves v. Ayers, 38 111. '418; Royston v, John Spry Lum- ber Co., 85 111. App. 223 ; Hargadine- McKittrick Dry Goods Co.. v. Belt, 74 111. App. 581 ; Johnson v. McClary, 131 Ind. 105, 30 N. E. 888; Deeters V. Sellers, 102 Ind. 458, 1 N. E. 854; Roberts v. McCarty, 9 Ind. 16, 68 Am. Dec. 604; Matlock v. Matlock, 5 Ind. 403 ; Sanders v. Herndon, 33 Ky. L. 669, 110 S. W. 862; Rumsey-Sike- meier Co. v. Bank of Aurora, 139 Mo. App. 306, 123 S. W. 75; Cald- well Banking &c. Co. v. Porter, 52 Ore. 318, 95 Pac. 1, 97 Pac. 541; Adams v. Hubbard, 221 Pa. 511, 70 Atl. 835 ; Maitland v. Purdy, 49 Wash. 575, 96 Pac. 154 ; Fouse v. Shelly, 64 W. Va. 425, 63 S. E. 208. See also Stout V. Fortner, 7 Iowa 183; Kem- merer v. Kemmerer, 85 Iowa 193, 52 N. W. 194 ; Cook v. Gilchrist, 82 Iowa 277, 48 N. W. 84; Pierce v. Wilson, 2 Iowa 20; Ely v. Hair, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 230; Talbot v. Pierce, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 195; Wilson v. Soper, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 411, 56 Am. Dec. 573 ; White v. Woodward, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 484; Black v. Bush, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 210; Pearson v. Keedy, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 128, 43 Am. Dec. 160; January v. Poyntz, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 404; Meador v. Hughes, 14 Bush (Ky.) 652; Howell v. Commercial Bank, 5 Bush (Ky.) 93; O'Bannon V. Miller, 4 Bush (Ky.) 25; Bank of Kentucky v. Herndon, 1 Bush (Ky.) 359, 89 Am. Dec. 630; Conwell v. Sandidge's Admr., 8 Dana (Ky.) 273; Hodges V. Holeman, 1 Dana (Ky.) SO; Jones v. Lusk, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 356; Harlan v. Bennett, 127 Ky. 572, 106 S. W. 287, 128 Am. St. 360; Couchman's Admr. v. Maupin, 78 Ky. 33; Sebastian v. Booneville Academy Co., 22 Ky. L. 186, 56 S. W. 810; Evans v. Rhea, 12 Ky. L. 224, 14 S. W. 82 ; Anderson v. Morris, 10 Ky. L. (abstract) 544; King v. Shaw, 9 Ky. L. (abstract) 577; Flanagan v. Shuck, 82 /Ky. 617, 6 Ky. L. 699; Cooper v. Webster, 4 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 734; West v. Armstrong, 4 Ky. L. (abstract) 998; Calder v. Their Creditors, 47 La. Ann. 346, 16 So. 852 ; Johnson v. Hersey, 70 Maine 74, 35 Am. Rep. 303 ; Hacker v. John- son, 66 Maine 21 ; Buffum v. Bufifum, 49 Maine 108, 77 Am. Dec. 249; Crooker v. Crooker, 46 Maine 250; Mann v. Higgins, 7 Gill (Md.) 265 ; Pierce v. Tiernan, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 253; Sanderson v. Stockdale, II Md. 563; Glenn v. Gill, 2 Md. 1; Free- man V. Stewart, 41 Miss. 138; Dil- worth V. Mayfield, 36 Miss. 40; Les- ter V. Givens, 74 Mo. App. 395 ; Dieck- mann v. St. Louis, 9 Mo. App. 9; Murphy v. Warren, 55 Nebr. 215, 75 N. W. 573; Whitmore v. Shiverick, 3 Nev. 288; Arnold v. Hagerman, 45 N. J. Eq. 186, 17 Atl. 93, 14 Am. St. 712; Harney v. First Nat. Bank, 52 N. J. Eq. 697, 29 Atl. 221 ; Standish V. Babcock, 52 N. J. Eq. 628, 29 Atl. i27; Uhler v. Semple, 20 N. J. Eq. 288; Hill V. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31; Greenwood v. Brodhead, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 593; Kirby v. Schoonmaker, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 46, 49 Am. Dec. 160; Geprtner v. Canajoharie, 2 Barb. (N, Y.) 625; Ketchum v. Dur- kee, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 480, 45 Am. Dec. 412; Deveau v. Fowler, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 400; Frith v. Lawrence, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 434; Wade v. Rusher, 17 N. Y. Super. Ct. 537; Addison v. Burckmyer, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 498; Robb v. Stevens, 1 Clarke Ch. (N. Y.) 191; Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 Am. Rep. 683; Thornton v. Lambeth, 103 N. Car. 86, § 371 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 444 accounts each partner is clothed with the right to insist that the partnership effects shall be first applied to the payment of the partnership debts; and this right will prevail over the claims of an alien or creditor of the copartner. So clearly defined is this right, so necessary to persons engaging in joint adventures of this kind — that it has been long and firmly settled that each partner has a lien on the effects, that they shall be applied pri- marily to the extinguishment of the. partnership liabilities. This results naturally and necessarily from the nature of the enter- prise, and of the title by which the property is held. The title is in the company, or association of individuals, and no one of the number has a separate ownership or right to any part or piece of the property or effects of the partnership. And 'the lien goes further than this. After the debts are all paid, each partner has a lien on the remaining partnership effects, for any balance due him upon a proper accounting together."' Further it seems that even a claimant through any member of the firm of a share in the partnership property may assert this lien.® 9 S. E. 432; Scott v. Kenan, 94 N. Car. 296; Sumner v. Hampson, 8 Ohio 328, 32 Am. Dec. 722; Sei- bricht V. Rohrkasse, 3 Ohio Dec. (Re- print) 43, 2 Wkly. L. Gaz. 257; Mof- fatt V. Thomson, 5 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 155, 57 Am. Dec. ITU; Boyce v. Cos- ter's Exrs., 4 Strob. Eq. (S. Car.) 25; Betts v. Letcher, 1 S. Dak. 182, 46 N. W. 193; Lane v. Jones, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 627; Fain v. Jones, 3 Head (Tenn.) 308; Williams v. Love, 2 Head (Tenn.) 80, IZ Am. Dec. 191; White V. Dougherty, Mart. & Y. (Tenn.) 309, 17 Am. Dec. 802; Fur- man V. Fisher, 4 Coldw. (Tenn.) 626, 94 Am. Dec. 210; Wiggins v. Black- shear, 86 Tex. 665, 26 S. W. 939; Rogers v. Nichols, 20 Tex. 719; Johnston v. Standard Shoe Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 398, 24 S. W. 580; Wm. W. Kendall Boot & Shoe Co. V. Johnston '(Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 583; Charlesoij v. McGraw, 3 Wash. Ter. 344; Densmore Commis- sion Co. V. Shong, 98 Wis. 380, 74 N. W. 114. And compare Brown v. Kennedy, 12 Colo. 235, 20 Pac. 696; White V. Woodward, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 484; Whitworth v. Patterson, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 119; Robinson v. Al- len, 85 Va. 721, 8 S. E. 835. 5 Warren v. Taylor, 60 Ala. 218 (1877). See also 1 Story Eq. Jur. 677; Cannon v. Copeland, 43 Ala. 201 ; Andrews v. Keith, 34 Ala. 722; Par-. sons on Part, 265, 351, 505. e Hobbs V. McLean, 117 U. S. 567, 29 L. ed. 940, 6 Sup. Ct 870; Hoyt V. Sprague, 103 U. S. 613, 26 L. ed. 585; Warren v. Taylor, 60 Ala. 218; Whitmore v. Shiverick, 3 Nev. 288; 445 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 371 The law regards with favor this inchoate right which, although undoubtedly capable of waiver and alienation/ forbids, by its very nature, that any one member of the firm employ, without prior authorization, partnership assets in the matter of his own personal contracts.* A bona fide transferee for value, however, Wade V. Rusher, 17 N. Y. Super. Ct. 537; Miller v. Price, 20 Wis. 117; In re Langmead, 7 DeG., M. & G. 353, (affg. 20 Beav. 20, 24 L. J. Ch. 589, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 1058, 3 W. R.602) ; Croft V. Pyke, 3 P. Wms. 180; Cavander V. Bulteel, L. R. 9 Ch. 79, 43 L. J. Ch. 370, 29 L. T. 710, 22 W. R. 177. See further McCauley v. Fulton, 44 Cal. 355 ; Beecher v. Stevens, 43 Conn. 587; Frink v. Branch, 16 Conn. 260; Deeters v. Sellers, 102 Ind. 458, 1 N. E. 854; Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 Am. Rep. 683. 7 In re Kessler, 174 Fed. 906; Hart V. Clark, 54 Ala. 490; Jones v. Fletcher, 42 Ark. 422 ; W;est v. Chas- ten, 12 Fla. 315; Robertson v. Baker, 11 Fla. 192; Ladd v. Griswold, 4. Gilm. (111.) 25, 46 Am. Dec. 443; Parker v. Mei-ritt, 105 111. 293 ; Goem- bel V. Arnett, 100 111. 34; Hapgood v. Cornwell, 48 111. 64, 95 Am. Dec. 516; Williamson v. Adams, 16 III. App. 564; Trentman v. Swartzell, 85 Ind. 443; Clapp v. Adams, 143 Iowa 697, 121 N. W. 44; Tuller v. Leaverton, 143 Iowa 162, 121 N. W. 515, 136 Am. St 756; Janney v. Springer, 78 Iowa 67, 43 N. W. 461, 16 Am. St. 460; Nix v. Henderson, 8 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 873; Bowman v. Spalding, 8 Ky. L. (abstract) 691, 2 S. W. 911 ; Giddings v. Palmer, 107 Mass. 269; Andrews v. Mann, 31 Miss. 322 ; Par- ish V. Lewis, Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 299; Rumsey-Sikemeier Co. v. Bank of Au- rora, 139 Mo. App. 306, 123 S. W. 75 ; Tennant v. McKean, 46 Mo. App. 486; Alpaugh v. Savage (N. J.), 19 Atl. 380; Arnold v. Hagerman, 45 N. J. Eq. 186, 17 Atl. 93, 14 Am. St. 712 ; Vesper v. Kramer, 31 N. J. Eq., 420; Wade v. Rusher, 17 N. Y. Super. Ct. 537; Dimon v. Hazard, 32 N. Y. 65; Westwood v. Cole, 66 Misc. (N. Y.) S3, 120 N. Y. S. 884; Cory v. Louj,, 2 Sweeney (N. Y.) 491 ; Las- siter v. Stainback, 119 N. Car. 103, 25 S. E. 726; Seibricht v. Rohrkasse, 3 Ohio Dec. 43, 2 Wkly. L. Gaz. 257; Croone v. Bivens, 2 Head (Tenn.) 339; Smith v. Edwards, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 106, 46 Am. Dec. 71 ; Willis V. Thompson, 85 Tex. 301, 20 S. W. 155; Ewing v. Osbaldiston, 2 Myl. & C. 53-88, 6 L. J. Ch. 161, 1 Jur. 50; In re Langmead, 7 DeG., M. & G. 353 (affg. 20 Be^v. 20), 24 L. J. Ch. 589, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 1058) ; Lingen v. Simpson, 1 Sm. & St. 602, 24 R. R. 249; West v. Skip, I'Ves. 456; Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. 119, 5 R. R. 237. And compare Holderness v. Shackels, 8 B. & C. 612, 3 M. & R. 25 ; Hoyt V. Sprague, 103 U. S. 613, 26 L. ed. 585 ; McGown v. Sprague, 23 Ala. 524. 8 Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 221, 9 L. ed. 1063; Kelley v. Greenleaf, 3 Story (U. S.) 93, Fed. Cas. No. 7657 ; Pierce v. Hickenburg, 2 Port. (Ala,) 196; Pierce v. Pass, 1 Port. (Ala.) 232; Nail v. Mclntyre, 31 Ala. 532 ; Burwell v. Springfield, IS Ala. 273; Feucht v. Evans, 52 Ark. 556, 13 S. W. 217; Filley v. Phelps, 18 Conn. 294; Yale v. Yale, 13 Conn. 185, 33 Am. Dec. 393; Edvvards v. Entwisle, 2 Mackey (D. C.) 43 ; Claf- lin V. Ambrose, il Fla. 78, 19 So. 628 ; § 371 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 446 Clarke v. Farrell, 80 Ga. 622, 6 S. E. 20; Perry v. Butt, 14 Ga. 699; Da- vies V. Atkinson, 124 111. 474, 16 N. E. 899, 7 Am. St. 373; Buchanan v. Meisser, 105 111. 638; Renfrew v. Pearce, 68 111. 125 ; Rainey v. Nance, 54 in. 29; McNair v. Piatt, 46 111. 211; Casey v. Carver, 42 III. 225; Marine Co. V. Carver, 42 111. 66; Granger v. McGilvra, 24 111. 152; Brewster v. Mott, 5 111. 378; Harts v. Byrne, 31 111. App. 260; Newell v. Martin, 81 Iowa 238, 46 N. W. 1120; Janney v. Springer, 78 Iowa 67, 43 N. W. 461, 16 Am. St. 460; Brewster v. Reel, 74 Iowa 506, 38 N. W. 381 ; Thomas V. Stetson, 62 Iowa 537, 17 N. W. 751, 49 Am. Rep. 148; Fletcher v. Anderson, 11 Iowa 228; Jackson v. Holloway, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 133; Bourne v. Wooldridge, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 492; Daniel v. Daniel, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 195; Black v. Bush, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 210; Jones v. Lusk, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 356; Bank of Ken- tucky V. Herndon, 1 Bush (Ky.) 359, 89 Am. D^c. 630; Johnson v. Hersey, 70 Maine 74, 35 Am. Rep. 303 ; Fall River Union Bank v. Stur- tevant, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 372; Kingsbury v. Tharp, 61 Mich. 216, 28 N. W. 74; Roberts v. Pepple, 55 Mich. 367, 21 N. W. 319; Chase v. Buhl Iron Works, 55 Mich. 139, 20 N. W. 827; Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn. 495, 48 N. W. 326, 22 Am. St. 742; Stegallv. Coney, 49 Miss. 761; Buck v. Mosley, 24 Miss. 170; Minor v. Gaw, 11 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 522; Forney v. Adams, 74 Mo. 138; Hilliker v. Francisco, 65 Mo. 598; Price v. Hunt, 59 Mo. 258; Ackley v. Staehlin, 56 Mo. 558. See Flanagan v. Alexander, 50 Mo. 50; Croughton v. Forrest, 17. Mo. 131 ; Rock Island Implement Co. v. Sloan, 83 Mo. App. 438; Noble v. Miley, 20 Mo. App. 360; Banking House of Bartholow v. Harvey, 12 Mo. App. 588; Columbia Nat. Bank v. Rice, 48 Nebr. 428, 67 N. W. 165; Mecutchen V. Kennady, 27 N. J. L. 230; Geery v. Cockroft, 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 146; Ward V. Higgins, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 588, 26 Wkly. Dig. 549, 9 N. Y. St. 641; Dob v. Halsey, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 34, 8 Am. Dec. 293; Wade v. Rusher, 17 N. Y. Super. Ct. 537; Hartness v. Wallace, 106 N. Car. 427, 11 S. E. 259; Evans v. Howell, 84 N. Car. 460; Norment v. Johnston, 32 N. Car. 89; Wells v. Mitchell, 23 N. Car. 484, 35 Am. Dec. 757; Grist V. Hodges, 14 N. Car. 198; Weed v. Richardson, 19 N. Car. 535; Corwin V. Suydam, 24 Ohio St. 209; Thomas V. Pennrich, 28 Ohio St. 55; Leon- ard's Exrs. V. Winslow, 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 139; Todd v. Lorah, 75 Pa. St. 155 ; McKinney v. Brights, 16 Pa. St. 399, 55 Am. Dec. 512; Purdy v. Powers, 6 Pa. St. 492; Porter v. Miller, 32 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 283; Kutz V. Naugle, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 179; Jones' Case, 1 Overt. (Tenn.) 455; Goode V. McCartney, 10 Tex. 193; Young V. Read, 25 Tex. (Sup.) 113; Powell V. Messer's Admr., 18 Tex. 401; Daugherty v. Haynes (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 692; Wm. W. Ken- dall Boot & Shoe Co. v. Johnston (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 583; Sea- ton v. Brooking, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), § 1041; Hub- •bard V. Moore, 67 Vt. 532, 32 Atl. 465; Binns v. WaddiU, 32 Grat. (Va.) 588; Cotzhausen v. Judd, 43 Wis. 213, 28 Am. Rep. 539; Viles v. Bangs, 36 Wis. 131 ; Sauntry v. Dunlap, 12 Wis. 364. And compare Blair v. Har- rison, 57 Fed. 257, 6 C. C. A. 326, aflfg. Claflin v. Bennett, 51 Fed. 693; Witherington v. Huntsman, 64 Ark. 551, 44 S. W. 74; Porter v. Miller, 447 RIGHTS INTER SESE § 371 is seemingly secure in his equitable rights,® and further a trans- feree with notice may undoubtedly on occasion successfully re- sist any demand that the subject-matter of the transfer be re- covered back.^" "The principle is well recognized, that where the individual creditor of a partner knowingly receives payment of his claim out of the partnership funds, it is, per se, a misap- propriation of the assets of the firm to that extent, and it may be recovered back to answer partnership purposes. But it is equally clear that where such payment is made with the consent, express or implied, of the other partners, the latter would have no right to recover the money back to satisfy any demand they might have against the firm. And even conceding it might be recovered in their names, or in the name of the firm, for the use of the firm creditors, it is manifest that a suit in equity could not be maintained for such purpose without showing the in- solvency of the firm, and that the money sought to be recovered was necessary for the payment of firm debts."^^ 32 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 283; Sanders v. And compare Moriarty v. Bailey, 46 Bush (Tex.), 39 S. W. 203. Rati- Conn. 592; Currier v. Bates, 62 Iowa fication, however, will, as indicated, 527, 17 N. W. 759. in more than one of the above cases, i" Perry v. Butt, 14 Ga. 699 ; Las- cure the infirmity of such a disposition siter v. Stainback, 119 N. Car. 103, of firm property. 25 S. E. 726; Evans v. Howell, 84 9Duryea v. Burt, 28 Cal. 569 Harts V. Byrne, 31 111. App. 260 Ross V. Henderson, 11 N. Car. 170 Chipley v. Keaton, 65 N. Car. 534 Corwin v. Suydam, 24 Ohio St. 209. N. Car. 460; Carter v. Beaman, 51 N. Car. 44. "Davies v. Atkinson, 124 111. 474, 16 N. E. 899, 7 Am. St. 373. CHAPTER XIV DUTIES AND LIABILITIES OF PARTNERS INTER SESE SECTION 380. In general. 381. Good faith, a duty — When re- quired. 382. Negligence. 383. Bad judgment. 384. Fraud as to firm or copartner. 385. Duty to conform to partner- ship agreement. 386. Construction of partnership agreement. 387. Duty to devote time and skill to business. 388. Duty to keep partnership ac- counts. 389. Duty not to secure personal benefits rightfully belonging to firm. 390. Purchase by partner of claim or title against partnership or partner. 391. Diversion of profits from co- partner. 392. Secret use of partnership funds. SECTION 393. Use of influence or informa- tion. 394. Renewing firm lease or other contract in individual name. 395. Secret commissions. 396. Duty not to conduct competing business. 397. Partnership in different firms. 398. Dealings between partner and firm. 399. Dealings between copartners. 400. Good faith required in part- ner's purchase of copartner's interest. 401. Duty to share outlays and losses. 402. Duty to consult partner on firm matters. 403. Duty to estate of copartner. 404. Liability for torts. 405. Criminal liability of partner for embezzlement or larceny of firm property, or forgery of firm name. § 380. In general. — It may seem, and even be, in some cases, superfluous, after a discussion of the rights of partners, to consider the question of the duties of partners, for, as a rule, the two are practically identical — the duty of a partner being simply one part of the whole partnership relation as between the partners themselves, the other part being the right of the other partner or partners to have the duty carried out. As an example, the duty of each partner to use the utmost good 448 449 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 381 faith to his copartners necessarily implies the right in each partner to require this good faith. However, even allowing the close and usual connection between rights and duties, and conceding that a demonstration of one usually proves the other, the subject is nevertheless treated under the different headings herein, at the risk of some repetition and perhaps a somewhat illogical and arbitrary classification, as some relations stand out more prominently from the standpoint of duty, and others from the standpoint of rights, and this arrangement gives the opportunity of treating each relation from the angle which is most apparent, and most easily appreciated. § 381. Good faith a duty — When required. — The supreme duty owing from each partner to his copartners is one which is included in every other duty, express^ or implied,^ — namely, the exercise of perfect good faith.^ And in this particular in- 1 Stipulated either in the original articles of association or in a subse- quent agreement between the part- ners. 2 From the partnership articles, subsequent agreement, nature of the business, sudden exigency, etc. 3 "The first and highest duty which partners owe to each other is per- fect good faith." Whitney v. Dewey, 1S8 Fed. 385. See further Bestor v. Barker, 106 Ala. 240, 17 So. 389; Goldsmith v. Eichold, 94 Ala. 116, 10 So. 80, 33 Am. St. 97 ; Williamson v. Monroe, 101 Fed. 322; Miller v. O'Boyle, 89 Fed. 140; Meyers v. Merillion, 118 Cal. 352, 50 Pac. 662 Warren v. Schainwald, 62 Cal. 56; Caldwell v. Davis, 10 Colo. 481, IS Pac. 696, 3 Am. St. 599; Jennings V. Rickard, 10 Colo. 395, IS Pac. 677; Baker v. Cummings, 4 App. Cas. (D. C.) 230; Kilbourn v. Latta, 5 Mackey (D. C.) 304, 60 Am. Rep. 373; Stephens v. Orman, 10 Fla. 9; Roby V. Colehour, 135 111. 300, 25 N. 29— Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 E. 777 (affd. 146 U. S. 153, 36 L. ed. 922, 13 Sup. Ct. 47) ; Fordyce v. Schriver, 115 111. 530, 15 N. E. 87; Eldridge V. Walker, 80 111. 270; Wig- gins V. Markham, 131 Iowa 102, 108 N. W. 113; Yetzer v. Applegate, 83 Iowa 726, 50 N. W. 66; Parnell v. Thompson, 81 Kans. 119, 105 Pac. 502; Carlin v. Donegan, 15 Kans. 495; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Miller, 13 Ky. L. (abstract) 464; Baldey v. Brackenridge, 39 La. Ann. 660, 2 So. 410; Jones v. Dexter, 130 Mass. 380, 39 Am. Rep. 459; Lockwood v. Beck- with, 6 Mich. 168, 72 Am. Dec. 69; Bohrer v. Drake, 33 Minn. 408, 23 N. W. 840 ; Pomeroy v. Benton, 57 Mo. 531; Martin v. Lutkewitte, 50 Mo. 58; Croughton v. Forrest, 17 Mo. 131 ; Inglis V. Floyd, 33 Mo. App. 565; ' Freund v. Murray, 39 Mont. 539, 104 Pac. 683, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 959n; Coggswell & Boulter Co. v. Coggs- well (N. J.), 40 Atl. 213; Nicholson V. Janeway, 16 N. J. Eq. 285; Ren- ton V. Chaplain, 9 N. J. Eq. 62; Jes- § 381 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 450 stance the words "partner" and "copartners" have a somewhat broader significance than ordinarily attaches to them since this absolute good faith required of actual partners is equally de- manded of those who are negotiating for a partnership but between whom as yet the partnership relation does not exist,* and of those who have dissolved such relation but who have not entirely determined their partnership concerns.^ sup V. Cook, 6 N. J. L. 434; Piatt v. Piatt, 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 25-39 (affd. 58 N. Y. 646); Patterson v. Hare, 4 App. Div. 319, 38 N. Y. S. 565, 74 N. Y. St. 184 ; Wright v. Duke, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 409, 72 N. Y. St. 375, 36 N. Y. S. 853 ; Lay v. Emery, 8 N. Dak. 515, 79 N. W. 1053 ; Yeo- man V. Lasley, 40 Ohio St. 190; Stidger v. Reynolds, 10 Ohio 351; Devall V. Burbridge, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 529; Coursin's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 220; Edwards v. Johnson, 90 S. Car. 90, 72 S. E. 638; Venable v. Le- vick, 2 Head (Tenn.) 351 ; Morris v. Wood (Tenn.), 35 S. W. 1013; Pierce v. Daniels, 25 Vt. 624; Yost V. Critcher, 112 Va. 870, 72 S. E. 594; Sexton v. Sexton, 9 Grat. (Va.) 204 ; Salhinger v. Salhingc-, 56 Wash. 134, 105 Pac. 236; McMahon v. Mc- Clernan, 10 W. Va. 419. And com- pare Bentley v. Craven, 18 Bev. 75 ; Chapin v. Streeter, 124 U. S. 360, 31 L. ed. 475, 8 Sup. Ct. 529; Pearce v. Ham, 113 U. S. 585, 28 L. ed. 1067, 5 Sup. Ct. 676; Hopkins v. Watt, 13 111. 298; Baldey v. Brackenridge, 39 La. Ann. 660, 2 So. 410; Heath v. Waters, 40 Mich. 457; Pomeroy v. Benton, 57 Mo. 531 ; Iman v. Inkster, 90 Nebr. 704, 134 N. W. 265; Dunlop V. Richards, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 181 ; Piatt V. Piatt, 2 N. Y. Super. Ct. 25 ; Sexton v. Sexton, 9 Grat. (Va.) 204; Burton v. Wookey, 3 Mad. & Geld. 367 ; Longstaff v. Keogh, 3 Vic- torian L. R. Eq. 175 ; Martin v. Smith, 11 Cent. Rep. 748; Kintrea v. Charles, 12 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 117; Rogers V. UUmann, 27 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 137; O'Connor v. Naughton, 13 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 428. See also Aberdeen R. Co. v. Blakie, 1 Macq. H. L. 461; Longman v. Pole, M. & M. 223; Jennings v. Rickard, 10 Colo. 395, 15 Pac. 677; Brownell V. Steere, 29 111. App. 358 (affd. 128 111. 209, 21 N. E. 3) ; Wilder v. Mor- ris, 7 Bush (Ky.) 420; Reynaud's Heirs V. Peytavin's Exrs., 13 La. 121 ; Struthers v. Pearce, 51 N. Y. 357. *Lindley Partnership, *303; Bloom V. Lofgren, 64 Minn. 1, 65 N. W. 960; Harlow v. La Brum, 151 N. Y. 278, 45 N. E. 859; Esmond v. Seeley, 28 App. Div. 292, 51 N. Y. S. 36; Densmore Oil Co. v. Densmore, 64 Pa. 43 ; Beene v. Rotan Grocery Co., SO Tex. Civ. App. 448, 110 S. W. 162; Merchants' Bank v. Thompson, 3 Ont. R. Ch. Div. 541 ; Davidson v. Thirk- ell, 3 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 330; Hichens v. Congreve, 1 Rus. & M. 150. See further Lewis v. Loper, 54 Fed. 237; Emery v. Parrott, 107 Mass. 95 ; Dun- lop v. Richards, 2 E- D. Smith (N. Y.) 181; Simons v. Vulcan Oil &c. Co., 61 Pa. St. 202, 100 Am. Dec. 628. And compare the case of Uhler v. Semple, 20 N. J. Eq. 288, which holds that the rule of caveat emptor applies to persons bargaining with each other for a partnership. = Gunn V. Black, 60 Fed. 151, 8 C. C. A. 534; Goldsmith v. Eichold, 94 451 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 382 § 382. Negligence. — Negligence is always reprehensible in the eyes of the law and a partner who is negligent as re- gards any one of the affairs of the firm of which he is a mem- ber will ordinarily be held individually liable for the resulting loss.® Thus where a partnership is created for the purpose of purchasing, storing and selHng eggs, those partners upon whom devolve the duty of keeping the eggs in their cold storage warehouse will be liable to their associates for the eggs which, through their neglect to exercise ordinary or reasonable care are spoiled.'' So, also, the negligent paying of an unjust claim against the firm by one of the members thereof, will preclude his charging to the partnership the amount expended.^ On the other hand although one of the partners neglects an attempt to enforce a claim until the same is barred by limitations, he will not be compelled to bear the entire loss when his associate had knowledge of the debt and might have himself brought suit thereupon within the prescribed time.^ But where the vice-president of a bank is the manager of a partnership of Ala. 116, 10 So. 80, 33 Am. St. 97; 659); McNair v. Ragland, 7 N. Car. Pierce V. McClelland, 93 111. 245 ; Ren- 139; Wilson v. Keller, 195 Pa. St. frow V. Pearce, 68 111. 125 ; Ehrmann 98, 45 Atl. 682 ; White v. Gardner, V. Stitzel, 121 Ky. 751, 90 S. W. 275, Zl Tex. 407. 28 Ky. L. 728, 123 Am. St. 224 ; Fil- « See § 356 on partner failing or re- brun V. Ivers, 92 Mo. 388, 4 S. W. fusing to perform services. Carlin v. 674; Knapp v. Reed, 88 Nebr. 754, Donegan, 15 Kans. 495; Gordon v. 130 N. W. 430, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) Moore, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 289; Morris v. 869; Garretson v. Brown, 185 Pa. St. Wood (Tenn.), 35 S. W. 1013; Pierce 447, 40 Atl. 293 ; Wells v. McGeoch, v. Daniels, 25 Vt. 624. 71 Wis. 196, 35 N. W. 769. See fur- ^ Bohrer v. Drake, 33 Minn. 408, ther Qark v. Clark, 8 Victorian L. R. 23 N. W. 840. Eq. 303; Lewis v. Loper, 54 Fed. s Gordon v. Moore, 134 Pa. St. 237; Leslie E. Keeley Co. v. Har- 486, 19 Atl. 753. greaves. 236 111. 316, 86 N. E. 132; » Chalmers v. Chalmers, 81Cal. 81, Reward v. Slagle, 52 111. 336; Jones 22 Pac. 395. See also Aiken v. Ogil- V. Dexter, 130 Mass. 380, 39 Am. Rep. vie, 12 La. Ann. 353 ; Walpole v. Ren- 459; Wyman v., Hooper, 2 Gray froe, 16 La. Ann. 92; Knipe v. Liv- (Mass.) 141; Heath v. Waters, 40 ingston, 209 Pa. 49, 57 Atl. 1130. And Mich. 457; Manufacturers' Nat. compare Jessup v. Cook, 6 N. J. L. Bank V. Cox, 2 Hun (N. Y.) 572, S 434. Thomp. & C. 126 (affd. 59 N. Y. § 383 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 452 which the bank is a member, his failure to properly manage the partnership business can not be charged to the bank when the latter sues to recover money loaned to the firm.^" And it is held that a partner who merely neglects his duty to the firm does not forfeit his rights to share in its assets, unless there is an agreement to that effect. ^^ § 383. Bad' judgment. — Before proceeding further, how- ever, it may be well to note that the law does not demand of partners that each of their several acts shall be a source of profit to the company. Consequently, mere lack of discretion or good judgment on the part of a member of the firm will not necessarily throw the resulting loss upon him alone, where he acts in good faith.^^ And if he makes a mistake in the payment of an account, the loss is the firm's.^^ And the partner who innocently and legitimately employs an unprofitable servant, need not, so it has been held, sustain the entire loss occasioned by the acts which should otherwise have had a lucrative ter- mination.^* On the other hand, when, as a result of the articles of partnership, one partner must perform certain duties, and he chooses to palm them off upon his employe, the dilatory member of thcvfirm must as to his co-members bear the responsi- bility for any untoward results that may follow this unem- powered delegation of authority.^' 10 Cameron v. First Nat. Bank, 4 Charlton v. Sloan, 76 Iowa 288, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 309, 23 S. W. 334 (affd. N. W. 303; Jessup v. Cook, 6 N. J. 34 S. W. 178). L. 434; Morris v. Allen, 14 N. J. Eq. iilnman v. Inkster, 90 Nebr. 704, 44; Paterson v. Burton, 3 N. J. L. 134 N. W. 265. 717; Tygart v. Wilson, 39 App. Div. i2Lyles V. Styles, 2 Wash. (U. S.) 58, 56 N. Y. S. 827; Caldwell v. Lei- 224, Fed. Cas. No. 8625; Northen v. ber, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 483; McCrae's Tatum, 164 Ala; 368, 51 So. 17; Hall Admrs. v. Robeson, 6 N. Car. 127; V. Sannoner, 44 Ark. 34 ; Poole v. Lyons v. Lyons, 207 Pa. 7, 56 Atl. 54, Koons, 252 111. 49, 96 N. E. 556; 99 Am. St. 779; Peters v. McWill- Snell V. De Land, 136 111. 533, 27 N. iams, 78 Va. 567. E. 183; Fordyce v. Shriver, 115 111. isTillotson v. Paquet (Ore.), 145 530, 5 N. E. 87; Morrison v. Smith, Pac. 268. 81 111. 221 ; Savery V. Thurston, 4 111. "Aiken v. Ogilvie, 12 La. Ann. App. 55; Exchange Bank v. Card- 353. ner, 104 Iowa 176, 12, N. W. 591 ; i= Einstein v. Schnebly, 89 Fed. 540. 453 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 384 § 384. Fraud as to firm or copartner. — It follows a priori from the general , requirement of good faith in partnership dealings, that a partner is not allowed to gain any advantage over a copartner by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment, and for any advantage so obtained he must account to the co- partner.^" It was held there was fraud where one partner, a long and intimate friend of the other, who was inexperienced, threatened to withdraw from the management of the business of which he had entire charge, and falsely represented that the other had an unfair advantage in the partnership agreement, and valuable concessions obtained by such fraud were set aside.^*^ This rule was applied where one partner agreed to sell the firm property at a certain price, and fraudulently represented to the firm that he could get only a smaller price, obtained from the partners a blank contract of sale, filled in his name and resold to the purchaser he had secured." It was held in one case to be a fraud on nonconsenting members for a partner to use a firm note to pay his individual debt.^^ There was fraud where one partner represented the purchase-price of land he had bought for the firm to be greater than its actual cost, and retained the difiference himself.^" And partners who caused the foreclosure of a mortgage on firm property, with the purpose of defrauding a copartner, were liable to him, though the mortgagee was an innocent tool in their hands.^^ A managing partner will not be allowed to take advantage of his position to defraud a copartner. ^^ Where one partner, to de- fraud his copartner, induced a creditor to obtain a judgment against the firm, in consequence of which its assets were sold ^8 See preceding sections this chap- ^^ Towle v. Dunham, 76 Mich. 251, ter. Lay v. Emery, 8 N. Dak. SIS, 42 N. W. 1117. 79 N. W. 10S3; McKinley v. Lynch, 20 Chilton v. Groome (N. Car.), 84 58 W. Va. 44, 51 S. E. 4; Krebs v. S. E. 1038. Blankenship, 73 W. Va. 539, 80 S. , 21 Lovejoy v. Bailey, 214 Mass. 134, E. 948. 101 N. E. 63. " Butler v. Prentiss, 158 N. Y. 49, 22 Breyfogle . v. Bowman, 157 Ky. 52 N. E. 652. 62, 162 S. W. 787. isZahn v. McMillin, 179 Pa. St. 146, 36 Atl. 188, 57 Am. St. 591. § 385 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 454 at receiver's sale, at which the defrauding partner bought them, he is held to hold the assets for the firm's benefit.^* However, it has been held not fraud per se for partners through a third person to buy the interest of a copartner, concealing the fact that the purchase was for them.^* A sale of partnership prop- erty by a partner to his brother for less than a third of its value is fraudulent as to a partner who did not know of the sale.^^ It is fraud for one partner, sole manager of the busi- ness, in a settlement between members of a firm, to overstate the amount of money advanced by him, and understate the amounts advanced by the copartner, this whether the manag- ing partner knew the statements to be untrue, or being ignorant of the real facts, assumed to know them and where the co- partner had great confidence in him, he was not negligent in relying on his representations, though he had access to the books.^" It is a misappropriation of partnership assets for one partner to turn in to the firm the price of a farm as $80 per acre when in fact he paid $75, and the firm sold it to the copartner at a profit over $80.^^ § 385. Duty to conform to partnership agreement.— The most obvious duty perhaps pertaining to the partnership re- lation, which devolves upon each member of the firm is the obligation to conform in general to every provision of the partner- ship agreement, whether it be written or oral, express or implied, from the usual course of the business or otherwise. This duty arises, not so much perhaps on account of any rule peculiar to the law of partnership relations, but from the general and universal law of contracts. There are, of course, exceptions to this general principle, as, for instance, where one partner, by his own wrongdoing, makes it impossible for his copartner to carry out his contractual relations, or, possibly, where, zsWeinstein v. Welden, 80 Misc. 319, 38 N. Y. S. S6S, 74 N. Y. St. (N. Y.) 348, 142 N. Y. S. 406. 184. 2* Appeal of Geddes, 80 Pa. St. 442. 20 Wells v. McGeoch, 71 Wis. 196, 25 Patterson v. Hare, 4 App. Div. 35 N. W. 769. 27 Smith V. Hart, 179 111. App. 98. 455 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 386 through legal or physical conditions of the firm, certain duties can not be performed, but, as a whole, the principle as above set forth is too plain and too well grounded in our law to invite criticism Or to require an extended discussion. Qonform- ance with the partnership articles devolves upon all the part- ners, and their acts must be such as are within the prescribed confines of the partnership business.^' Thus a partner who has disposed of firm property in violation of the partnership agreement must bear the burden of damages resulting there- from.^^ Again where joint owners of a sawmill plant tor- tiously and wrongfully enter upon the partnership premises on a Sunday when the other joint proprietor is absent, and remove therefrom certain important parts of the machinery essential to the operation of the mill, and carry them away for the ex- press purpose of preventing the latter from operating the mill and keep them away for more than a month during which 'time the mill is idle, their associate is entitled to actual and punitive damages commensurate with his loss and injury.^" § 386. Construction of partnership agreement. — The ordi- nary rules for the construction of contracts in general apply to the construction of articles of partnership.^^ This is espe- cially true wliere the question as to partnership arises between the partners themselves, and not between third parties and the firm.^* When the terms of the partnership agreement are 28 Weeks v. McClintock, SO Ark, Gillenwaters, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 133; 193, 6 S. W. 734; Haller v. Will- Gill v. Wilson, 2 Willson Civ. Cas. amowicz, 23 Ark. S66; Leighton v. Ct. App. (Tex.), § 380; Campbell v. Hosmer, 39 Iowa 594; Murrell v. Campbell, 7 CI. & F. 166. Murrell, 33 La. Ann. 1233; Murphy 2^ HoUister v. Simonson, 36 App. V. Crafts, 13 La. Ann. S19, 71 Am. Div. 62, 55 N. Y. S. 372. Dec. 519; Phillips v. Reeder, 18 N. so Ball v. Levin, 48 La. Ann. 359, J. Eq. 95; Herrick v. Ames, 21 N. 19 So. 118. See also Childers v. Y. Super. Ct. 115; Tarbell v. West, Neely, 47 W. Va. 70, 34 S. E. 828, 49 13 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 314; Hulett v. L. R. A. 468, 81 Am. St. 777. Fairbanks, 40 Ohio St. 233; McCoy si Bird v. Hamilton, Walk. Ch. V. Crossfield, 54 Ore. 591, 104 Pac. (Mich.) 361. 423; In re Marsh's Appeal, 69 Pa. =2 Bird v. Hamilton, Walk. Ch. St. 30, 8 Am, Rep. 206; Looney v. (Mich.) 361. § 386 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 456 placed in writing, the written articles are presumed to contain all the stipulations and conditions of the partnership.*' If the provisions of the contract are plain and explicit, unambigu- ous, and there is nothing which would violate the duty of good faith owing by each partner to his associate, the contract will be enforced as written.'* The written contract will be con--s strued as a whole.'^ The general rule, when the contract is not perfectly plain, is so to construe it as to carry out the in- tent of the parties.'^ It should be construed according to the manifest intention of the parties, and this must be determined by the contract itself and the surrounding circumstances. '^ If the terms of the agreement are ambiguous, the construction followed by the parties will control. This rule was applied where the articles apparently limited the interest of one part- ner to a share in profits, but the parties had allowed each a share in the capital,'* and where it was uncertain from the articles whether a partner's personal taxes should be charged to the firm.'* Even if not ambiguous, it has been held that the circumstances surrounding its execution and the subseqent acts of the parties may be looked to in order to discover their intentions.'*" Alterations in or constructions of the agreement acquiesced in by all partners for many years and evidenced by the books, should 33 Burgess V. Badger, 124 111. 288, Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 467; Hayes v, 14 N. E. 8S0; Boardman v. Close, 44 Fish, 36 Ohio St. 498; Smith v. Iowa 428. Ewing, 151 Pa. St. 256, 25 Atl. 62 3*Lingen v. Simpson, 1 Sm. & S. White v. Magann, 65 Wis. 86, 26 N, 600; Akhurst v. Jackson, 1 Swanst. W. 260 ; Walker t. Harris, Anstr. 245 85. Cooke v. Benbow, 3 DeG., J. & S. 1 35 Smith V. Rainey, 209 U. S. S3, Mead v. O'Keefe, IS Ont. 84. 52 L. ed. 679, 28 Sup. Ct. 474. , 37 Spurlock v. Wilson, 160 Mo. App. 36Siraonton v. Sibley, 122 U. S. 14, 142 S. W. 363. See Spears v. 220, 30 L. ed. 122S, 7 Sup. Ct. 1351 ; Willis, 151 N. Y. 443, 45 N. E. 849. Black V. Ostrander, 1 Colo. App. 272, ss Rathbun v. McConnell, 27 Nebr. 28 Pac. 723; Ingraham v. Mariner, 239, 42 N. W. 1042. 194 111. 269, 62 N. E. 609; Louisiana 39 Snyder v. Seaman, 2 App. Div. Nat. Bank v. Scott, 42 La. Ann. 785, 258, 37 N. Y. S. 696, 73 N. Y. St. 7 So. 720; Funck v. Haskell, 132 137. See also Causten v. Barnette, Mass. 580; Grant v. Bryant, 101 49 Wash. 659, 96 Pac. 225. Mass. 567; Dunnell v. Henderson, 23 4" Rush v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. N. J. Eq. 174; Stoughton v. Lynch, 1 Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 319. 457 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 387 be given great weight.*^ It has been held that courts of equity will consider all stipulations in the articles not acted on by the parties as if they did not exist.*^ But the neglect or refusal of a partner to perform duties required under an oral agree- ment is not an abandonment of the contract, when afterward written articles embodying the same terms as the oral agree- ment were executed.*^ § 387. Duty to devote time and skill to business. — It is customary, and in actual practice very advisable, for the part- ners, in their articles or agreement of partnership, to stipulate concerning the services of each partner, but a partner can not evade his duty to give his best time and skill to the partnership, business by refusing or neglecting to make any provision con- cerning the same in his agreement, as the law implies an agree- ment that he shall reasonably devote his time and energy to the business unless expressly stipulated against.** Unless there is an agreement permitting, a partner is not allowed to devote himself to interests which may take his attention from part- nership business, or affect his own credit and thereby that of the firm.*' "No partner has a right to engage in any business which must necessarily deprive the . partnership of a portion of his skill, industry or capital, which he is bound to devote to the partnership. Where there are no covenants, a man may engage in as many partnerships as he pleases, provided he does not violate the above principle."*" Partners injured by the failure of a partner to devote his time to the business may ask an injunction, bring action for damages or seek to dissolve the partnership.*'^ However, a partner in transacting firm busi- *i Appeal of Southmayd (Pa.), 8 45 Dennis v. Gordon, 163 Cal. 427, Atl. 72, S Sad. 1. 125 Pac. 1063; Dean v. McDavell, 8 42 Boyd V. Mynatt, 4 Ala. 79. Ch. D. 345. 43 Burgess v. Badger, 124 111. 288, 48 Caldwell v. Leiber, 7 Paige (N. U N. E. 850. Y.) 483. 44 Moynihan v. Drobaz, 124 Cal. 212, 47 Latta v. Kilbournr 150 U. S. 56 Pac. 1026, 71 Am. St. 46; Bar- 524, 37 L. ed. 1169, 14 Sup. Ct. 201. clay V. Barrie, 209 N. Y. 40, 102 N. E. 602, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 839. § 388 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 458 ness is required to use only reasonable care, skill, diligence and economy, such as an ordinarily prudent business man would use in similar transactions.*^ He is not held to the use of as high degree of skill as he is of good faith. He is not liable for loss caused by an honest error of judgment.*^ Nor is he chargeable for lack of discretion or good judgment, if his act has not been wantonly negligent or fraudulent. °" § 388. Duty to keep partnership accounts. — We have seen, under the discussion of rights of partners, that every partner has a right to inspect partnership accounts and to re- quire that they be kept correctly. It is equally true that he must himself keep accounts of such firm business as he may transact which requires accounts, and must in turn concede his copartner access thereto. A complete discussion of the subject is not given here, since the principles applicable hereto are fully covered under the heading of Accounting. This topic is of such importance, and is governed by such a wide range of decisions and legal rules as to make it advisable to allot to it a separate chapter.^^ § 389. Duty not to secure personally benefits rightfully belonging to firm. — Good faith will not permit any one part- ner to advantage himself, singly and alone, at the expense of the firm.^^ "The law imposes upon each partner the duty of *8 Morris v. Wood (Tenn.), 35 S. ed. 764, 9 Sup. Ct. 355; Chapin v. W. 1013. Streeter, 124 U. S. 360, 31 L. ed. 475, *9 Exchange Bank v. Gardner, 104 8 Sup. Ct. S29; Pearce v. Ham, 113 Iowa 176, 12, N. W. 591 ; Savery v. U. S. 585, 28 L. ed. 1067, 5 Sup. Cx. Thurston, 4 111. App. 55; Tygart v. 676; Denver v. Roane. 99 U. S. 355, Wilson, 39 App. Div. l&, 56 N. Y. 25 L. ed. 476; Philips v. Crammond, S. 827. 2 Wash. (U. S.) 441, Fed. Cas. No. 50 Charlton v. Sloan, Id Iowa 288, 11092; Kelley v. Greenleaf, 3 Story 41 N. W. 303; Fordyce v. Shriver, (U. S.) 93, Fed. Cas. No. 7657; In 115 111. 530, S N. E. 87; Knipe v. re Clap, 2 Lowell (U. S.) 168, Fed. Livingston, 209 Pa. 49, 57 Atl. 1130. Cas. No. 2783 ; Sneed v. Deal, 53 Ark. "See ch. 21 infra. 152, 13 S. W. 703; Llewelyn v. Levi, BzLatta v. Kilbourn, 150 U. S. 524, 157 Cal. 31, 106 Pac. 219; Hill v. 37 L. ed. 1169, 14 Sup. Ct. 201; Kim- Miller, 78 Cal. 149, 20 Pac. 304; Mc- berly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512, 32 L. Kenzie v. Dickinson, 43 Cal. 119; Laf- 459 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 389 exercising toward his copartner the utmost integrity and good faith in all partnership affairs. In transactions concerning the interests of the firm he must consider their mutual welfare, fan V. Naglee, 9 Cal. 662, 70 Am. Dec. 678; Grafton v. Paine, 7 App. D. C. 255 ; Sanderson's Admrs. v. Sander- son, 17 Fla. 820; Solomon v. Solo- mon, 2 Ga. 18; Raymond v. Vaughan, 128 111. 256, 21 N. E. 566, 4 L. R. A. 440, 15 Am. St. 112; Wierich v. De- Zoya, 2 Gilm. (111.) 385; Smith v. Ramsey, 1 Gilm. (111.) 373; Stearnes V. Joy, 41 111. App. 157; Love v. Car- penter, 30 Ind. 284 ; Lonergan v. Lon- ergan, 60 Kans. 855, 55 Pac. 851 ; Axton V. Kentucky Bottlers Supply Co., 159 Ky. 51, 166 S. W. 776; Mc- Adams' Exrs. v. Hawes, 9 Bush (Ky.) 15; Anderson's Admr. v. Whitlock, 2 Bush (Ky.) 398, 92 Am. Dec. 489; Farmer v. Samuel, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 187, 14 Am. Dec. 106; Klotz v. Macready, 39 La. Ann. 638, 2 So. 203 ; Lowry v. Cobb, 9 La. Ann. 592 ; Bush v. Guion, 6 La. Ann. 797 ; Tebbetts v. Dearborn, 74 Maine 392; Leach v. Leach, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 68; Fanning v. Chad- wick, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 420, 15 Am. Dec. 233; Pierce v. Pierce, 89 Mich. 233, 50 N. W. 851 ; Gordon v. Tyler, 53 Mich. 629, 19 N. W. 560, 20 N. W. 70; Filbrun v. Ivers, 92 Mo. 388, 4 S. W. 674; Brown v. Schackelford, 53 Mo. 122 ; Evans v. Gibson, 29 Mo. 223, n Am. Dec. 565; Croughton v. Forrest, 17 Mo. 131 ; Catron v. Shep- herd, 8 Nebr. 308, 1 N. W. 204; Brown v. O'Brien, 4 Nebr. 195; Tucker v. Peaslee, 36 N. H. 167; Coddington v. Idell, 30 N. J. Eq. 540; Todd V. Raflferty's Admrs., 30 N. J. Eq. 254; Partridge v. Wells, 30 N. J. Eq. 176; Shaler v. Trowbridge, 28 N. J. Eq. 595; Eason v. Cherry, 59 N. Car. 261; Baird v. Baird, 21 N. Car. 524, 31 Am. Dec. 399; Lay v. Emery, 8 N. Dak. 515, 79 N. W. 1053 ; Burr V. De La Vergne, 102 N. Y. 415, 7 N. E. 366; Mitchell v. Reed, 61 N. Y. 123, 19 Am. Rep. 252 ; Getty V. Devlin, 54 N. Y. 403; Adams v. Outhouse, 45 N. Y. 318; Anderson v. Lemon, 8 N. Y. 236, Seld. Notes (N. Y.) 90; Struthers v. Pearce, 51 N. Y. 357; Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 44 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 116; Weston v. Ketcham, 39 N. Y. Super. Ct. 54; Dougherty v. Van Nostrand, 1 Hoff. (N. Y.) 68; Swift v. Dean, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 523; Stoughton v. Lynch, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 467; Tolan v. Carr, 12 Daly (N. Y.) 520; Manu- facturers' Nat. Bank v. Cox, 2 Hun (N. Y.) 572, 5 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 126 (affd. 59 N. Y. 659) ; Reinhardt v. Reinhardt, 134 App. Div. 440, 119 N. Y. S. 285; Mitchell v. Read, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 310; American Bank Note Co. v. Edson, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 84, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 388; Dunlop v. Richards, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 181 ; Case v. Abeel, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 393; Reis v. Hellman, 25 Ohio St. 'l80; Lacy v. Hall, Zl Pa. St. 360; Bennett v. McMillin, 179 Pa. St. 146, 36 Atl. 188, 57 Am. St. 591; In re Johnson's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 129, 8 Atl. 36, 2 Am. St. 539; In re Raiguel's Appeal, 80 Pa. St. 234; In re Cour- sin's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 220; In re Marsh's Appeal, 69 Pa. St. 30, 8 Am. Rep. .206; Lefever v. Underwood, 41 Pa. St. SOS ; Coder v. Huling, 27 Pa. St. 84; Seibert v. Seibert, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 531; Whitman v. Bowden, 27 S. Car. 53, 2 S. E. 630; Looney v. Gillenwaters, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 133; § 389 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 460 rather than his own private benefit."^* And the rule is thus expressed in the Uniform Partnership Act: "Every partner inust account to the partnership for any benefit, and hold as trustee for it any profits derived by him without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the formation, conduct, or liquidation of the partnership or from any use by him of its property. This section applies also to the representatives of a deceased partner engaged in the liquida- tion of the affairs of the partnership as the personal representa- tive of the last surviving partner."^* This rule has been carried to a point where it has been held that after a partnership con- tract confessedly against public policy has been carried out, and money contributed by one of the partners has passed into other forms, a partner in whose hands the profits are can not refuse to account for and divide them on the ground of the il- legal character of the contract.^^ Thus a partner who secretly purchased and sold land contemplated as part of the partner- ship undertaking, must account for the profits.°° One who re- tains one of certain farms purchased for the business,'^ or one who organizes a selling agency for the firm product, must account to his copartners for the secret profits thus made out of the firm business/^ Henson v. Byrne (Tex. Civ. App.), Bush (Ky.) 398, 92 Am. Dec. 489; 41 S. W. 494; Penniman v. Munson, Attaway v. St. Louis Third Nat. 26 Vt. 164; Wheatley's Heirs v. Cal- Bank, IS Mo. App. S78; Pfeuffer v. houn, 12 Leigh (Va.) 264, 37 Am. Maltby, 54 Tex. 454, 38 Am. Rep. Dec. 654 ; Forrer v. Ferrer's Exrs., 631 ; De Leon v. Trevino, 49 Tex. 88, 29 Grat. (Va.) 134; McMahon v. Mc- 30 Am. Rep. 101. Clernau, 10 W. Va. 419; Aas V. Ben- =3 Holmes V. Darling, 213 Mass. ham (1891), 2 Ch. 244, 19 Eng. Rul- 303, 100 N. E. 611. ing Cas. 582; Carter v. Home, 1 Eq. =* Uniform Partnership Act, § 21. Cas. Abr. 7, par. 13; Featherston- ss Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. (U. haugh V. Fenwick, 17 Ves. Jr. 298. S.) 70, 17 L. ed. 732. And compare Rogers v. Riessner, 30 =" Kyle v. Griffin (W. Va.), 85 S. Fed. 525; Watts v. Patton, 66 Miss. E. 559. 54, 5 So. 628 ; Otis v. Sill, 8 Barb. (N. " Cole v. Hayutin, 109 Ark. 617, Y.) 102 ; Babb v. Mosby, 7 Lea 160 S. W. 1084. (Tenn.) 105 ; Whitesides v. Lafferty, =s Hurst v. Brennen, 239 Pa. 231, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 150. See further 86 Atl. 783. Anderson's Admr, v. Whitlock, 2 461 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 390 § 390. Purchase by partner of claim or title against part- nership or partner. — In general, a partner can not possess himself individually, at least for purposes of profit, of claims against the partnership.^' "Under supposable circumstances, it may be that in equity a partner, who had taken assignments of the obligations of the firm to himself, would be permitted to keep them aHve and enforce them against his copartners for their contributive share of the sums which he had paid for the assignment. This might be done for the purpose of giving him the benefit of securities incident to the debts, when neces- sary to the doing of justice between the partners, if it could be done without injury to any creditor of the firm, but it is manifest, upon the plainest principles of equity and fair deahng, that a member of a business firm can not be permitted to make a profit for himself by purchasing the obligations of the firm at a discount, or by keeping them ahve at interest; and if per- mitted, under any circumstances, to enforce the obligations so purchased, it can only be for the amount paid by him in taking them up, and lawful interest thereon if contribution by his co- partners shall have been unreasonably delayed."®" In more than one instance, the purchase by a partner for his own personal benefit of a claim against the firm of which he is a member has been declared equivalent to payment of the same.°^ "That a sale and transfer of ah obligation of a partnership to one of the members operates as a payment, under ordinary circumstances, results necessarily from the relation of the purchaser to his co- partners, and from the fact of his being himself a principal debtor.'"'^ And a partner's acquisition for private gain of an °9 Eston V. Strother, 57 Iowa 506, ^^ Edison Electric Illuminating Co. 10 N. W. 877; Filbrun v. Ivers, 92 v. De Mott, 51 N. J. Eq. 16, 25 Atl. Mo. 388, 4 S. W. 674 ; Miller v. Fer- 952 ; Booth v. Farmers' &c. Nat. Bank, guson, 110 Va. 217, 65 S. E. 562, 8 74 N. Y. 228; Chapin v. Clemitson, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 618n, 135 Am. St. Barb. (N. Y.) 311 ; Le Page v. Mc- 934. Crea, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 164, 19 Am. «o Coleman v. Coleman, 78 Ind. 344. Dec. 469. See also Filbrun v. Ivers, 92 Mo. ^^ Coleman v. Coleman, 78 Ind. 344. 388, 4 S. W. 674. § 391 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 462 adverse title or interest in the partnership property will avail him nothing.'^ The purchase by a partner at a judicial sale of land sold on a foreclosure of a partnership lien, gives him title, and does not inure to the benefit of the firm.** And a partner who purchased an oil and gas lease for himself and his copart- ner as partners and was directed by the copartner to transfer a part interest in his share to an outside person, could, after that transfer, purchase the interest of that third person without violating his duty to his copartner.®' "The purchase by one partner with his own means of an individual judgment against another partner at a time when no funds had arisen out of which the latter was entitled to claim profits is outside of the scope of the partnership business; and, whatever view may be taken of such transactions from the standpoint of propriety," there is no rule of law which forbids it.°° § 391. Diversion of profits from copartner. — Further, it seems that the attempt of any one partner to so change a partner- ship deal as to eliminate his copartner's right to share in the fruits of the contract will avail him nothing.^'' Thus where certain members of a partnership, upon receiving word that the ^3 Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. 379 ; Wierich v. DeZoya, 2 Gilm. (U. S.)'289, IS L. ed. 385; Miller v. (111.) 38S; Farmer v. Samuel, 4 Litt. O'Boyle, 89 Fed. 140; Croswell v. (Ky.) 187, 14 Am. Dec. 106; Gordon Lehman, 54 Ala. 363, 25 Am. Rep. v. Tyler, 53 Mich. 629, 19 N. W. 560, 684 ; Laffan v. Naglee, 9 Cal. 662, 70 20 N. W. 70. And compare Baird v. Am. Dec. 678; Robyv. Colehour, 135 Baird, 21 N. Car. 524, 31 Am. Dec. 111. 300, 25 N. E. 777 (affd. 146 U. S. 399. 153, 36 L. ed. 922, 13 Sup. Ct. 47) ; «i Evans v. Carter (Tex. Civ. App.), Goodwin V. Smith, 144 Ky. 41, 137 176 S. W. 749. S. W. 789; Anderson v. Lemon, 8 ss Goodwin v. Smith, 144 Ky. 41, N. Y. 236, Seld. Notes (N. Y.) 90; 137 S. W. 789. Weston V. Ketcham, 39 N. Y. Super. 66 Miller v. Ferguson, 110 Va. 217, Ct. 54; Eakin v. Shumaker, 12 Tex. 65 S. E. 562, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 51 ; Washburn v. Washburn, 23 Vt. 618n, 135 Am. St. 934. See also Mc- 576; Forrer v. Forrer's Exrs., 29 Kenzie v. Dickinson, 43 Cal. 119. Grat. ( Va.) 134 ; Miller v. Ferguson, st Boqua v. Marshall, 88 Ark. 373, 110 Va. 217, 65 S. E. 562, 28 L. R. A. 114 S. W. 714. See further Miller (N. S.) 618n, 135 Am. St. 934. See v. O'Boyle, 89 Fed. 140; Pearce v. further Zimmerman v. Huber, 29 Ala. Sutherland, 164 Fed. 609, 90 C. 463 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE % 392 firm is to be awarded a second contract which it has been at- tempting to obtain through a satisfactory execution of its first contract, write to other of the partners dissolving the partner- ship, profits accruing to the former under the second contract which they then personally obtain must be shared with their one-time associates, or if the dissolution be regarded as valid such profits may be made the basis of a suit for damages.'* So also diverted profits under the original contract will be charged against the member of a real estate firm who, after con- summating a sale of land listed with his company, abandons the same pursuant to an agreement he has made with the pur- chaser and thereafter sells to the latter land to which he indi- vidually holds title.** But where one partner complains of the quality of apples shipped by his copartner from a certain or- chard and tells him if he can not get better apples, not to ship to him, but to buy himself and keep the profit, such complaining partner has no right to an accounting in the transactions after the copartner buys and sells' the apples.^" And where a partner through his own fault does not participate in the duties of the partnership, he can not demand an equal share of the profits realized by his copartner upon his individual contract.'^ § 392. Secret use of partnership funds. — The clandestine use by an individual member of a firm of partnership funds or property in his own private speculations, is inconsistent with the fundamental requirement of good faith.'^^ "When a co- C. A. 519; Williamson v. Monroe, 'fi Grafton v. Paine, 7 App. D. C. 101 Fed. 322; Chambers v. Mittnacht, 255. 23 S. Dak. 449, 122 N. W. 434. '^ Latta v. Kilbourn, ISO U. S. 524, «8 Williamson v. Monroe, 101 Fed. 37 L. ed. 1169, 14 Sup. Ct. 201 ; Mc- 322. And see Axton v. Kentucky Bot- Gahey v. Oregon King Min. Co., 165 tiers Supply Co., 159 Ky. 51, 166 S. Fed. 86; Koyer v. Willmon, ISO Cal. W. 776. 785, 90 Pac. 135; Deaner v. O'Hara, «9 Wiggins V. Markham, 131 Iowa 36 Colo. 476, 85 Pac. 1123; Solomon 102, 108 N. W. 113. Compare also v. Solomon, 2 Ga. 18; Pomeroy v. White V. Jouett, 147 Ky. 197, 144 S. Benton, 57 Mo. 531 ; Brown v. Schack- W. 55. elford, 53 Mo. 122 ; Lay v. Emery, 8 ^» House V. Linn, 179 111. App. 114. N. Dak. 515, 79 N. W. 1053; Holden 392 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 464 partner undertakes to apply the assets of the firm to his indi- vidual debt, he is going beyond the scope of his authority as the agent of the firm, and his acts are void, and pass no title to the property, as against the firm or creditors of the firm, unless con- sent of the other copartners to such transaction is shown."^* "A partner has no right to deal with partnership property other than for the sole benefit of the partnership."''* "It seems to be well settled by the cases, and to rest upon unquestionable prin- ciples of public policy, that if one partner clandestinely uses the partnership funds or property in his own private specula- tions, he must account, not only for the funds or property so employed, but also for the profits realized by the transaction."'" But "to constitute a case of fraud the funds must have been abstracted, not only without the consent of the other partners, but * * * secretly, as by a false entry upon the books, or by the omission to make any entry at all."'° This rule does V. Thurber (R. I.), 72 Atl. 720. And compare McKenzie v. Dickinson, 43 Cal. 119; Rouquette v. Ryan, 10 Ky. L. S03, 8 S. W. 702. 73 Blake v. Third Nat. Bank, 219 Mo. 644, 118 S. W. 641. 7* Llewelyn v. Levi, 157 Cal. 31, 106 Pac. 219. "It would be against the plainest principles of justice and equity, * * * to permit a partner to use partnership funds in paying for and improving property for the bene- fit of his wife, and hold that there was no charge or lien upon the prop- erty in favor of the partnership to the extent that partnership funds had been so used and unaccounted for — especially since it appeared that the partnership assets were insufficient to pay its debts and the burden of paying them would fall upon the sur- viving partner." Brown v. Orr, 110 Va. 1, 65 S. E. 499, 135 Am. St. 912. Contra: "Each partner combines in himself at once the character of prin- cipal and agent, and may possess and dispose of its [the partnership's] funds and property, even to the ex- tent of appropriating them to his own use, ISy withdrawing them from the common fund." But this rule does not apply in a case where an agree- ment to form a partnership has been entered into and one prospective part- ner has delivered funds into the hands of his intended associate, but the agreement has never been exe- cuted. State V. Brown, 38 Mont. 309, 99 Pac. 954. 75 Love V. Carpenter, 30 Ind. 284. 7sin re Hamilton, 1 Fed. 800, cit- ing Ex parte Smith, 1 Glyn & J. 74, in which it was held "that if one partner be entrusted with the entire management of the partnership con- cern, and he withdraw moneys for his separate use, which he duly and openly enters in the partnership books, this is not a fraud, which will entitle the joint estate to prove 465 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 393 not apparently obtain, however, when the partner of one who has withdrawn partnership funds and charged himself therewith on the books of the firm, lives at a great distance from the place where the books are kept and is without access to them, and can not readily, by reason of the distance separating him from the scene of the application of the funds, have any extrinsic knowl- edge of their conversion.^^ Moreover a partner who frequently overdraws from a certain deposit in violation of the articles of association can not predicate fraud on the fact that his copartner frequently does the same thing.''* But it has been held that the "sale" by a partner to himself of firm property is absolutely void, and his "transfer" of the title thereby will avail him nothing. ''' It has been held that where a partner incurred a debt to secure money to buy land, and afterward paid the debt with partnership funds, the partnership has no claim on the land.*" § 393. Use of influence or information. — Any gratuity paid a partner for his influence in securing the execution of a firm contract will usually inure to the benefit of the partnership as a whole.*^ So while knowledge or information, which be- longs to the firm in the sense that it is available or useful for a purpose within the scope of the partnership business, may be employed by a single partner to further his own private interests in a transaction wholly without the scope of the firm business and not in competition with it,*^ profit resulting from the use against the separate; otherwise, if by 43 N. W. 84; Hodge v. Twitchell, 33 the entries in the books he disguises Minn. 389, 23 N. W. 547; Dunlop v. the transaction, or wholly omits and Richards, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) conceals it." 181 ; Esmond v. Seeley, 28 App. Div. "Hunt V. Benson, 2 Humph. 292, 51 N. Y. S. 36; Short v. Steven- (Tenn.) 459. son, 63 Pa. St. 95; Whitman v. Bow- 7S Coldren v. Clark, 93 Iowa 352, 61 den, 27 S. Car. 53, 2 S. E. 630; Grant N. W. 1045. V. Hardy, 33 Wis. 668. See further '■^Comstocfc V. Buchanan, 57 Barb. Gleason v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. (N. Y.) 127 (affd. 57 Barb. (N. Y.) Co. (Iowa), 43 N. W. 517. 146). 82Latta v. Kilbourn, 150 U. S. 524, soHengy v. Hengy (Tex. Civ. 37 L. ed. 1169, 14 Sup. Ct. 201 ; Mc- App.), 151 S. W. 1127. Gahey v. Oregon King Min. Co., 165 81 Newell V. Cockran, 41 Minn. 374, Fed. 86; Aas v. Benham (1891), 2 30 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 394 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 466 of such knowledge or information in an undertaking which transgresses these bounds belongs to all those composing the partnership and not to the designing partner individually.'^ "As regards the use by a partner of information obtained by him in the course of the transaction of partnership business, or by rea- son of his connection with the firm, the principle is that if he avails himself of it for any purpose which is within the scope of the partnership business, or of any competing business, the profits of which belong to the firm, he must account to the firm for any benefits which he may have derived from such informa- tion, but there is no principle or authority which entitles a firm to benefits derived by a partner from the use of information for purposes which are wholly without the scope of the firm's business."** § 394. Renewing firm lease or other contract in individual name. — It has been well settled that a partner holds for the firm all leases, contracts or other things, received by him per- sonally, and which came through his connection with the firm, and which, on account of their nature or the circumstances surrounding the transaction, should belong to the firm. His possession and control is that of the' firm and he can do nothing to exclude copartners from possession or control. Along this line it has been held that a partner can not renew a lease held by the firm, in his own name and for his own use (in the ab- sence of an agreement thereto by the partners), but that the lease is held by him for the benefit of the partnership.'^ And Ch. 244, 65 L. T. 25. See further siAas v. Benham (1891), 2 Ch. Featherstonhaugh v. Fenwick, 17 Ves. 244, 65 L. T. (N. S.) 25. Quoted Jr. 298; Armstrong v. Bitner, 71 Md. with approval in Latta v. Kilbourn, 118, 17 Atl. 1054, 20 Atl. 136. 150 U. S. 524, 2,1 L. ed. 1169, 14 Sup. 83 McGahey v. Oregon King Min. Ct. 201. Co., 165 Fed. 86; Galbraithv. Devlin, ss Sneed v. Deal, 'iZ Ark. 152, (Wash.), 148 Pac. 589. See further 13 S. W. 703; Lurie v. Pinanski, 215 Dean v. Macdovirell, 8 Ch. Div. 345; Mass. 229, 102 N. E. 629; Struthers Cassels v. Stewart, 6 App. Cas. 64; v. Pearce, 51 N. Y. 357; Betts v. June, Dusenberry v. Horning, 56 Ore. 210, 51 N. Y. 274; Knapp v. Reed, 88 106 Pac. 1019; Sexton v. Sexton, 9 Nebr. 754, 130 N. W. 430, 32 L. R. Grat. (Va.) 204. A. (N. S.) 869n ; Johnston's Appeal, 467 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 394 this rule has at times been carried so far that*" the court held that a renewal of a lease by a partner in his own name, even though the lease was at will and the renewing partner notified his partners of his intention to so renew the lease, and that be- fore the end of their term, was to be held as for the use of the firm, and not for the partner individually who so renewed it. It is difficult to see the reason for applying the rule to this case, and the great majority of the cases undoubtedly do not go to this extent in the application of the rule. It matters not whether or not there is any provision in the lease for a renewal. The necessity for the utmost good faith between the partners makes it imperative that no one partner can secure a renewal of the lease for his own use, to the exclusion of his partners.*^ In case there has already been a dissolution, and an expiration of the lease and no fraud or secret dealing, a partner may properly renew a lease for his own use and benefit.^* And it is held that one member of a partnership during its existence can not, with- out the knowledge of his copartner, take a renewal for his own benefit of a lease of premises leased by the firm, though the re- newal lease would not begin until after the partnership had expired by limitation, and he is held to account for the value of such lease.*' So if one partner leases property necessary for firm business, in his own name, he holds it as tmstee for the firm;®" and the same rule applies where one partner secretly purchases premises which the firm occupy, while the other part- ner as agent for the firm is openly negotiating with the owner for their purchase."^ If, however, one partner actually holds a lease, both legally and equitably, although perhaps the firm lis Pa. St. 129, 8 Atl. 36, 2 Am. St. ^^ Chittenden v. Witbeck, SO Mich. S39; Clements v. Hall, 2 DeG. & J. 401, IS N. W. S26; American Bank 173, 27 L. J. Ch. 349; Alder v. Four- Note Co. v. Edson, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) acre, 3 Swanst. 489; Featherston- 84', 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 388. haugh V. Fenwick, 17 Ves. Jr. 298. =» Mitchell v. Reed, 61 N. Y. 123, 86 Clegg V. Edrnondson, 4 DeG., M. 19 Am. Rep. 252. & G. 787. °" Dikis v. Likis, 187 Ala. 218, 65 s'Spiess V. Rosswog, 63 How. Fr. So. 398. 401, 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. 135 (aflfd. 96 " Donleavey v. Johnston, 25 Cal. N. Y. 651). App. 319, 141 Pac. 229. § 395 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 468 may use the leased property, the partner so holding the lease may properly renew it for his own benefit.*^ The same rule which governs the securing of leases applies to other benefits, and if a member of an insurance partnership secures a renewal of agencies in himself and for his own benefit, it is held that he takes them for the use of the firm, and this even though the other partners contemplated going out of business.'^ § 395, Secret commissions. — If a partner secure any secret commission from a person dealing with the firm, upon such transaction, it will be held for the benefit of the firm."* The partner receiving secret commissions on the partnership trans- actions must account for the whole amount of the commissions so received, even though he may have been assisted in the deal by a third person, to whom he paid a part of such commissions.'^ If, however, the third party knows of such improper actions by the partner, he becomes a party to the wrongful securing of the commission, and is liable with the partner to the remaining partners."" Such a wrongful commission is a fraud on the other partners, and is a ground for a dissolution of the partnership, at the option of the defrauded partners."' In the case, how- ever, of twO' firms having a common member, and one of them selling for the other, upon a commission, the firms knowing of the common member, and there being no fraud or secret dealing in the transaction, the common member is entitled to retain for his own use his share of the commission."* § 396. Duty not to conduct competing business. — A per- plexing question often arises in partnerships as to whether or 02 Phillips V. Reader, 18 N. J. Eq. lop v. Richards, 2 E. D. Smith (N. 95. Y.) 181; Densmore Oil Co. v. Dens- »3 Holmes v. Darling, 213 Mass. 303, more, 64 Pa. St. 43 ; Grant v. Hardy, 100 N. E. 611 ; Read v. Nevitt, 41 Wis. 33 Wis. 668. 348. 95 Grant v. Hardy, 33 Wis. 668. 9* Delmonico v. Roundebush, S Fed. »n Emery v. Parrott, 107 Mass. 95. 165, 2 McCrary (U. S.) 18; Faulds 9? short v. Stevenson, 63 Pa. St. 95. V. Yates, 57 111. 416, 11 Am. Rep. 24; sspreck v. Blakeston, 83 Pa. St. Emery v. Parrott, 107 Mass. 95 ; Dun- 474. 469 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 396 not a person who is a member of a partnership can, at the same time, be engaged in another business for his own benefit. Gen- erally, the conducting by a partner, without consent of his co- partners, of a separate business of like character as, and in com- petition with, that carried on by the firm is diametrically op- posed to the idea of good faith, and a partner thus offending must turn his tainted profits into the partnership coffers.*® As said in a United States case ■} "The general principles * * * admit of no question, it being well settled that one partner can not, directly or indirectly, use partnership assets for his own benefit; that he can not, in conducting the business of a partnership, take any profit clandestinely for himself-; that he can not carry on another in competition or rivalry with that of the firm, thereby depriving it of the benefit of his time, skill and fidelity, without being accountable to his copartners for any profit that may accrue to him therefrom; that he can not be permitted to secure for himself that which it is his duty to obtain, if at all, for the firm of which he is a member; nor can he avail himself of knowledge or information which may be properly regarded as the property of the partnership, in the sense that it is available or useful to the firm for any purpose within the scope of the partnership business." * * * It is well settled that a partner may traffic outside of the scope of the firm's business for his own benefit and advantage, as was held soLatta V. Kilbourn, ISO U. S. 524, Thomps. & C. (N. Y,) 126 (affd. 59 37 L. ed. 1169, 14 Sup. Ct. 201 ; N. Y. 6S9) ; In re Bast's Appeal, 70 Crownfield v. Phillips (Md.), 92 Atl. Pa. St. 301; McMahon v. McClernan, 1033. See further Aas v. Benhara 10 W. Va. 419; Fletcher v. Ingram, (1891), 2 Ch. 244; McGahey v. Ore- 46 Wis. 191, 50 N. W. 424. Compare gon King Min. Co., 165 Fed. 86; Pierce v. Daniels, 25 Vt. 624; and Jennings v. Rickard, 10 Colo. 395, 15 Bishop v. Riddle, 51 Tex. Civ. App. Pac. 677; Reber v. Pearson, 155 Mich. 317, 113 S. W. 151. It has been held 593, 119 N. W. 897; Lockwood v. that a partner may be enjoined from Beckwith, 6 Mich. 168, 72 Am. Dec. carrying on a competing business. 69; Todd v. Rafiferty's Admrs., 30 N. Marshall v. Johnson, 33 Ga. 500. J. Eq. 254; Long V. Majestre, 1 Johns. ^ Jackson, J., in case of Latta v. Ch. (N. Y.) 305; Manufacturers' Nat. Kilbourn, 150 U. S. 524, 14 Sup. Ct Bank V. Cox, 2 Hun (N, Y.) 572, 5 201 (1893). § 396 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 470 in the thoroughly considered case of Aas v. Benham,^ in which it was sought to make one partner accountable for profits real- ized frorn another business, on the ground that he availed him- self of information obtained by him in the course of his partner- ship business, or by reason of his connection with the firm, to secure individual advantage in the new enterprise. It was there laid down by Lord Justice Lindley that if a member of a part- nership firm avails himself of information obtained by him in the course of the transaction of the partnership business, or by reason of his connection with the firm, for any purpose within the scope of the partnership business, or for any pur- pose which would compete with the partnership business, he is liable to account to the firm for any benefit he may have ob- tained from the use of such information ; but if he uses the in- formation for purposes which are wholly without the scope of the partnership business, and not competing with it, the firm is not entitled to an account of such benefits. It was further laid down in that case, m explanation of what was said by Lord Justice Cotton^ that: "It is not the source of the information, but the use to which it is applied, which is important in such matters. To hold that a partner can never derive any personal benefits from information which he obtains as a partner would be manifestly absurd." And it was said by Lord Justice Bowen : "That the character of information acquired from the partner- ship transaction, or from connection with the firm, which the partner might not use for his private advantage is such informa- tion as belongs to the partnership in the sense of property which is valuable to the partnership, and in which it has a vested right." The duty to account to the partners for whatever the firm is entitled to is well recognized in many American deci- sions.* Not only, it has been held, is the competing partner liable to an accounting to his copartners for any profits accru- 2 (1891) 2 Ch. 244, 255. 92 Mo. 388, 4 S. W. 674; Coursin's 3 Dean v. MacDowell, 8 Ch. Div. Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 220; Simmons v. 345. Vulcan Oil &c. Co., 61 Pa. St. 202, * Lockwood V. Beckwith, 6 Mich. 100 Am. Dec. 628. 168, 72 Am. Dec. 69 ; Filbrun v. Ivers, 471 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 396 ing to him from the competing business, but he is liable as well for any damages the partnership may sustain by reason 'of the competition.* But the right to demand of a partner that the partnership receive the profits resulting from his unlawful under- taking is a right personal to his copartner. It "is not available to third parties for the purpose of fixing a liability upon the partnership when such claim [of resulting benefit] has not been asserted."® And in this particular, even the violation of an express agreement may not give the copartners a right to share in the profits of the separate business,^ their remedy being, it seems, by injunction or action for damages,^ or by a bill in equity for an accounting.^ A partner who makes secret profits by be- coming interested in a company controlling the sale of the product of a mine operated by the partnership, must account to his co- partners for the profits.^" So a member of a partnership in the sale of mineral water and other goods which might be con- veniently sold in connection, who, with his son, an employe of the firm, carries on a wine and whisky business, must account to the firm for profits so made.^^ This distinction should, how- ever, be drawn, that it is rather the active co-operation in a com- peting business than the ownership therein that is objectionable, and at least one case holds that ownership in a similar business, without any active assistance thereto, is proper, and can be car- ried on by a partner for his own use.^^ The better and safer policy, however, and the one more consistent with the good faith required of partners, is to avoid any such relation, unless with the knowledge and consent of the copartner. Such assent 5 Hellman v. Reis, 1 Cin. Super. Ct, 345. See further King v. Whiton, 15 Rep. (Ohio) 30, 13 Ohio Dec. Z91. Wis. 684. *Lockwood V. Beckwith, 6 Mich. ^ Marshall v. Johnson, 33 Ga. 500. 168, 72 Am. Dec. 69. » Moritz v. Peebles, 4 E. D. Smith 1 Latta V. Kilbourn, ISO U. S. 524, (N. Y.) 135. 37 L. ed. 1169, 14 Sup. Ct. 201 ; Met- i" Hurst v. Brennen, 239 Pa. 216, calfe V. Bradshaw, 145 111. 124, Zl N. 86 Atl. 778. E. 1116, 36 Am. St. 478; Burr v. Da "Holmes v. Darling, 213 Mass. 303, La Vergne, 102 N. Y. 415, 7 N. E. 100 N. E. 611. 366; Aas v. Benham (1891), 2 Ch. "Pierce v. Daniels, 25 Vt. 624. 244; Dean v. McDowell, 8 Ch. Div. § 396 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 472 must, in court, whenever needed, be strictly proved, and will not be inferred from slight circumstances/* and a lapse of a considerable time by the partners in demanding an accounting after discovering the connection will not necessarily be con- strued an assent by them, provided such a delay, under the cir- cumstances of the particular case, was not inconsistent with this right. In the absence of a custom or a definite agreement to the contrary, there is an unquestioned right to own or conduct a business entirely noncompeting and nonconflicting with the business of the partnership, provided, also, that the other busi- ness does not interfere in any manner with the proper applica- tion of the time, skill or financial aid which the partner owes the partnership, the amount of which, of course, varies in differ- ent partnerships.^* A partner in a firm engaged in selling real estate on commission, who with his own money bought a tract, platted it, and placed it with the firm for sale, on the usual com- mission, when the firm had no funds with which to buy, and he had made an effort to get another to do it, was not liable to account to the firm for his profit on the transaction.^^ Though it has been held that an injunction will lie to restrain a partner, required to superintend and manage the business of his firm, from engaging, with the purpose of furthering his individual in- terests, in the same business in separate quarters at the same place, notwithstanding the fact that the partnership agreement does not expressly stipulate that he shall not thus do.^° On the other hand it was held that one of the members of a commission "Todd V, Raf]ferty,'30 N. J. Eq. 134 Mass. 330; Shrader v. Downing, 2S4. 79 Wash. 476, 140 Pac. 558, 52 L. R. "Wheeler V. Sage, 1 Wall. (U. S.) A. (N. S.) 389n. See further Curry 518, 17 L. ed. 646; Dennis v. Gordon, v. Chas. Warner Co., 2 Marv. (Del.) 163 Cal. 427, 125 Pac. 1063; Shrader 98, 42 Atl. 425; Sanderson's Admrs. V. Downing, 79 Wash. 476, 140 Pac. v. Sanderson, 17 Fla. 820; Northrup 558, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 389n. v. Phillips, 9^ 111. 449; Starr v. Case, " Latta V. Kilbourn, 150 U. S. 524, 59 Iowa 491, 13 N. W. 645 ; Henson ■il L. ed. 1169, 14 Sup. Ct. 201; v. Byrne (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. Wheeler v. Sage, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 518, 494. 17 L. ed. 646; McKenzie v. Dickinson, is Marshall v. Johnson, 33 Ga. 500. 43. Cal. 119; Belcher v. Whittemore, 473 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 397 and warehouse firm whose partner refuses to provide buildings for the storage of cotton, as he is bound to do under the articles of association, may employ his personal funds in the erection of such buildings and appropriate to himself the profits arising from the storage of cotton therein, provided that this does not cause him to neglect the partnership afifairs.^'^ So, also, one who enters into a partnership "for the purpose of practicing the law'' and agrees to give his "time and talents and strength to the prosecution of the interest of the firm," may, while giving all due attention to partnership matters and upon consent of his copartner, serve as executor of different estates, and the com- missions which he under such circumstances thereby obtains will accrue to his individual benefit.^^ § 397. Partnership in different firms. — It seems deducible from the general principles of partnership that one person may be a partner in two or more .firms, if they are not of a competing nature, if there is no requirement that he devote all his time to one of them, and if he makes no unfair use of his position in one or information there gained, by using them to advance the other. Of course, partnership in more than one firm may be pro- vided for by agreement." One partner is liable to copartners for loss caused by his forming an unauthorized partnership in another firm.^" Where a partner in a wholesale business started a retail firm in the same line, and sold to it from the wholesale house at an insufficient price, the partner was charged on account- ing after dissolution of the wholesale firm with the profits from the retail firm.^^ In several cases the right of copartners in one firm to share in profits made by one of their members as partner in another firm, has been denied.^^ In Texas, where a partnership " Parnell v. Robinson, 58 Ga. 26. See Sweet v. Morrison, 103 N. Y. IS Metcalfe v. Bradshaw, 145 III. 235, 8 N. E. 396. 124, 33 N. E. 1116, 36 Am. St. 478. 21 Van Deusen v. Crispell, 114 App. "Winchester v. Glazier, 152 Mass. Div. 361, 99 N. Y. S. 874. 316, 25 N. E. 728, 9 L. R. A. 424. z^Murrell v. Murrell, 33 La. Ann. 20 Reis V. Hellman, 25 Ohio St. 180. 1233 ; Freck v. Blakiston, 83 Pa. St. 474. § 398 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 474 is considered a legal entity, a sale by the surviving partner in a dissolved partnership to a firm of which he was a member, made in good faith is not irivalid as being a sale to himself.^' The fact that one person is a partner in two different firms, one of which is indebted to the other, and becomes insolvent, does not prevent the solvent firm from recovering its debts or dividend from the other. § 398. Dealings between partner and firm. — A partner by being a member of a firm is not hindered from dealing with it in good faith so long as the firm receives a fair consideration for its bargain. So copartners may indorse a note to one of the firm,^* or make it payable to him^° with the same effect as if given to a stranger. And a deed to a partnership of which the grantee is a member is not void as being a deed to himself.^® A firm may take and use a negotiable note or note and mortgage from a member. It was held a partner is liable to the firm on a note made by him to a third person and purchased by the firm, and though the debt is not actionable in law, it will be enforced in equity.^^ A partner may borrow money from the firm or loan money to it.^' The rights of a partner in transactions such as those here con- sidered were always enforcible at equity and under reformed 23 Morris V.Owen (Tex. Civ.App.), 430, 35 Atl. 1099; Knaus v. Givens, 143 S. W. 227. 110 Mo. 58, 19 S. W. 535. 2* Russell V. Swan, 16 Mass. 314. ^t Baring v. Lyman, 1 Story (U. 25 Baring v. Lyman, 1 Story (U. S.) 396, Fed. Cas. No. 983; Hall v. S.) 396, Fed. Cas. 'No. 983; Pitcher Kimball, 11 111. 161; Pike v. Hart, 30 V. Barrows, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 361, 28 La. Ann. 868; Galway v. Fullerton, Am. Dec. 306; Thayer v. Buffum, 11 17 N. J. Eq. 389. Mete. (Mass.) 398; Temple v. Sea- =8 McCall v. Moss,' 112 111. 493; ver, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 314; Willis v. Leihy v. Briggs, 33 111. App. 534; Barron, 143 Mo. 450, 45 S. W. 289, Wilson v. Soper, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 65 Am. St. 673; Blake v. Wheaton, 1 411, 56 Am. Dec. 573; Armistead v. N. Car. 148. Spring, 1 Rob. (La.) 567; Brown v. 26 Henry v. Anderson, 11 Ind. 361. Spohr, 87 App. Div. 522, 84 N. Y. See Smyth v. Strader, 4 How. (U. S. 995; Iddings v. Bruen, 4 Sandf. S.) 404, 11 L. ed. 1031; Woodman v. Ch. (N. Y.) 223; Lassiter v. Stain- Boothby, 66 Maine 389; Buchanan v. back, 119 N. Car. 103, 25 S. E. 726; Mechanics Loan &c. Inst., 84 Md. Lovett v. Perry, 98 Va. 604, Zl S. E. ZZ. 475 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 399 codes of procedure may be enforced by an appropriate action.^* A claim for work and labor may be assigned by the firm to a partner.^" A partner to whom the firm is indebted for goods sold may pay himself from partnership assets/^ A partner, also engaged in a separate business, is entitled to a fair market price for material sold by him to the firm.^^ Where a member of a firm of contractors was permitted by the agreement to take some of the work individually on subcontract, the firm was en- titled to the same average profit on his work that it received on work done by other subcontractors.^^ And a partner who becomes jointly interested with another in the purchase of firm property is not relieved from paying his share of the purchase- price to the firm because he is a member.^* Generally, where an assignee of a claim may sue in his own name the assignee of a claim by a partner against his firm, or of a firm against its partner may maintain an action thereon.^' § 399. Dealings between copartners. — Copartners are not disqualified from making contracts with each other as indi- viduals. Usually their rights under such contracts are the same as if they were not copartners.^^ This rule has been often ap- 29 In re Buckhause, 2 Lowell (U. ^^ Condon v. Callahan, 115 Tenn. S.) 331, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2086, 10 Nat. 285, 89 S. W. 400, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) Bankr. Reg. 206; Hall v. Kimball, 11 643, 112 Am. St. 833, S Ann. Cas. 659. 111. 161 ; Crosby v. Timolat, 50 Minn. 3* Huffman Farm Co. v. Rush, 173 171, 52 N. W. 526; Chapman v. Pa. St. 264, 33 Atl. 1013. Evans, 44 Miss. 113; Galway v. Ful- s5 pjke v. Hart, 30 La. Ann. 868; lerton, 17N. J. Eq. 389; Colev. Reyn- Campbell v. Bane, 119 Mich. 40, 11 olds, 18 N. Y. 74; Lathrop v. Knapp, N. W. 322; Sterling v. Chapin, 185 37 Wis. 307; Piercy v. Fynney, L. R. N. Y. 395, 78 N. E. 158; Bank of 12 Eq. 69; De Tastet v. Shaw, 1 B. British Columbia v. Delafield, 126 N. & Aid. 664; Midland R. Co. v. Tay- Y. 410, 27 N. E. 797. lor, 8 H. L. Cas. 751, 8 Jur. (N. S.) se !„ re Waite, 1 Lowell (U. S.) 419. 207, Fed. Cas. No. 17044; Paine v. 30 Elliott V. Bidwell (S. Dak.), 152 Moore, 6 Ala. 129; Volk v. Roche, 70 N. W. 286. 111. 297; Berry v. DeBruyn, 11 111. 31 Cambre v. Lasseigne, 134 La. 94, App. 359 ; Bates v. Lane, 62 Mich. 63 So. 680. 132, 28 N. W. 753; Matthews, v. Per- 32 Curry v. Charles Warner Co., 2 due, 79 Mo. App. 149 ; Herbert v. Od- Marv. (Del.) 98, 42 Atl. 425. lin, 40 N. H. 267; Mosteller v. Bost, § 400 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 476 plied where the transactions between the partners had some relationship to firm property, or to partnership interests, where the result of the contract was to take everything connected with the transaction out of the partnership accounts.*^ Thus a loan of money to a copartner as an individual is valid, and its repay- ment enforcible by legal action, though it was used in the pur- chase of a share in the partnership.^' And where a partner in a defunct bank assumed its liabilities as to depositors, other part- ners who were depositors were entitled to the benefit of such assumjption.^' § 400. Good faith required in partner's purchase of co- partner's interest. — A purchase in good faith on fair consid- eration by one of two partners of his copartner's interest in the firm property vests in him the ownership of the firm property,^" and a provision in a partnership agreement Which reserves to one partner the right to purchase the assets and business of the firm in case of disagreement is valid, and does not destroy the equality of the partners.^^ One partner may sell his interest to 42 N. Car. 39; McCoy v. McCoy, 202 N. W. 427, 46 Am. Rep. 665. Pa. 497, 52 Atl. 180; Jarecki v. Hays, ssHill v. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31; 161 Pa. St. 613, 29 Atl. 118; Holt v. Thomson v. Mylne, 11 Rob. (La.) Howard, 11 Vt. 49, 58 Atl. 797; 349; WiUiams v. Love, 2 Head Bright V. Carter, 117 Wis. 631, 94 (Tenn.) 80, 73 Am. Dec. 191; Ford N. W. 645; Want v. Reece, 1 Bing. v. McBryde, 45 Tex. 498. A partner 18; Bedford v. Brutton, 1 Bing. N. who canceled on firm books an in- Cas. 399, 1 Scott 245. debtedness due on account of certain 37 McDougald v. Banks, 13 Ga. 451 ; farms owned equally by the partners, Jones V. Fields, 57 Iowa 317, 10 N. W. without the knowledge of his copart- 747; Morrison v. Stockwell, 9 Dana ner, was held not to have become in- (Ky.) 172; Shurtleff v. Willard, 19 debted to the latter. Cole v. Hayutin, Pick. (Mass.) 202; Hoskins v. Dick- 109 Ark. 617, 160 S. W. 1084. inson, 124 Mich. 11, 82 N. W. 660; 39 Grove v. Keeling (Tex. Civ. BuUard v. Hascall, 25 Mich. 132; App.), 176 S. W. 822. Hardin v. Jamison, 60 Minn. 348, 62 ^"McFadden v. Shanley (Ariz.), 141 N. W. 394; Love v. Van Every, 18 Pac. 732; Rankin v. Kelly, 163 Ky. Mo. App. 196; Coggschall v. Muger, 463, 173 S. W. 1151; Baker v. Cum- 54 Mo. App. 420; Howard v. France, mings, 4 App. Cas. (D. C.) 230. 43 N. Y. 593, 3 Alb. Law. J. 305; "Phillips v. Crownfield, 124 Md. Davies v. Skinner, 58 Wis. 638, 17, App. 443, 92 Atl. 1030. 477 DUTIES AND LIABILITIES INTER SESE § 400 his copartner and recover the purchase-price by action at law/° But where one partner seeks to purchase the interest of another he must, in utmost good faith, frankly and honestly inform the other of all he knows which affects the value of such in- terest.*^ "It is clear law that in a transaction between copart- ners for the sale by one to the other of a share in the partnership business, there is a duty resting upon the purchaser who knows, and is aware that he knows, more about the partnership ac- counts than the vendor, to put the vendor in possession of all material facts with reference to the partnership assets, and not to conceal what he alone knows; and that, unless such informa- tion has been furnished, the sale is voidable and may be set aside."** And the rule has been applied where a partner in good faith misrepresented his financial condition.*^ If the purchasing partner conceals any facts affecting the value of the interest purchased, equity will grant relief, and the sale may be set aside or the purchasing partner held to account for his profits in the *2 Bigham v. Tinsley, 160 Mo. App. 60S, 140 S. W. 1193. « Brooks V. Martin, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 70, 17 L. ed. 732; Reese v. Brad- ford, 13 Ala. 837; Caldwell v. Davis, 10 Colo. 481, IS Pac. 696, 3 Am. St. S99; Baker v. Cummings, 4 App. Cas. (D. C.) 230; Hopkins v. Watt, 13 III. 298; Smith v. Roberts, 182 111. App. 227; Rankin v. Kelly, 163 Ky. 463, 173 S. W. 1151 ; Muir v. Samuels, 110 Ky. 60S, 62 S. W. 481, 23 Ky. L. 14; Chase v. Garvin, 19 Maine 211; Pomeroy v. Benton, S7 Mo. S31 ; Bur- gess V. Deierling, 113 Mo. App. 383, 88 S. W. 770; Gilbert v. Anderson, 73 N. J. Eq. 243, 66 Atl. 926; Styles V. Shaver, ISl App. Div. 903, 136 N. Y. S. 347; Kelly v. Delaney, 136 App. Div. 604, 121 N. Y. S. 241; Wright V. Duke, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 409, 36 N. Y. S. 853, 72 N. Y. St. 375 ; Seal v. Holcomb, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 330, 107 S. W. 916; Smith's Admr. v. Smith, 30 Vt. 139; Yost v. Critcher, 112 Va. 870, 72 S. E. 594; Finn v. Young, 46 Wash. 74, 89 Pac. 400; Krebs v. Blankenship, IZ W. Va. 539, 80 S. E. 948; McKinley v. Lynch, 58 W. Va. 44, 51 S. E. 4; Law v. Law (1905), 1 Ch. 140. See cases cited in note 4, § 381, on good faith a duty. See also Evans v. Bradford, 35 Ind. 527; Max- field V. Seabury, 75 Minn. 93, 11 N. W. 555; Wiley v. Brundred, 158 Pa. St. 579, 28 Atl. 173, 180; In re Black- iston's Appeal, 81 Pa. St. 339; Wei- rich v. Dodge, 101 Wis. 621, 11 N. W. 906. Contra: Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U. S. 411, Z7 L. ed. 790, 13 Sup. Ct. 811. "Law V. Law (1905), 1 Ch. 140. *5 Arnold v. Hagerman, 45 N. J. Eq. 186, 17 Atl. 91, 14 Am. St. 712. § 401 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 478 deal,*" and the remedy of such partner is not affected by the fact that his copartners purchased his interest not front him directly but from a third party to whom they induced him to sell, though not acting for them.*^ The sale was set aside where the purchasing partners knew of large contracts secured by the firm in England and, concealing such knowledge, bought the in- terest of the copartners.*^ Where one partner threatens to sell to an outsider, in violation of the partnership agreement, it is not coercion of the other partner in. order to make him. buy the share/' It was held in California, however, that when one partner authorized the sale of his interest, the relation between him and his copartner was at an end, and the latter was not bound to make full disclosures when dealing with him/" This scarcely seems a just holding, nor in harmony with the gen- eral rule requiring good faith between partners. The promise of a non-active partner to consent to a sale of the firm property, upon a promise of the active partner to repay his cash contribution, is based on a sufficient consideration.'*^ Where one partner has given a note for his copartner's interest, the consideration has not failed because the copartner did not turn over as assets the evidence of certain contracts.^^ § 401. Duty to share outlays and losses. — It has been seen, from the general principles of partnership herein discussed, that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, each partner must bear his proportionate share of losses incurred in the proper management of the business. Losses must, of course, be paid first out of the profits. If the profits are not sufficient to pay losses, then the burden must next fall on the capital of *6 Smith V. Roberts, 182 111. App. *» Taylor v. Ford, 131 Cal, 440, 63 227; Rankin v. Kelly, 163 Ky. 463, 173 Pac. 770. S. W. 1151; Nelson v. Matsch, 38 bo Wise Realty Co. v. Stewart Utah 122, 110 Pac. 865, Ann. Cas. (Cal.), 146 Pac. 534. 1912 D, 1242n. 5i Eastburn v. Eddleblute, 53 Pa. " Yost V. Critcher, 112 Va. 870, 72 Super. Ct. 234. S. E. 594. 52 Smith v. Roberts, 182 111. App. 6 ; (Okla.), ISO Pac. 1067. Catlin v. Gilder, 3 Ala. 536; Hotchin »Tate V. Holly, 21 Colo. App. 451, v. Kent, 8 Mich. 526; Kirby v. In- 122 Pac. 58. gersoll, Har. (Mich.) 172; Hoskinson 4 Persons v. Oldfield, 101 Miss. 110, v. Eliot, 62 Pa. St. 393. 57 So. 417. e Story Partnership, § J. ^Winship v. Bank of United 487 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 412 ticular purpose, it is understood to be in itself a grant of power to the acting members of the company to transact its business in the usual way. If that business be to buy and sell, then the individual buys and sells for the company, and every person with whom he trades in the way of its business has a right to consider him as the company whoever may compose jt. * * * The acting partners are identified with the company and have power to conduct its usual business in the usual way. This power is conferred by entering into the partnership, and is perhaps never to be found in the articles."^ The Uniform Partnership Act is in this respect practically declaratory of the common law, as follows: "Every partner is an agent of the partnership for the purpose of its business, and the act of every partner, including the execution of the part- nership name of any instrument, for apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the partnership of which he is a memjber, binds the partnership, unless the partner so acting has in fact no authority to act for the partnership in the particular matter, and the person with whom he is dealing has knowledge of the fact that he has no such authority. An act of a partner which is not apparently for the carrying on of the business of the partnership in the usual way does not bind the partnership unless authorized by other partners."* § 412. Kind of partnership as affecting powers of partner. — The extent of the powers of a partner as general agent of the firm depends very much on whether he is a member of a trading or commercial partnership or of a nontrading partnership. It is said that the power of one partner to bind the firm by a con- tract entered into on its behalf will be implied by law only in case of commercial partnerships and that in other partnerships it is a question of fact depending on the partnership agreement, customs of the business and other circumstances.® "Wherever '' Winship v. Bank of United States, » Judge v. Braswell, 13 Bush (Ky.) 5 Pet. (U. S.) 529, 8 L. ed. 216. 67, 26 Am. Rep. 185. 8 Uniform Partnership Act, § 9 (1) (2). § 412 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 488 the business, according to the usual niode of conducting it, im- ports in its nature, the necessity of buying and selling, the firm is then properly regarded as, a trading partnership, and is in- vested with all the powers and subject to all the obligations in- cident to that relation."^" "It is with respect to those partner- ships the nature of whose business naturally comprehends cer- tain courses of dealing that the law says that they belong to the class denominated commercial or trading. These are those whose conduct so involves buying and selling, whether inci- dentally or otherwise, that it naturally comprehends the employ- ment of capital, credit and the usual instrumentalities of trade and frequent contact with the commercial world in dealings which in their character and incidents are like those of traders gen- erally."^^ In case of a nontrading partnership, the burden of showing agency is said to be on the one who seeks to hold the part- nership, and he should show either express authority, that the con- tract concerned something necessary to the business, or that usu- ally in such partnerships a partner has such authority.^^ But gen- erally within the scope of the business which is necessary lim- ited the member of a nontrading partnership may bind the ifirm.^^ The main distinction is that the inember of a trading firm has the implied power to borrow money on the firm credit and to give firm negotiable paper, while the member of a non- trading firm has no such implied power, and authority or rati- fication must be shown/* But the power may be shown from the organization and purposes of the particular firm.^^ loKimbro v. Bullitt, 22 How. (U. Nat. Bank, 45 Kans, 8, 25 Pac 196, S.) 256, 16 L. ed. 313. 11 L. R. A. 238. 11 Marsh v. Wheeler, 77 Conn. 449, i* Friend v. Duryee, 17 Fla. Ill, 35 59 Atl. 410, 107 Am. St. 40. Am. Rep. 89; Vetsch v. Neiss, 66 12 Woodruff V. Scaife, 83 Ala. 152; Minn. 459, 69 N. W. 315 ; Crosth- 3 So. 311. Examples of trading and wa;it v. Ross, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 23, nontrading partnerships are given in 34 Am. Dec. 613; Smith v. Sloan, Zl a subsequent section, when consider- Wis. 285, 19 Am. Rep. 757. ing the power to give commercial i^ Deardorf v. Thacher, 78 Mo. 128, paper. 47 Am. Rep. 95. Compare Leffler v. 13 Alley v. Bowen-Merrill Co., 16 Rice, 44 Ind. 103; and Hoskinson v. Ark. 4, 88 S. W. 838, 113 Am. St. Eliot, 62 Pa. St. 393. See cases cited IZ ; Pease v. Cole, S3 Conn. 53, 22 in § 486. Contract binding on firm. Atl. 681, 55 Am. Rep. 53 ; Lee v. First 489 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 413 § 413. Scope of business. — The scope of a partner's au- thority is therefore measured by the character of business con- ducted, and is limited only by the scope of the partnership busi- ness, and within the scope of such authority, he may bind his copartners as any other general agent may bind his principals/® So it has been held that one partner may bind the firm by a contract for alterations in the building where it is to carry on its business,^' and two of three partners engaged in forming a corporation to take over land could inform purchasers of in- terests in the corporation that the partnership would look after the details and bear the cost of forming the corporation, and thus bind the third partner.^^ So where land was listed with one member of a partnership, upon an agreement that he should receive a commissior^ on its sale, and afterward, without his knowledge, or a waiver of his right to a commission, other members of the firm bought the land individually and agreed in the contract of sale that the vendor should not pay a com- mission, this bound ,the third partner, the others being held to have acted within their authority as agents in a partnership trans- action.^* Many illustrations , of the authority of partners to bind the firm to contracts of various specific kinds will, follow in succeeding sections. However, a partner has no implied authority to make an unlawful contract,^" nor can he because of the partnership rela- tion modify a contract which another partner had made indi- vidually.^^ Generally a contract made by one partner outside the scope of the partnership business does not bind the firm unless ratified, or unless he was expressly authorized by the 16 See cases cited in § 486. Con- ^'' William L. Blanchard Co. v. Hil- tracts binding on firm. Little v. Brit- ton, 83 N. J. L. 780, 85 Atl. 456. ton (Ala.), 66 So. 694; Shackelford i^-panner v. Sinaloa Land &c. Co., V. Williams, 182 Ala. 87, 62 So. 54; 43 Utah 14, 134 Pac. 586. Fetner v. American Nat. Bank (Ga. ^^ Burns v. Russell Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. E. 185; Van Dyk v. App.), 146 S. W. 707. Mosterdt (Iowa), 153 N. W. 206; 2» Minthorn v. Haines, 169 Mich. Craig V. Warner, 216 Mass. 386, 103 169, 134 N. W. 1113. N. E. 1032; Reirden v. Stephenson, ^lYoutsey v. Lemley (Iowa), 151 87 Vt. 430, 89 Atl. 465.' N. W. 491. § 414 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 490 Other partners to make it." Thus it is held one partner can not bind another by a sale of land unless'the partnership was dealing in lands of which those in question were a part/* nor is there implied authority in one partner- in the ownership of furnishings of certain apartments to sell the whole without the consent of the other/^ nor is the partnership bound by one partner's act in subscribing for corporate stock where such act was not within the scope of the business and was not authorized.^^ A third person's right to rely upon a partner's authority within the scope of the business can not be defeated by secret restrictions or limitations upon his authority or secret agreements among the partners.'"' Thus a partnership formed to operate a tobacco warehouse has been held liable for tobacco bought by one of the partners upon private speculation in the profit's of which the firm is not to share, where the partners permitted him to enter into the speculation because it would increase the business of the warehouse to the benefit of the firm,, and the transaction was within the apparent scope of the partner's authority.^^ "If an act can be said to have been necessary for the carrying on of the business of the partnership in the ordinary way, the firm will, prima facie, be liable, although the act was not authorized by all the partners; but if the act was not necessary for the carrying on of the business of the partnership in the usual way, the firm will not be liable."^^ § 414. Partnership customs and usages as affecting part- ner's authority. — Articles of partnership may be enlarged 22 Lichenstein v. Murphree, 9 Ala. Packet Co., 104 Miss. 507, 61 So. 550, App. 108, 62 So. 444; Brown v. First Ann. Cas. 1915 C, 1111. Nat. Bank, 35 Okla. 726, 130 Pac. 2" Shackelford v. Williams, 182 Ala. 140; Munday Trading Co. v. J. M. 87, 62 So. 54; Lichenstein v. Murph- Radford Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ. ree, 9 Ala. App. 108, 62 So. 444. App.), 178 S. W. 49. 27 Green v. Ervin, 85 S. Car. 40, 67 23 Nichols V. Burcham, 177 Mich. S. E. 14, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1015. 601, 143 N. W. 647. See, however, Maurin v. Lyon, 69 2* Phcenix Ins. Co. v. Fleenor, 104 Minn. 257, 72 N. W. 72, 65 Am. St. Ark. 119, 148 S. W. 650. 568. 2= Wright Bros. v. Merchants' &c. =8 Graves v. Kellenberger, 51 Ind. 491 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 415 by a general usage or habit of conducting the affairs of the firm acquiesced in by all the members.^' The authority of one part- ner to act for and charge the firm may be shown by a course of business between the members of the firm.^" But the "course of business" to bind an individual partner, who did not expressly authorize it, must be such as to indicate that he not only knew the course of dealing but assented to it as a regular course of dealing/^ Infrequent acts are not sufficient to show a course of dealing. And the fact that a partnership may frequently have drawn checks against its funds in bank to discharge the individual debt of a member does not constitute a course of deaHng that will justify the bank in assuming that it is in tlie scope of the partnership business to pledge its credit and give its note in satisfaction of a debt due by one of the partners to the bank.'^ Generally speaking, the act of one member of the firm inconsistent with the practice and usage of the business of the partnership is outside the scope of the partnership as a matter of fact and a party thus acting with the firm will not be heard to plead ignorance.^' Those dealing with a partnership are bound to take notice of general business usages which may affect a partner's authority to bind the firm.^* § 415. What contracts require consent of all partners. — It is specified in the Uniform Partnership Act that: "Unless au- thorized by the other partners or unless they have abandoned 66. See Webster v. Rackett, 7 Hun sigady v. Newton Coal &c. Co., (N. Y.) 229. 123 Ga. 557, 51 S. E. 661, 1 L. R. A. 29Eady v. Newton Coal &c. Co., (N. S.) 650. 123 Ga. 557, 51 S. E. 661, 1 L. R. S2 People's Saving Bank v. Smith, A. (N. S.) 650. 114 Ga. 185, 39 S. E. 920. 30 Pursley v. Ramsey, 31 Ga. 403 ; ^s Biggs v. Hubert, 14 S. Car. 620. Woodward v. Winship, 12 Pick. 3* Standard Wagon Co. v. Few, 119 (Mass.) 430; Davis v. Dodge, 30 Ga. 293, 46 S. E. 109; Herlehy v. Mich. 267; Midland National Bank Ferguson, 47 App. Div. 237, 62 N. V. Schoen, 123 Mo. 650, 27 S. W. 547 ; Y. S. 648 ; Venable v. Levick, 2 Head Burchell v. Voght, 35 App. Div. 190, (Tenn.) 351 ; Peterson v. Armstrong, 55 N. Y. S. 80 (affd. 164 N. Y. 602, 24 Utah 96, 66 Pac. 767; Cavanaugh 58 N. E. 1085) ; Galloway v. Hughes, v. Salisbury, 22 Utah 465, 63 Pac. 39; 1 Bailey (S. Car.) 553. Town v. Hendee, 27 Vt. 258. § 415 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 492 the business, one or more but less than all the partners have no authority to: (a) Assign the partnership property in trust for creditors or on the assignee's promise to pay the debts of the partnership, (b) Dispose of the good will of the business, (c) Do any other act which would make it impossible to carry on the ordinary business of the partnership, (d) Confess a judg- ment, (e) Submit a partnership claim or liability to arbitration or reference."^^ In what respects, if any, these powers can be exerted by a single partner under the law as now interpreted in the various jurisdictions will be ascertained in later sections. As a general rule it may be said that one member of a partner- ship has no implied authority to dispose of the property of the partnership in satisfaction of his individual debt or for his indi- vidual benefit.^® Nor can he as a general rule bind the partner- ship on a contract of guaranty or suretyship, the reason being that such contract is usually without the scope of the partner- ship business, and the partner who makes such a contract acts 25 Uniform Partnership Act, § 9 (3). ness of tiie firm, and can bind the firm 2? Rogers V. Batchelor, 12 Pet. (U. in what he says and does in such busi- S.) 221, 9 L. ed. 1063; Eady v. New- ness. But, when one partner has a ton Coal &c. Co., 123 Ga. SS7, 51 S. transaction with a third person which E. 661, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 650; Da- is neither apparently nor really, within vies V. Atkinson, 124 111. 474, 16 N. E. the scope of the partnership business, 899, 7 Am, St. 373 ; Janney v. Spring- the partnership is not bound by his er, 78 Iowa 61, 43 N. W. 461, 16 Am. declarations or acts in the transac- St. 460; Carter v. Galloway, 36 La. tion." Union Nat. Bank v. Underbill, Ann. 473 ; Johnson v. Crichton, 56 102 N. Y. 336, 7 N. E. 293. Negotia- Md. 108; Farwell v. St. Paul Trust ble paper made in the name of one Co., 45 Minn. 495, 48 N. W. 326, 22 partner, when his name is not also Am. St. 742 ; Buck v. Mosley, 24 Miss, that of the firm, is not ordinarily 170 ; Clift V. Moses, 112 N. Y. 426, 20 binding upon the firm, and is prima N. E. 392; Hartness v. Wallace, 106 facie the individual obligation of the N. Car. 427, 11 S. E. 259; Pepper v. maker; yet such paper, taken when Peck, 17 R. I. 55, 20 Atl. 16 ; Rogers the obligation was incurred by the V. Betterton, 93 Tenn. 630, 27 S. W. partnership and upon its credit, will 1017; Woolson v. Fuller, 71 Vt. 335, be regarded as merely collateral, and 45 Atl. 753; Cotzhausen v. Judd, 43 the other partner will be held liable Wis. 213, 28 Am. Rep. 539. "Each on the original consideration. Mills member of a firm is the general agent v. Riggle, 83 Kans. 703, 112 Pac. 617, of the firm in relation to all the busi- Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 616. 493 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 416 outside the scope of his implied authority as agent of the firm.^^ So the general rule is that to change the nature of the firm business, its place of business or its membership, requires the consent of all partners.^^ According to the general rule, apart , from the Uiiiform Partnership Act, one partner can not convey partnership real estate in the firm name.^® Nor, as will be seen in later sections of this chapter, can he confess judgment, sub- mit a cause to arbitration or make an assignment for benefit of creditors. And in a nontrading partnership one partner has a very limited power to bind the firm, and most acts which a partner in a commercial firm has implied power to perform require the assent of all members, of a nontrading firm, as will be seen in the discussion of particular powers following. § 416. Powers of a majority in partnership matters. — The question often arises in partnerships as to whether a majority of the members of a partnership may override the minority membership, and if so, to what extent. By the great weight of authority, there are certain conditions under which the majority may rule, while there are other conditions under which even one member out of any number of partners can veto the plans of the other partners. As in other matters, the contract of partnership should, first be observed, and if it is there provided sTHollister v. Bluthenthal, Ga. knowledge of all the other members, App. 176, 70 S. E. 970. In the above or was subs'equently ratified by case it is said : "A contract of this them." See also Seufert v. Gille, 230 character although executed in the Mo. 453, 131 S. W. 102, 31 L. R. A. name of the firm, is prima facie the (N. S.) 471n. individual contract of the partner ss Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Hoyt, 1 111. who made it, and the burden of proof App. 374 (afifd. 93 111. 601) ; Abbot is upon the holder of the contract to v. Johnson, 32 N., H. 9; In re Jen- show that it is in fact a firm transac- ning's Appeal, 2 Monag. (Pa.) 184, tion. This can be done by evidence 16 Atl. 19, 2 L. R. A. 43 ; Clements v. that the contract was in fact within Norris, 47 L. J. Ch. 546, 8 Ch. D. the scope of the partnership business, 129, 38 L. T. 591 ; Natusch v. Irving, or that it was authorized by the other 2 Coop. C. C. 358 ; Chappie v. Cadell, members of the firm, or that it was Jac. 537, 23 R. R. 138. entered into in the name of the firm s* See ante §§ 269, 301 et sea by the individual member with the § 416 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 494 that the majority shall govem, it will, as a general rule, con- trol the situation, provided, of course, the action is taken by the majority in good faith. If, however, the articles do not provide for government by a majority, the question becomes more complicated, although resting upon some well established principles. A partnership, almost invariably has certain objects and rules of action and it is, in most jurisdictions, within the power of a majority of the partners to rule as to such matters, that is, in the matters of ordinary transactions. Mr. Collyer, in his work on Partnership, says that: "It may perhaps be laid down that, in a partnership without articles, the power of the miajority to bind the minority is confined to the ordinary trans actions of the partnership." In Stoiy on Partnership,*" the author disposes of the question as follows: "Where there is no stipulation in the partnership articles to control or vary the result (for if there be any stipulation that ought to govern), the general rule would seem to be that each partner has an equal voice, however unequal the shares of the respective par-- ties may be, and the majority, acting fairly and bona fide, have the right and authority to conduct the partnership business within the true scope thereof, and dispose of the partnership property, notwithstanding the dissent of the minority." It was said in a prominent Pennsylvania case:*^ "If, then, the rule be that in the management of the interior afifairs of a partner- ship, a majority of the partners must govern, what is there in this case to take it out of the rule?" It is thus clearly seen that the power of a majority to rule depends upon whether the act done by the majority is one in or connected with the usual business of the partnership, and in accord thereto,- or is one outside of and not contemplated in the regular course of the partnership business. As examples of the above it has been held that the majority can rule where they want to borrow money,*^ also where the majority approved and adopted . ac- -*oCh. 7, § 123. 42 Gregory V. Patchett, 33 Beav. 41 Peacock v. Cummings, 46 Pa. St. 595 ; Byron v. Metropolitan ' Saloon 434 (1863). Omnibus Co., 3 DeG. & J. 123, 27 L. 495 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 416 counts fairly laid before them/^ or in collecting debts.** The authorities are uniform and emphatic that in case of diversity of opinion the majority of the members of a partnership, acting in good faith as -to ordinary incidents of the business, within the powers which may be carried out by less than all the part- ners acting unanimously, and where there is no provision in the partnership contract to prevent, may manage the business as they see fit,*® and are fully as well settled that the majority must act within the bounds established originally by the con- sent of all.*° This has been held even where the articles of partnership provide that the majority shall govern.*^ However, it would seem that the articles might be so comprehensive as to give the majority the power to govern even as to extrinsic matters or as to matters not originally intended, but the authority must clearly show that this broad power was intended, and that a simple authorization for government by a majority would not give this power, but the articles must affirmatively show tha,t extrinsic or new matters were included. Among the mat- ters which the courts have decided are not within the control of a majority (without direct authorization) may be mentioned : J. Ch. 685, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1262, 6 W. N. J. Eq. 178, 90 Am. Dec. 617; Kirk R. 817. V. Hodgson, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) «Kent V. Jackson, 2 DeG., M. & 400; Markle v. Wilbur, 200 Pa. St. G. 49. 457, 50 Atl. 204 ; Clarke v. State Val- ** Greek-American Produce Co. v. ley R. Co., 136 Pa. St. 408, 20 Atl. Pappas, 9 Ala. App. 311, 63 So. 799. 562, 10 L. R. A. 238; Peacock v. *= Johnston v. Button, 27 Ala. 245 ; Cummings, 46 Pa. St. 434 ; Reirden Cotton Plant Oil Mill Co. v. Buckeye v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 430, 89 Atl. 465 ; Cotton Oil Co., 92 Ark. 271, 122 S. Wall v. London & Northern Assets W. 658; Dougherty V. Creary, 30 Cal. Corp. (1898), 2 Ch. 469; Const v, 290, 89 Am. Dec. 116; Copp v. Long- Harris, Turn. & R. 496, 24 R. R. 108- street, 5 Colo. App. 282, 38 Pac. 601 ; *" Abbot v. Johnson, 32 N. H. 9 Faulds V. Yates, 57 111. 416, 11 Am. Kean v. Johnson, 9 N. J. Eq. 401 Rep. 24; Western Stage Co. v. Jenning's Appeal, 2 Monag. (Pa.) 184, Walker, 2Iowa504, 65 Am. Dec. 789; 16 Atl. 19, 2 L. R. A. 43 (1888) Staples V. Sprague, 75 Maine 458; Natusch v. Irving, 2 Coop. C. C. 358. Nolan V. Lovelock, 1 Mont. 224; Za- ■*'' Livingston v. Lynch, 4 Johns. Ch, briskie v. Hackensack &c. R. Co., 18 (N. Y.) 573. § 417 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 496 change of capital;** change in the articles of copartnership;*" change of the character or scope of the business of the partner- ship f° change in the persons constituting the partnership f'^ and change in application of profits.^^ An important point upon the question here discussed is decided in a Georgia case/^ which holds that a creditor of one partner, who is a debtor to the firm as well, can not settle his debt to the- firm by crediting it upon his claim against one partner, unless this is done with the consent of all the partners. One partner can not have 'his contingent liability to the firm released by a majority of the firm.^* If a majority of the partners arrive at a final settle- ment it can not bind the minority without the consent of the minority/^ The Uniform Partnership Act fairly expresses the general rule as follows : "Any difference arising as to ordinary matters connected with the partnership business may be de- cided by a majority of the partners; but no act in contravention of any agreement between the partners may be done rightfully without the consent of all the partners."^^ § 417. Powers of managing partner. — As between him- self and the other partners, a managing partner is limited by the express authority given him, and the general authority which the law implies in a partner to bind the, firm in the particular business which it is carrying on. With regard to third parties the authority of a managing partner is the same as that of any other partner, except in so far as he has been held out as having greater authority. It is not necessary in order to bind *8 Gansevoort v. Kennedy, 30 6arb. ^2 Macdougall v. Jersey &c. Hotel (N. Y.) 279. Smith v. Goldsworthy, Co., 2 Hem. & M. 528. 4 Q. B. 430, 3 G. & D. 448, 12 L. J. =3 Harper v". Wrigley, 48 Ga. 495. Q. B. 192. 54 Bill V. Porter, 9 Conn. 23. *9Ex parte Morgan, 1 Mac. & G. ssLamalere v. Caze, 1 Wash. (U. 225. S.) 435, Fed. Cas. No. 8003 ; Chadsey ^"Zabriskie v. Hackensack &c. R. v. Harrison, 11 111. 151; Cooper v. Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 178, 90 Am. Dec. Frederick, 4 G. Greene (Iowa) 403. 617. 66 Uniform Partnership Act, § "Tabb V. Gist, 6 Call (Va.) 279, 1 18(h). Brock. 33, Fed. Cas. No. 13719. 497 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT ' § 417 other partners that they should have known or consented to acts within the scope of the authority given him.®' As man- aging partner he may bind the firm by borrowing money"® or executing firm notes/" or renewing notes/" at least where he has been held out as having such authority. In a nontrading partnership the mere fact that one partner manages the busi- ness does not give him power to borrow money or execute firm notes.^^ By the weight of authority a managing partner can not make an assignment for benefit of creditors.®^ Other cases hold that he has such right, at least if the firm is insolvent and some of the partners are nonresidents of the state/ ^ or there is no fraud as to the other partner.** A managing partner in a lumber firm can not bind his copartners by a contract of guar- anty.®" A managing partner may bind an inactive partner by transactions as to individual property used in the firm business if the proceeds are used for the firm."" He has no authority to consent to an adjudication in bankruptcy."' A single partner can not revoke the authority of the managing partner by acting independently of the other partners."' If a managing partner can not show accounts where it is his duty to keep them he will be denied credit."* The managing partners of a bank who loaned part of its funds at two per cent, to another bank in "Anderson v. Clayton (Utah), 117 3S9, 49 N. E. 1073; Hook v. Stone, 34 Pac. 41. Mo. 329. 68 Miller V. McCord (Tex. Civ. esH. B. Clafflin Co. v. Evans, 55 App.), 159 S. W. 159; Salt Lake City Ohio St. 183, 45 N. E. 3, 60 Am. St. Brewing Co. v. Hawke, 24 Utah 199, 686; Williams v. Gillespicj 30 W. Va. 66 Pac. 1058. 586, 5 S. E. 210. Bs First Nat. Bank v. Grignon, 7 e* Keller v. Smith, 20 Tex, Civ. Idaho 646, 65 Pac. 365 ; Lindh v. App. 314, 49 S. W. 263. Crowley, 29 Kans. 756; Odiorne v. ^^ Kelley-Goodfellow Shoe Co. v. Maxcy, 15 Mass. 39. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 86 Mo. App. «o Citizens' Commercial &c. Bank v. 438. Piatt, 135 Mich. 267, 97 N. W. 694. ee Cobb v. Sparr, .153 111. App. 92. «i Carlton v. Cone (Colo. App.), 146 e^ Steiner v. Faulk, 222 Fed. 61. Pac. 789; Third Nat. Bank v. Fultz, es Lerch v. Bard, 177 Pa. St. 197, 115 Mo. App. 42, 90 S- W. 755. 35 Atl. 714. 62 Callahan v. Heinz, 20 Ind. App. «9Gay v. Householder, 71 W. Va. 277, 76 S. E. 450. 32— Row. ON Partn.— Vol. 1 418 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 498 which they were interested, when all other funds of the bank were loaned at six per cent., must make good the loss to a co- partner.'* § 418. Restrictions of partner's authority. — As between the partners the powers of any of them or each of them to make contracts for the firm may be restricted either by the partner- ship agreement or by other contract.'^ However, as contracts entered into by a member of a copartnership, within the scope of his authority, are binding upon all the partners as a firm," and third persons have the right to place a good-faith reliance in the apparent scope of the partner's authority.'^ A third per- son is not bound by a secret agreement between the partners whereby the authority of one or more of them is restricted, where such third person deals with the partner whose authority has been restricted without notice of such restriction.'* And TO Horn v. Lupton, 182 Ind. 3S5, 105 N. E. 237. '1 Everitt v. Chapman, 6 Conn. 347 ; Powell Hardware Co. v. Mayer, 110 Mo. App. 14, 83 S. W. 1008; McGov- ern v. Mattison, 116 N. Y. 61, 22 N. E. 398, S L. R. A. 589. 72 Clark V. Ball, 34 Colo. 223, 82 Pac. 529, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 100, 114 Am. St. 154. See cases cited in pre- ceding sections this chapter. " Green v. Ervin, 85 S. Car. '40, 67 S. E. 14, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1015. See also Irwin v. Williar, 110 U. S. 499, 28 L. ed. 225, 4 Sup. Ct. 160; Winship v. Bank of United States, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 529, 8 L. ed. 216; Woodrufif v. Scaife, 83 Ala. 152, 3 So. 311 ; Crane Co. v. Tierney, 175 111. 79, 51 N. E. 715; Eastman v. Cooper, IS Pick. (Mass.) 276, 26 Am. Dec. 600 ; Banner Tobacco Co. v. Jen- ison, 48 Mich. 459, 12 N. W. 655; Hoskinson v. Eliot, 62 Pa. St. 393; Brooke v. Washington, 8 Grat. (Va.) 248, 56 Am. Dec 142. 71 Irwin V. Williar, 110 U. S. 499, 28 L. ed. 225, 4 Sup. Ct. 160; Winship V. Bank of United States, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 529, 8 L. ed. 216; Rocky Moun- tain Nat. Bank v. McCaskill, 16 Colo. 408, 26 Pac. 821; Leavitt v. Peck, 3 Conn. 124, 8 Am. Dec. 157; Bass Dry Goods Co. V. Granite City Mfg. Co., 113 Ga. 1142, 39 S. E. 471 ; Crane Co. V. Tierney, 175 111. 79, 51 N. E. 715; Evans v. Evans, 82 Iowa 492, 48 N. W. 929; Medberry v. Soper, 17 Kans. 369; Sanfley v. Howard, 7 Dana (Ky.) 367; Harrison'v. Poole, 4 Rob. (La.) 193; Maltby v. Northwestern Va. R. Co., 16 Md. 422; Stinson v. Whitney, 130 Mass. 591; Hotchin v. Kent, 8 Mich. 526; Lynch v. Thomp- son, 61 Miss. 354; Davis v. Richard- son, 45 Miss. 499, 7 Am. Rep. 732; Bates V. Forcht, 89 Mo. 121, 1 S. W. 120; Bromley v. Elliot, 38 N. H. 287, 75 Am. Dec. 182; Magovern v. Rob- ertson, 116 N. Y. 61, 22 N. E. 398, 5 L. R. A. 589; Vance v. Blair, 18 Ohio 532, 51 Am. Dec. 467; Ben- 499 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTItACT § 418 the burden of proof as to knowledge of such restriction is on the party setting up the restriction.'''' But one who has notice of restrictions on a partner's authority and enters into a con- tract with him beyond his authority is bound by such notice, and can hold only the partner with whom he contracted and the firm as a whole or the other members are not bound.'^ The rule is thus stated in the Uniform Partnership Act: "No act of a partner in contravention of a restriction on his authority shall bind the partnership to persons having knowledge of the restriction."'^ As a general rule, a partner who directly notifies a person about to contract with another partner that he will not be bound by the act of his partner in such matter is not liable on a contract made in disregard of such notice,'^ as where one partner ninger v. Hess, 41 Ohio St. 64; Moorehead v. Gilmore, 17 Pa. St. ' 118, 18 Am. Rep. 435; Hoskinson v. 'Eliot, 62 Pa. St. 393; Edwards v. Tracy, 62 Pa. St. 374; Nichols v. Cheairs, 4 Sneed. (Tenn.) 229; Wip- perman v. Stacy, 80 Wis. 345, SO N. W. 336; Cox v. Hickman, 8 H. L. Cas. 268, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 47, 30 L. J. C. P. 125, 7 Jur. (N. S.) 105, 8 W. R. 754. "A mercantile instru- ment given in the partnership name binds all the partners, unless the per- son v/ho took it knew, or had reason to believe, that the partner who made it, was improperly using his author- ity for his own benefit, to the preju- dice, or in a way that might be to the prejudice, of his associates.'' Cotton V. Evans, 21 N. Car. 284. T5 Little V. Britton (Ala.), 66 So. 694. ^ 7« Shackelford v. Williams, 182 Ala. 87, 62 So. 54; Barwick v. Al- derman, 46 Fla. 433, 35 So. 13; Rad- cliffe V. Varner, 55 Ga. 427; Straus V. Kohn, 83 111. App. 497; Campbell v. Pence, .118 Ind. 313, 20 N. E. 840; Thomas v. Hardsocg, 137 Iowa 597, 115 N. W. 210; Baxter v. Rollins, 90 Iowa 217, 57 N. W. 838, 48 Am. St. 432; Brent v. Davis, 9 Md. 217,; Feigenspan v. McDonnell, 201 Mass. 341, 87 N. E. 624; Gladstone Exch. Nat. Bank v. Keating, 94 Mich. 429, 53 N. W. 1110; Wintermute v. Tor- rent, 83 Mich. 555, 47 N. W. 358; First Nat. Bank v. Stadden, 103 Minn. 403, 115 N. W. 198; Langan v. Hewett, 13 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 122; Mason v. Partridge, 66 N. Y. 633; Granby Min. &c. Co. v. Laverty, 159 Pa. St. 287, 28 Atl. 207 ; Chapman v. Devereux, 32 Vt. 616; Barton v. Ash (Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. W. 608; Alderson v. Pope, 1 Camp. 404; Gallway v. Mathew, 1 Camp. 403, 10 East 264, 10 R. R. 289. T^ Uniform Partnership Act, § 9 (4). 78Leavitt v. Peck, 3 Conn. 124, 8 Am. Dec. 157; H. Y. McCord Co. v. Callaway, 109 Ga. 796, 35 S. E. 171 ; Carr v. Hertz, 54 N. J. Eq. 127, 33 Atl. 194, 37 Atl. 1117; Sladden v. Lance, 151 N. Car. 492, 66 S. E. 449; Yeager v. Wallace, 57 Pa. St. 365; Sims V. Smith, 12 Rich, L. (S. Car.) § 419 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 500 notifies a party that he will not be liable for goods sold to his copartner, '^ or for drafts drawn by him in the firm name.'" But it is held a partner can not revoke his copartner's authority to collect firm debts by merely notifying debtors not to pay him.*^ And a partner who objected to his copartner borrowing money can not defend on that ground when the money was used for the firm.'^ Notice may be oral.'^ § 419. Liability of firm on partner's individual contracts. — Although a firm has the use and benefit of goods purchased or money borrowed on a contract made by a partner on his per- sonal credit, and in his individual capacity, this is not enough to make it liable on such contract.** But in Louisiana it seems the partnership is bound if benefited by the contract.*^ The firm may adopt such a contract, and thus become bound if bene- 685; Rooth v. Quin, 7 Price 193; Willis V. Dyson, 1 Stark. 164. '"Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. Pol- lock, 104 Ala. 402, 16 So. 138; Camp- bell V. Bowen, 49 Ga. 417; Dawson Blakemore & Co. v. Elrod, lOS Ky. 624, 49 S. W. 465, 20 Ky. L. 1436, 88 Am. St. 320; St. Louis Brewing Assn. V. Elmer (Mo. App.), 175 S. W. 102. 80 Matthews v. Dare, 20 Md. 248. 81 Steele v. First Nat. Bank, 60 111. 23. See also Brooks v. Lovelace, 6 Ky. Law 367, 13 Ky. Opin. 103. 82 Tyler v. Tyler, 78 Mo. App. 240. 83 St. Louis Brewing Assn. v. El- mer (Mo. Appj), 175 S. W. 102. 8* In re Roddin, 6 Biss. (U. S.) 377, Fed. Cas. No. 11989; Pritchett V. Pollock, 82 Ala. 169, 2 So. 735; Burt V. Collins, 64 Cal. xvii, 3 Pac. 128; Fisher v. Hume, 6 Mackey (D. C.) 9; Floyd v. Wallace, 31 Ga. 688; Funk V. Babbitt, 55 111. App. 124 (affd. 156 111. 408, 41 N. E. 166); Goodenow v. Jones, 75 111. 48; Bird V. Lanius, 7 Ind. 615; Hubenthal v. Kennedy, 76 Iowa 707, 39 N. W. 694 ;, McDonald v. Parker, Ky. Dec. 208; Clark V. Patterson, 158 Mass. 388, 33 N. E. 589, 35 Am. St. 498; Smith V. Sheridan, 175 Mich. 391, 141 N. W. 684; Redenbaugh v. Kelton, 130 Mo. 558, 32 S. W. 67; National Bank V. Thomas, 47 N. Y. IS; Willis v. Hill, 19 N. Car. 231, 31 Am. Dec. 412; Peterson v. Roach, 32 Ohio St. 374, 30 Am. Rep. 607; Ah Lep v. Gong Choy, 13 Ore. 205, 9 Pac. 483 ; In re North Pennsylvania Coal Co.'s Appeal, 45 Pa. St. l81, 84 Am. Dec. 487; Harris v. Miller, Meigs (Tenn.) 158, 33 Am. Dec. 138; Holmes v. Burton, 9 Vt. 252, 31 Am. Dec. 621; National Bank v. Cringan, 91 Va. 347, 21 S. E. 820; McLinden v. Went- worth, 51 Wis. 170, 8 N. W. 118, 192; Hudson's Bay Co. v. Stewart, 6 Manitoba 8. 85 Hamilton v. Hedges, 30 La. Ann. 1290; Roth v. Moore, 19 La. Ann. 86. See also Tucker v. Peaslee, 36 N. H. 167. 501 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT 420 fited/* The other partners may become estopped from denying that the transaction was that of the firm.^^ Especially when a partner has entered into a contract before the formation of the partnership the courts are reluctant to hold the firm liable, even though the property obtained by the contract finally comes to the firm.®^ § 420. Contracts between firms having common partner. — In equity, contracts between firms having common partners are enforcible.^' The fact that there is a common partner does not make one firm liable for the others' transactions,"" but by adop- tion or ratification it may become liable."^ In case the common partner has made the contract and both firms have the same name, the firm with whose business the contract was connected and for ssMarkham v. Hazen, 48 Ga. 570; Smith V. Hood, 4 111. App. 360; Lu- cas V. Coulter, 104 Ind. 81, 3 N. E. 622; Dix v. Otis, S Pick. (Mass.) 38; Habig v. Layne, 38 Nebr. 743, 57 N. W. 539; Ross v. Whitefield, 56 N. Y. 640; Westcott v. Price, Wright (Ohio) 220; Nichols v. English, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 260; Shoemaker Piano Mfg. Co. V. Bernard, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 358. ^'' Newsome v. Brazell, 118 Ga. 547, 45 S. E. 397; Gormley v. Hart- ray, 92 111. App. 115; White Moun- tain Bank v. West, 46 Maine 15; Miller V. McCord (Tex. Civ. App.), 159 S. W. 159. 88 Baxter V. Plunkett, 4 Houst. (Del.) 450; Wittram v. Van Wormer, 44 111. 525; Hoffman v. Smith, 94 Iowa 495, 63 N. W. 182; Warder v. Newdigate, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 174, 52 Am. Dec. 567; Wells v. Siess, 24 La. Ann. 178; Metzner v. Baldwin, 11 Minn. 150; .Callaway v. Wood- ward, 28 Mo. App. 320; Bannister v. Miller, 54 N. J. Eq. 121, 701, 32 Atl. 1066; Maddock v. Steel, 81 Hun 509, 31 N. Y. S. 219; Pierce v. Alspaugh, 83 N. Car. 258; Donnally v. Ryan, 41 Pa. St. 306 ; Morlitzer v. Bernard, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 361; Filter v. Meyer, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 235, 41 S. W. 152; Davis v. Evans, 39 Vt. 182. 89 Fulton V. Williams, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 108; Burrows v. Leech, 116 Mich. 32, 74 N. W. 296; Tutt v. Addams, 24 Mo. 186. soRobbins v. Crandall, 70 111. 300; Cobb v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 38 Iowa 601 ; National Bank of Commerce v. Meader, 40 Minn. 325, 41 N. W. 1043 ; Hall v. Glessner, 100 Mo. 155, 13 S. W. 349; Wright v. Ames, 4 Abb. Dec. 644, 2 Keyes ,(N. Y.) 221; To- land V. Lutz, 2 Ohio C. C. 453, 1 Ohio Dec. 584; Wilkins v. Boyce, 3 Watts (Pa.) 39; Green v. Waco State Bank, 78 Tex. 2, 14 S. W. 253. 91 Miller V. Rapp, 135 Ind. 614, 34 N. E. 981, 35 N. E. 693; Waite v. High, 96 Iowa 742, 65 N. W. 397; Youmans v. Moore, 69 S. Car. 350, 48 S. E. 283. § 421 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 502 which it purported to be made will be held liable.®^ And if it purported to be made for one firm but was actually made for the other, the firm for which it purported to be made is liable to one without notice.'* One who knows that two firms with a common member are distinct, must use ordinary care to find out with which one he is dealing."* But if the contract is appar- ently within the scope of business of the firm with which, in the exercise of reasonable care he supposed himself dealing, all mem- bers of that firm are liable to him.°^ If the common partner acts for both firms in making a contract, and in any manner defrauds one as by using firm property of one to pay an individual debt to the other, the transaction is voidable. ®° A partner in one firm does nbt need to give notice that he is not a partner in a new firm which his copartner enters.®^ As a general rule, the common -member or members can not hold the other members of one firm on a note given by the common member to secure a debt of the other' firm."^ But the rule may be different if both firms are engaged in the same business and one firm is a mem- ber of the other.** § 421. Power to sign firm name. — ^The right to incur firm obligations would be of little value if the power of the partner incurring the debt to sign the firm name to the instrument evi- dencing the obligation were denied. Hence the rule has grown up that a partner may sign the firm name to such contracts as he may be authorized to enter into and the firm will be bound 82 Hastings Nat. Bank v. Hibbard, »8Gray v. Church, 84 Ga. 125, 10 48 Mich. 452, 12 N. W. 651. S. E. 539, 20 Am. St. 348; Schnebly 93 Baker v. Nappier, 19 Ga. 520; v. Culter, 22 111. App. 87; McClurken Swan V. Steele, 7 East. 209, 3 Smith v. Byers, 74 Pa. St. 405 ; Wade v. 199, 8 R. R. 618. Kendrick, Zl Can. S. Ct. 32. 9* Central Nat. Bank v. Frye, 148 s^Mears v. James, 2 Nev. 342; Mass. 498, 20 N. E. 325 ; Gushing v. Jones v. O'Farrel, 1 Nev. 354. Smith, 43 Tex. 261. as Elkin v. Green, 13 Bush (Ky.) 95 Baker v. Nappier, 19 Ga. 520; 612; Broughton v. Sumner, 80 Mo. Crane Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Tierney, 175 App. 386. 111. 79, 51 N. E. 715; Masterson v. =9 McLaughlin v. MuUoy,. 14 Utah Mansfield, 25. Tex. Civ. App. 262, 61 490, 47 Pac. 1031. S. W. 505. 503 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 421 thereby/ But the firm will not be bound when one partner signs the firm name to contracts relating to transactions outside the partnership business or which on their face are those of the individual partners.* Where the firm hap adopted a firm name, one partner ordinarily can not bind the firm by a contract in a name other than the firm name, unless immaterially different,^ or the use of such name has been assented to by the other part- ners.* The firm may be bound by an instrument signed by the partners as individuals, if the party seeking to hold the firm can show that it was in fact intended as a firm obligation and that it was executed in a firm" transaction.^ If the name of an individual partner or former partner is used as a firm name the firm is bound thereby.® When a partner signs a contract in his individual name, which is not also the firm name, the pre- sumption is he intended to bind himself individually,^ but the 1 George v. Tate, 102 U. S. 564, 26 L. ed. 232; Stockwell v. Dillingham, SO Maine 442, 79 Am. Dec. 621 ; Has- kins V. D'Este, 133 Mass. 356; Lam- wersick v. Boehmer, 17 Mo. App. 136; Payn v. Ronan, 47 Hun 637, 14 N. Y. St. 339; Campbell v. Huffines, 151 N. Car. 262, 65 S. E. 1000, 134 Am. St. 987; Fichthorn v. Boyer, 5 Watts (Pa.) 159, 30 Am. Dec. 300; Venable v. Levick, 2 Head (Tenn.) 351; Gordon v. Buchanan, S Yerg. (Tenn.) 71; Hawkins v. Blackford, 1 L. J. (0^ S.) Ch. 142. 2 Scott V. Dansby, 12 Ala. 714; Leckie v. Scott, 10 La. 412; Hilliker V. Francisco, 65 Mo. 598; Merchant V. Belding, 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 344; Marsh v. Joseph (1897), 1 Ch. 213, 75 L. T. 558, 45 W. R. 209. sTilford v. Ramsey, 37 Mo. 563; MofiFat V. McKissick, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 517; Williamson v. Johnson, 1 B. & C. 146, 2 D. & R. 281, 1 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 65, 25 R. R. 336. 4 Folk V. Wilson, 21 Md. 538, 83 Am. Dec. 599; Palmer v. Stephens, I Denio (N. Y.) 471; Mifflin v. Smith, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 165; Faith V. Richmond, 11 A. & E. 339, 3 P. & D. 187, 9 L. J. Q. B. 97; Nor- tin V. Seymour, 3 C. B. 792, 16 L. J. C. P. 100, 11 Jur. 312. 5 Horton v. Smith, 12 Ga. App. 232, II S. E. 9; Cherry Lake Turpentine Co. V. Lanier Armstrong Co., 10 Ga. App. 339, 73 S. E. 610; Dreyfus v. Union Nat. Bank, 164 111. 83, 45 N. E. 408; Kitner v. Whitlock, 88 111. 513; Carson v. Byers, ^ Iowa 606, 25 N. W. 826; Berkshire Woolen Co. V. Juillard, 75 N. Y. 535, 31 Am. Rep. 488; Salt Lake City Brewing Co. V. Hawke, 24 Utah 199, 66 Pac. 1058. « Palmer v. Stephens, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 471 ; Bank of Rochester v. Mon- teath, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 402, 43 Am. Dec. 681 ; Crable v. O'Connor 21 Wyo. 460, 133 Pac. 376; South Carolina Bank v. Case, 8 B. & C. 427. '^ Marvin v. Buchanan, 62 Barb. § 422 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 504 contract may be shown to be a partnership contract.® It has been held that a partnership may sign a b6nd in the firm name without the individual partners signing.' Where the certificate of two architects who are partners is provided for, and the certificate is signed by one of them in the firm name, this will be sufficient.^" The certificate of acknowledgment of a deed by partnership, in the firm name, should show by which member of the firm the signature was made and acknowledged,^^ but it need not state that the signing partner was authorized by the others to sign his name to the instrument.^^ One partner has no right to sign another's individual name without his consent.^* § 422. Power to execute instrument under seal. — The common law rule and the one generally followed where not changed by statute is that one partner can not bind the firm by the execution of an instrument under seal unless expressly au- thorized.^* The fact that the partnership agreement is under (N. Y.) 468; Smith v. Hoffman, 2 Cranch (U. S.) 651, Fed. Cas. No. 13061; Bohon Co. v. Moren, 151 Ky. 811, 152 S. W. 944. 8 Farnsworth v. Trust &c. Co., 211 Fed. 912, 128 C. C. A. 290; Mock v. Stoddard, 177 Fed. 611; Horton v. Miller, 84 Ala. 537, 4 So. 370 ; Snead V. Barringer, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 134; fate V. Holly, 21 Colo. App. 451, 122 Pac. 58; Beckwith v. Mace, 140 Mich. 157, 103 N. W. 559; Burnley v. Rice, 18 Tex. 481. 9 Claflin V. Hoover, 20 Mo. App. 314. But in Russell v. Annable, 109 Mass. 72, 12 Am. Rep. 665, where a firm's name was signed by one of the partners without authority, the bond was held void. 10 Lull V. Korf, 84 111. 225. 11 Sloan V. Owens &c. Mach. Co., 70 Mo. 206; Leon & H. Blum Land Co. V. Dunlap, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 315, 23 S. W. 473. 12 National Bank v. Scriven, 63 Hun 375, 18 N. Y. S. 277, 44 N. Y. St 331. 13 Baker v. Seaweard (Ore.), 136 Pac. 870; United States v. Astley, 3 Wash. (U. S.) 508, Fed. Cas. No. 14472. 1* Adams v. Deckers Valley Lum- ber Co., 202 Fed. 48, 120 C. C. A. 302; Lay ton v. Hastings, 2 Har. (Del.) 147; Montgomery v. Boone, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 244; Armstrong, v. Rob- inson, 5 Gill & Johns. (Md.) 412; Russell v. Annable, 109 Mass. 72, 12 Am. Rep. 665; Fox v. Norton, 9 Mich. 207; Smith v. Tupper, 4 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 261, 43 Am. Dec. 483; Henry County v. Gates, 26 Mo. 315 ; Arnold v. Stevenson, 2 Nev. 234 ; Mc- Bride v. Hagan, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 326; Wharton v. Woodburn, 20 N. Car. 647; James v. Bostwick, Wright (Ohio) 142; Schmertz v. Shreeve, 62 Pa. St. 457, 1 Am. Rep. 439; Hart V. Withers, 1 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 285, 21 Am. Dec. 382; Gerard v. Basse, 505 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 422 seal is not sufficient authorization.^' Genei-ally, however, if the copartner has previously assented, one partner may bind the firm by a sealed instrument made in the course of the firm's business in its name and for its use.^" The copartner may in terms or by his conduct ratify the other partner's act in executing a sealed instrtiment in the firm name.^^ Under some codes one partner may bind the firm by executing a sealed instrument without written authority/* It is generally true that one part- ner may, in the furtherance of the partnership business and' for its benefit, execute a deed under seal which will be binding on the other if he has foreknowledge or subsequently ratifies it, and this may be proved by acts and circumstances or by his verbal declarations and admissions/^ It has been held in some 1 Dall. (Pa.) 119, 1 L. ed. 63, 1 Am. Dec. 226; Lucas v. Sanders, 1 Mc- Mul. (S. Car.) 311; Lambden v. Sharp, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 224; Slov V. Powell, Dall. Dig. (Texas) 467; McDonald v. Eggleston, 26 Vt. 154, 60 Am. Dec. 303 ; Steiglitz v. Egging- ton. Holt. N. P. 141, 17 R. R. 620; Logan V. Stranahan, 12 U. C. Q. B. IS. 15 Van Deusen v. Blum, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 229, 29 Am. Dec. 582 ; Har- rison V. Jackson, 7 Term. Rep. 207, 4 R. R. 422. 16 Gibson v. Warden, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 244, 20 L. ed. 797; United States V. Brod, Fed. Cas. No. 14653; Grady V. Robinson, 28 Ala. 289; Day v. Lafferty, 4 Ark. 450; Jeffreys v. Cole- maft, 20 Fla. 536; Wilcox v. Dodge, 12 111. App. 517; Price v. Alexander, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 427, 52 Am. Dec. 526; Herzog v. Sawyer, 61 Md. 344; Swan V. Stedman, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 548; Cady v. Shepherd, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 400, 22 Am. Dec 379; Smith V. Kerr, 3 N. Y. 144; Person v. Car- ter, 7 N. Car. 321 ; Bond v. Aitkin, 6 Watts & S. (Penn.) 165, 40 Am. Dec. 550; Lucas v. Sanders, 1 McMul. (S. Car.) 311; Wilson v. Hunter, 14 Wis. 683, 80 Am. Dec. 795. 1^ United States v. Turner, 2 Bond 379, Fed. Cas. No. 16547; Gunter v. Williams, 40 Ala. 561; Tischler v. Kurtz, 35 Fla. 323, 17 So. 661 ; Peine V. Weber, 47 111. 41; Swan v. Sted- man, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 548; Sterling V. Bock, 40 Minp. 11, 41 N. W. 236; Gates V. Graham, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 53; Johns v. Battin, 30 Pa. St. 84; Sibley v. Young, 26 S. Car. 415, 2 S. E. 314; Lowery v. Drew, 18 Tex. 786; McDonald v. Eggleston, 26 Vt. 154, 60 Am. Dec. 303 ; Mann v. ^tna Ins. Co., 40 Wis. 549; Tupper v. Foulkes, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 797, 30 L. J. C. P. 214, 7 Jur. (N. S.) 709, 3 L. T. 741, 9 W. R. 349. 18 Fincher v. Hanson, 12 Ga. App. 608, n S. E. 1068. 1? Peine v. Weber, 47 111. 41 ; Ken- dall V. Garland, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 74; Holbrook v. Chamberlin, 116 Mass. 155, 17 Am. Rep. 146 ; Russell v. An- nable, 109 Mass. 72, 12 Am. Rep. 665 ; Mclntyre v. Park, 11 Gray (Mass.) 102, 71 Am. Dec. 690; Cady v. Shep- § 422 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 506 jurisdictions that authority or ratification under seal is neces- sary before a partner can bind copartners by an instrument under seal.^" The seal may be rejected as surplusage, if the instrument would be valid without it and the firm thus held.^^ It has been denied that this rule applies to a bill of exchange as an executory contract, though the single partner had the authority to execute a promissory note, and recovery on the instrument, as a simple contract has been refused, as well as recovery on it as a specialty,^^ and as to other executory contracts, on which a seal is not essential to validity, recovery has been denied, since the seal changed the nature of the contract and imports a con- sideration.^^ The sealed instrument binds the partner who ex ecuted it.^* The signing of an instrument under seal by a part herd, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 400, 22 Am. Dec. 379; Swan v. Stedman, 4 Mete. (Mass.) S48; Dillon v. Brown, 11 Gray (Mass.) 179, 71 Am. Dec. 700; Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 513, 10 Am. Dec. 286. 20 Cummins v. Cassily, S B. Mon. (Ky.) 74; Trimble v. Coons, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 375, 12 Am. Dec. 411; Gordon v. Funkhouser, 100 Va. 675, 42 S. E. 677; Preston v. Hull, 23 Grat. (Va.) 600, 14 Am. Rep. 153, 12 Am. L. Reg. (O. S.) 699; Hamilton Provident &c. Soc. v. Steinhoff, 23 Ont. App. 184; Edwards v. Dillon, 147 111. 14, 35 N. E. 135, 37 Am. St. 199; Price v. Alexander, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 427, 52 Am. Dec. 526; Tap- ley V. Butterfield, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 515, 35 Am. Dec. 374; Sterling v. Bock, 40 Minn. 11, 41 N. W. 236; Human v. Cuniffe, 32 Mo. 316; Pat- ten V. Kavanaugh, 11 Daly (N. Y.) 348; Cowan v. Cunningham, 146 N. Car. 453, 59 S. E. 992; Purviance v. Sutherland, 2 Ohio St. 478. See Walsh V. Lennon, 98 111. 27, 38 Am. Rep. 75; Schneider v. Schmidt, 82 N. J. Eq. 81, 88 Atl. 179. 21 Merchaiits &c. Bank v. Johnston 130 Ga. 661, 61 S. E. 543, 17 L. R A. (N. S.) 969n, 14 Ann. Cas. 54$ 22 Clement v. Brush, 3 Johns. Ca* . (N. Y.) 180; Hall v. Youiig, 30 S^ Car. 121, 8 S. E. 695, 3 L. R. A. 521 ; Sibley v. Young, 26 S. Car. 415, 2 S. E. 314; Waugh v. Carriger, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.) 31 ; Gordon v. Funk- houser, 100 Va. 675, 42 S. E. 677. Compare Hoskinson v. Eliot, 62 Pa. St. 393. 23 Boyd V. Thompson, 153 Pa. St. 78, 25 Atl. 769, 34 Am. St. 685; Schmertz v. ^ Shreeve, 62 Pa. St. 457, 1 Am. Rep. 439. 2* United States v. Lawrence, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 229, Fed. Cas. No. 15574; Settle v. Davidson, 7 Mo. 604; Fletcher v. Vanzant, 1 Mo. 196; James v. Bostwick, Wright (Ohio) 142; Bowker v. Burdekin, 12 L. J. Exc. 329, 11 M. & W. 128; Moor v. Boyd, 23 U. C. Q. B. 459. Contra: Fisher v. Pender, 52 N. Car. 483; Hart v. Withers, 1 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 285, 21 Am. Dec. 382. 507 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 423 ner's agent in his presence at his behest is the partner's act.^' One way of executing a sealed instrument by partnership is to recite in the body of it the names of the partners and the state- ment that they composed a firm, and for each partner to sign it and seal it with his individual seal.^' § 423. Power to incur firm debt. — Under present business conditions it is practically impossible to conduct business upon a cash basis, and consequently it is necessary for a partnership to incur debts, and the rule of mutual agency in the absence of an agreement to the contrary gives each partner the power to incur debts for the firm. The rule is an ancient one, and as early as 1808,^'^ Lord Ellenborough, in deciding a case where one partner purchased goods used in the business of the part- nership, ostensibly for the partnership, and converted the goods to' his own use, said: "Unless the seller is guilty of collusion, a sale to one partner is a sale to the partnership, with whatever view the goods may be bought, and to whatever purposes they may be applied. I will take it that Jephson here meant to cheat his copartner; still the seller is not on that account to suffer. He is innocent; and he had a right to suppose that this individual acted for 'the partnership." A still earlier case,^^ decided by Lord Kenyon in 1795, held that where one partner borrowed money for partnership expenses, and on its account it was competent for the partner incurring the expense and securing the loan, to bind the partnership to the payment of the debt so contracted. The power of partners to incur firm debts as to all matters within the apparent scope of his authority has undergone little, if any, change since the time of the early cases given above, and the rule is firmly established and well recognized at the present time. 25 Merchants &c. Bank v. Johnston, 2'' Bond v. Gibson, 1 Camp. 185, 10 130 Ga. 661, 61 S. E. 543, 17 L. R. R. R. 665. A. (N. S.) 969n, 14 Ann. Gas. 546. ^s Rothwell v. Humphreys, 1 Esp. 26 Adams v. Deckers Valley Lum- 406. ber Co., 202 Fed. 48. § 424 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 508 § 424. Power to borrow money. — In general, a commer- cial partnership will be liable for money borrowed by one of its members on the credit of the firm/^ for commercial partnerships are engaged in buying and selling, and, within the scope of buy- ing and selling, it is an incident of the business to borrow money, therefore, the power to borrow money for the firm, and authority to bind the firm by the loan is implied in each partner.'" Moreover, the lender, in order to charge all of the several part- ners, is not required to see that the money thus borrowed is applied to partnership purposes.'^ All that is necessary is that 29 Howze V. Patterson, S3 Ala. 205, 25 Am. Rep. 607; Baxter v. Rollins, 90 Iowa 217, 57 N. W. 838, 48 Am. St. 432 and note; Rouse v. Hughes, 1 Ky. L. (abstract) 320; Cohen v. Miller, 46 Misc. 106, 91 N. Y. S. 345 ; Real Estate Investment Co. v. Smith, 162 Pa. St. 441, 29 Atl. 855; Steel V. Jennings, Cheves (S. Car.) 183; Gavin v. Walker, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 643; Keeler v. Mathews, 17 Vt. 12?; Freeman v. Carpenter, 17 Wis. 126. See also Bank of Guntersville v. Webb, 108 Ala. 132, 19 So. 14; Buett- ner v. Steinbrecher, 91 Iowa 588, 60 N. W. 177; Heitman v. Griffith, 43 Kans. 553, 23 Pac. 589; Deitz v. Reg- nier, 27 Kans. 94; Willson v. Wha- ley's Admr., 7 Ky. L. (abstract) 527; Brite V. Guy, 28 Ky. L. 57, 88 S. W. 1069; Stevens v. McLachlan, 120 Mich. 285, 79 N. W. 627, 6 Det. Leg. N. 148; Burchell v. Voght, 164 N. Y. 602, 58 N. E. 1085; Maffet v. Lenckel, 93 Pa. St. 468; Phillips v. Stanzell (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 900; Caraway v. Citizens' Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 506; Morse v. Hagenah, 68 Wis. 603, 32 N. W. 634. It has been held, however, by the Supreme Court of Mississippi that the "custom" of one partner, con- curred in by the other, "to draw drafts, sign contracts, buy cotton, and otherwise generally supervise the business," ' does not invest him with the right, denied him by the partner- ship agreement, to borrow money without his copartner's consent. King V. Levy (Miss.), 13 So. 282. For definition of commercial partnership, see Kimbro v. Bullitt, 22 How. (U. S.) 256, 16 L. ed. 313; Union Nat. Bank v. Neill, 149 Fed. 711, 79 C. C. A. 417, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 426n; Leffler v. Rice, 44 Ind. 103; Heitman v. Griffith, 43 Kans. 553, 23 Pac. 589 ; Stockwell y. Dillingham, 50 Maine 442, 79 Am. Dec. 621 ; Feigenspan v. McDonald, 201 Mass. 341, 87 N. E. 624; Phipps v. Little, 213 Mass. 414, 100 N. E. 615 ; Hoskinson v. Eliot, 62 Pa. St. 393; Coller v. Porter, 88 Mich. 549, 50 N. W. 658; Inman v. Brookman, 28 S. Dak. 361, 133 N. W. 810; Miller v. McCord (Tex. Civ. App.), 159 S. W. 159; Progressive Lumber Co. v. Rogers (Tex. Civ. App'.), 120 S. W. 260; Keeler v. Mathews, 17 Vt. 125; Paterson v. Maughan, 39 U. C. Q. B. 371. ^° Sylverstein v. Atkinson, 45 Miss. 81. ^1 Rouse v. Hughes, 1 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 320; Harris v. Baltimore, 73 Md. 22, 17 Atl. 1046, 20 Atl. Ill, 509 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 424 he act in good faith and without knowledge, actual or construc- tive, that the borrower intends to use the money to further his own individual interests.*" But if the lender, at the time of making the loan, knows or has reason to believe that the partner is seeking to obtain money for his individual benefit, or that the transaction is out of the ordinary course of business, then the firm is not liable.*^ But the general rule is that this im- plied power to borrow money does not obtain when the firm is of a nontrading character. Such partnerships are not engaged in trade or in buying and selling, and whenever there is occa- sion for the firm to borrow money, it is so out of the ordinary scope of the firm business that the consent of all partners is necessary.** In case of a nontrading partnership, it is usually a question of fact for the jury as to whether a partner has power 985, 8 L. R. A. 611, 25 Am. St. 565; Reed v. Bacon, 175 Mass. 407, 56 N. E. 716; Stockwell v. Dillingham, 50 Maine 442, 79 Am. Dec. 621; Cohen V. Miller, 46 Misc. 106, 91 N. Y. S. 345; Walden v. Sherburne, IS Johns. (N. Y.) 409; Benninger v. Hess, 41 Ohio St. 64; Harris County v. Don- aldson, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 9, 48 S. W. 791. 32 Chicago Trust &c. Bank v. Kin- nare, 174 111. 358, 51 N. E. 607; Lindh v. Crowley, 29 Kans. 756; Warren v. French, 6 Allen (Mass.) 317; CoUer v. Porter, 88 Mich. 549, SO N. W. 6S8; Potter v. Dillon, 7 Mo. 228, Zl Am. Dec. 185 ; Klopfer v. Levi, ZZ Mo. App. 322; Church v. Sparrow, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 223; Best V. Starks, 24 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 58; Gavin v. Walker, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 643; Phillips v. Stanzell (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 900; Kelton v. Leon- ard, 54 Vt. 230; Rothwell v. Humph- reys, 1 Esp. 406. 3* Bascom v. Young, 7 Mo. 2. 34 See §§ 425, 426, on negotiable in- struments for examples of trading and nontrading partnerships. See also Dowling V. National Exchange Bank, 145 U. S. 512, Z6 L. ed. 795, 12 Sup. Ct. 928; McCrary v. Slaughter, 58 Ala. 230; Pease v. Cole, S3 Conn. S3, 22 Atl. 681, SS Am. Rep. S3 ; Bays v. Conner, 105 Ind. 415, 5 N. E. 18; Gray v. Ward, 18 111. 32; Lee v. First Nat. Bank, 45 Kans. 8, 25 Pac. 196, 11 L. R. A. 238; Judge v. Braswell, 13 Bush (Ky.) 67, 26 Am. Rep. 185; Cooper V. Nelson, 12 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 890; Harris v. Baltimore, 73 Md. 22, 17 Atl. 1046, 20 Atl. Ill, 985, 8 L. R. A. 677, 25 Am. St. 565; Prince v. Crawford, SO Miss. 344; Davis V. Richardson, 45 Miss. 499, 7 Am. Rep. 732; Deardorf v. Thacher, 78 Mo. 128, 47 Am. Rep. 95; Webb v. Allington, 27 Mo. App. 559; Levi V. Latham, 15 Nebr. 509, 19 N. W. 460, 48 Am. Rep. 361; Crosthwait v. Ross, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 23, 34 Am. Dec. 613; Pooley v. Whitmore, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 629, 27 Am. Rep. IZZ ; Randall v, Meredith, 16 Tex. 669, 13 § 424 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 510 to bind the firm for a loan,^" and the burden of proving authority or assent of the other members is upon one who seeks to hold a nontrading partnership liable upon a loan negotiated by one partner.^® However, there is authority for the proposition that a "Star Route" partnership will be liable for a loan obtained by one of its members for the benefit of the firm/^ furthermore, since one may ordinarily do through another that which he may do in person, a partner may direct an agent of the firm to obtain a loan in its behalf.^* Again, it has been held that a partnership can not escape liability on the ground either that its managing member who procured the loan had served as counsel for the one from whom the money was obtained in the adjudication of her father's estate,*'' or that the partner who borrowed the money was insane, although not an adjudged lunatic at the time the loan was made/" A firm is not bound where a partner borrows money on firm credit if the borrowing of money is not within the scope and course of the partnership business as similar busi- nesses are usually conducted, unless the other partners with knowledge have seen the money applied to the use of the firm or have otherwise ratified the loan.*^ The ultimate use by the firm of money loaned to a partner individually on his own S. W. 576; Walker v. Walker, 66 Vt. ss Parker v. Parker, 25 Ky. L. 2193, 285, 29 Atl. 146; Smith v. Sloan, 37 80 S. W. 209. Wis. 285, 19 Am. Rep. 757. 39 Lerch v. Bard, 177 Pa. St. 197, 35 Judge V. Braswell, 13 Bush (Ky.) 35 Atl. 714. 67, 26 Am. Rep. 185. *0Van Brunt v. Taylor, 3 Phila. 36 Pease v. Cole, S3 Conn. 53, 22 (Pa.) 123. Atl. 681, 55 Am. Rep. 53; Judge v. ^i Chandler v. Sherman, 16 Fla. 99,' Braswell, 13 Bush (Ky.) 67, 26 Am. Stockwell v. Dillingham, 50 Maine R.ep. 185 ; Prince v. Crawford, SO 442, 79 Am. Dec. 621 ; Powell Hard- Miss. 344; Deardorf v. Thacher, 78 ware Co. v. Mayer, 110 Mo. App. 14, Mo. 128, 47 Am. Rep. 95; Levi v. 83 S. W. 1008; Tyler v. Tyler, 78 Latham, 15 Nebr. 509, 19 N. W. 460, Mo. App. 240; Maffet v. Lenckel, 93 48 Am. Rep. 361; National State Pa. St. 468; Anderson v. Norton, IS Capital Bank v. Noyes, 62 N. H. 35; Lea (Tenn.) 14, 54 Am. Rep. 400; Smith V. Sloan, 37 Wis. 285, 19 Am. Miller v. McCord (Tex. Civ. App.), Rep. 757. 159 S. W. 159; Ricketts v. Bennett, 37 Parker v. Parker, 25 Ky. L. 2193, 4 C. B. 686, 11 Jur. 1062, 17 L. J. C. 80 S. W. 209. See also Hoskinson P. 17; Lloyd v. Freshfield, 2 Car. & V. Eliot, 62 Pa. St. 393. P. 325, 8 D. & R. 19; Fisher v. Tay- 511 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 425 credit does not make the firm liable for the loan.*^ This rule applies also where a partner borrowed money in the firm name with knowledge of the lender that it was for individual use to pay his share of capital stock, although the firm may ulti- mately have the use of the money.*^ Where one partner has authority to borrow money for the firm, the fact that the other partners did not know of the loan until long after, does not prevent them being liable." Especially where a loan is made before a partnership was formed, the partnership is not liable where money was borrowed by a partner individually, although it was used for the firm.*^ There is no implied power in a mem- ber of an agricultural partnership to borrow money and bind the firm, for such a practice is not usual, nor necessary for carry- ing on farming,*® but where a farming partnership carries on other business so that buying and selling is incidental thereto, then the power to borrow money exists/^ § 425. Power to make negotiable paper. — Associated very closely with the right of a member of a commercial part- nership to borrow money in the firm name, is his right to execute negotiable paper for a partnership indebtedness. The giving of negotiable paper is as much an incident to the business of such a partnership as is the power to borrow money and in a general way the same rules apply. That a partner in a commercial part- lor, 2 Hare 218; Robertson v. Jones, Sawyer, 38 Ohio St. 339; McLin- 20 N. Brunsw. 267. den v. Wentworth, SI Wis. 170, 8 N. ^2 Evans v. Bidleman, 3 Cal. 435; W. 118, 192. Klopper V. Levi, 33 Mo. App. 322 ; ** Inman v. Brookman, 28 S. Dak. Smith V. Sheridan, 175 Mich. 391, 141 361, 133 N. W. 810. N. W. 684 ; Morrison v. Curry, 43 *= Smith v. Sheridan, 175 Mich. 391, Pa. Super. Ct. 648; Johnson v. Ran- 141 N. W. 684. kin (Tenn.), 59 S. W. 638; Bevan v. *« Prince v. Crawford, SO Miss. 344. Lewis, 1 Sim. Zld, 27 R. R. 205 ; But see Davis v. Richardson, 45 Miss. Shaw V. Codwell, 17 Can. Sup. Ct. 499, 7 Am. Rep. 732 ; Kimbro v. Bul- 357. See Deland Min. & Mill. Co. v. litt, 22 How. (U. S.) 256, 16 L. ed. Hanna, 112 Md. 528, !(> Atl. 850, 136 313. Am. St. 404. ' *^ Kimbro v. Bullitt, 22 How. (U. 43 Childs v. Pellett, 102 Mich. 558, S.) 256; 16 L. ed. 313. 61 N. W. 54; Norwalk Nat. Bank v. 425 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 512 nership has the right to bind the firm by making negotiable paper is not open to question/' some courts having even gone so far as to declare that he may exercise the same vsrithout the consent and against the wishes of his associates.*' The firm is generally liable where a negotiable note was executed by one partner with the intention of binding the firm, and was accepted for an indebtedness of the firm."" The difificulty arises as to what kind of business a partnership may be engaged in, to which 48 Chitty Contracts (4th Am. ed.) *201 ; Wagner v. Simmons, 61 Ala. 143 ; Marsh v. Wheeler, 11 Conn. 449, 59 Atl. 410, 107 Am. St. 40; Winkles V. Simpson Grocery Co., 138 Ga. 482, 75 S. E. 640; Van Brunt v. Mather, 48 Iowa 503; Manufacturers' & Me- chanics' Bank v. Winship, S Pick. (Mass.) 11, 16 Am. Dec. 369; Car- ter V. Steele, 83 Mo. App. 211 ; Fair- child V. Rushmore, 21 N. Y. Super. Ct. 698; Flour City Nat. Bank v. Widener, 163 N. Y. 276, 57 N. E. 471 ; Commercial Bank v. , Miller, 96 Va. 357, 31 S. E. 812; Johnston v. Dutton, '27 Ala. 245 ; Letson v. Hall, 1 Ala. App. 619, 55 So. 944 ; Decker v. Howell, 42 Cal. 636; Silverman v. Chase, 90 111. 2,1; Ditts v. Lonsdale, 49 Ind. 521 ; Milwaukee Harvester Co. v. Crabtree, 101 Iowa 526, 70 N. W. 704 ; Sherwood v. Snow, 46 Iowa 481, 26 Am. Rep. 155 ; Miller v. Hughes, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 181, 10 Am. Dec. 719; Martin v. Muncy, 40 La. Ann. 190, 3 So. 640; Coursey v. Baker, 7 Har. & J. (Md.) 28; Phipps v. Little, 213 Mass. 414, 100 N. E. 615; Richard- son V. French, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 577; Stevens v. McLachlan, 120 Mich. 285, 79 N. W. 627; Seufert v. Gille, 230 Mo. 453, 131 S. W. 102, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 471n; Carter v. Steele, 83 Mo. App. 211; Voorhees v. Jones, 29 N. J. L. 270; Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 701, 16 Am. Dec. 471 ; Rumsey v. Briggs, 139 N. Y. 323, 34 N. E. 929; Gano v. Samuel, 14 Ohio 592; Boyd v. Thompson, 153 Pa. St. 78, 25 Atl. 769, 34 Am. St. 685 ; Ex parte Wilson, 84 S. Car. 444, 66 S. E. 675; Bradford v. Taylor, 61 Tex. 508; Wallace v. Reed, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 457, 117 S. W. 1019; Sullivan V. Sullivan, 122 Wis. 326, 99 N. W. 1022; Edmunds v. Bushell, L. R. 1 Q. B. 97, 35 L. J. Q. B. 20, 12 Jur. (N. S.) 332; Lloyd v. Ashby, 2 B. & Ad. 23, 9 L. J. (d. S.) K. B. 144; Manitoba Mortg. Co. v. Montreal Bank, 17 Can. Sup. Ct. 692. That partner can not execute sealed note, see Millwee v. Jay, 47 S. Car. 430, 25 • S. E. 298. 49 Dow v. Phillips, 24 111 249; Dick- son V. Dryden, 97 Iowa 122,. 66 N. W. 148; Miller v. Hughes, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 181, 10 Am. Dec. 719; Martin v. Muncy, 40 La. Ann. 190, 3 So. 640; Cottam v. Smith, 27 La. Ann. 128; Partin v. Luterloh, 59 N. Car. 341; Nunn v. Lackey, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), § 1331. so Jacks V. Greenhaw, 105 Ark. 615, 152 S. W. 160; Behrenfeld v. Breed- love (Cal. App.), 150 Pac. 71; Hor- ton v. Smith, 12 Ga. App. 353, 11 S. E. 9 ; Clement Nat. Bank v. Connelly (Vt.),90 Atl. 794. 513 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 425 the giving of such negotiable paper would be incidental. This has been, in a general way, solved by numerous decisions. An English case,®^ decided in 1797 by Lord Kenyon, stated the rule, which it recognized as then well settled, in the following lan- guage: "The law of merchants is part of the law of the land; and, in mercantile transactions, in drawing and accepting bills of exchange, it never was doubted but that one partner might bind the rest." In Chalmers' Digest of the Law of Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes and Cheques,''^ an excellent state- ment is made of the law upon this subject: "A partner in a trading firm has prima facie authority to bind the firm by draw- ing, indorsing, or accepting bills in the firm name for partner- ship purposes ; and if the bill gets into the hands of a holder for value without notice, the presumption of authority becomes ab- solute, and it is immaterial whether it was given for partner- ship purposes or not. A partner in a nontrading partnership has prima facie no authority to render his copartners liable by signing bills in the partnership name. The holder must show authority, actual or ostensible." A Connecticut case°^ cites the foregoing quotation and adds the following, in approving the rule : "Many more authorities, equally pertinent might be cited, but these will suffice to show that the distinction relied upon (between trading and nontrading firms) is supported both in England and in the United States."^* In the succeeding section are given examples of partnerships which have been classified by the courts as trading or commercial ones and as nontrading ones. Where the act appears to have been necessary for the carrying on of the business in the usual way, the firm will be presumptively liable, notwithstanding all of the partners did not authorize it ; contrariwise, if the act was not essential, or ap- 51 Harrison v. Jackson, 7 D. & E. 293, 6 Jur. 853; Dickinson v. Valpy, 207, 4 R. R. 422. 10 Barn. & C. 128, 5 M. & Ry. 126, 52 2d ed., pp. 68-69. 8 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 51; Levy v. 53 Pease v. Cole, 53 Conn. 53, 22 Ryne, Car. & M. 453 ; Ulery v. Gin- Atl. 681, 55 Am. Rep. 53. rich, 57 111. 531; Hunt v. Chapin, 6 5*HedIey v. Bainbridge, 3 Q. B. Lans. (N. Y.) 139; Smith v. Sloan, 316, 2 G. & D. 483, 11 L. J. Q. B. Zl Wis. 285, 19 Am. Rep. 757. 2>Z — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 425 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 514 parently essential, to the partnership pursuits.^' The fact that the partner in a trading partnership executing a note had no actual authority to do so/° or that he afterward misapplied the funds obtained does not make all the partners any less liable/^ Generally, where there has been no express authority, no assent and no course of dealing from which assent can be presumed, a partner can not bind the firm by issuing paper in the firm name without the scope of the business,^^ unless the copartners ratify the making of such paper,^' which may be by a promise ^s Graves v. Kellenberger, 51 Ind. 66. For acts which do not measure up to partnership transactions, see the case just cited, and also Sum- merlot v. Hamilton, 121 Ind. 87, 22 N. E. 973; Brooks-Waterfield Co. v. Jackson, 21 Ky. L. 854, 53 S. W. 41; Buchanan v. Buckler, 8 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 617. The court in Vetsch v. Neiss, 66 Minn. 459, 69 N. W. 315, makes the statement that, "The ques- tion is one of authority to execute the note, not as to what became of the proceeds, or for whose benefit they were used." This, standing alone, is somewhat misleading by reason of the fact that it is open to misinterpre- tation. While the court was undoubt- edly clear in its own mind as to the correct principle, it did not state the principle as clearly as it might have done. The authority of the partner as far as the promisee is concerned depends upon the apparent use to which the money is to be put. In other words, it will be vain for the promisee to attempt to hold the co- partners of the maker, when he has notice that the money is to be used for such maker's personal benefit. The promisee is interested in the repre- sented disposition of the proceeds al- though he may not be concerned in the matter of their actual disposi- tion. The fraud of the partner will not jeopardize the rights of the promisee, it- is true, but the latter as a reasonable, intelligent being can not assume that the partner has au- thority when the very purpose for which he asserts the money is to be used emphatically proclaims the con- trary. S6 First Nat. Bank of St. Paul v. Webster, 130 Minn. 277, 153 N. W. 736. 5'' Miller V. McCord (Tex. Civ. App.), 159 S. W. 159. 58 Talmage v. Millikin, 119 Ala. 40, 24 So. 843; H. Y. McCord Co. v. Callaway, 109 Ga. 796, 35 S. E. 171; Summerlot v. Hamilton, 121 Ind. 87, 22 N. E. 973 ; Zuel v. Bowen, 78 111. 234 ; Durrell v. Staples, 169 Mass. 49, 47 N. E. 441; Whitla v. Butler, 99 Mich. 51, 57 N. W. 1082; Broughton V. Sumner, 80 Mo. App. 386; Rum- sey V. Briggs, 139 N. Y. 323, 34 N. E. 929; Scott v. Bandy, 2 Head (Tenn.) 197; Hogarth v. Latham, 47 L. J. Q. B. 339, 3 Q. B. D. 343, 39 L. T. 75, 26 W. R. 388. 59 In re Norris, 2 Hask. (U. S.) 19, Fed. Gas. No. 10302; Tyree v. Lyon, 67 Ala. 1 ; Reubin v. Cohen, 48 Cal. S4S ; Taylor v. Herron, 72 Kans. 652, 82 Pac. 1104; Harper v. Devene, 10 La. Ann. 724; Leonard v. Wildes, 36 Maine 265 ; Sedalia Third Nat. Bank 515 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT 426 to pay, with knowledge of the facts°° or by accepting the bene- fits." It has been held that a partner has no right to sign notes waiving a homestead exemption, as such right is personal to the debtor,"^ but since a partnership has no right to exemptions, it has also been held that a clause waiving such exemptions does not invalidate the notes and does not affect the power of one partner to sign them as simple promissory notes."^ § 426. Power to make negotiable paper — Nontrading part- nership. — The operation of these rules, however, is, as has been indicated, restricted, and does not as a general proposi- tion extend to partnerships of a nontrading character, since in them the execution of negotiable paper is not ordinarily incident to the business.^* "A trading partnership or associa- V. Faults, lis Mo. App. 42, 90 S. W. 7SS ; Bank of Monongahela Val- ley V. Weston, 159 N. Y. 201, 54 N. E. 40, 45 L. R. A. 547; Mack v. Fries, S Ohio Dec. 174; Miller v. Royal Flint Glass Works, 172 Pa. St. 70, 33 Atl. 350; Hull v. Young, 30 S. Car. 121, 8 S. E. 695, 3 L. R. A. 521; Powell v. Messer, 18 Tex. 401; Moran Bros. v. Watson, 44 Wash. 392, 87 Pac. 508. °o Murphy v. Whitlow, 1 Ariz. 340, 25 Pac. 532 ; Wheeler v. Rice, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 205. <5i American Exch. Bank v. Georgia Construction &c. Co., 87 Ga. 651, 13 S. E. 505; Buettner v. Steinbrecher, 91 Iowa 588, 60 N. W. 177; Mechan- ics' & Traders' Band v. Oppenheim, 38 Misc. 763, 78 N. Y. S. 825. "2 Winkles v. Simpson Grocery Co., 138 Ga. 482, 75 S. E. 640. esLetson v. Hall, 1 Ala. App. 619, 55 So. 944. ^* "There is no accurate definition of what is or is not a trading or nontrading or commercial or non- commercial partnership. The busi- ness of the world is conducted in such manner at the present day that many firms are engaged in business, a part of which is commercial or trading, and a part of which is not. A partnership may be engaged in manufacture, and at the same time be engaged in buying and selling manufactured articles not produced by themselves. As to the business exclusively relating to manufacture, the law as to nontrading partner- ships will apply, while as to the busi- ness of buying and selling the manu- factures of others the law of com- mercial or trading partnerships will apply. * * * All the authorities cited, denying the power of one part- ner, as a general agent, to bind the concern in borrowing money and signing mercantile paper, relate to partnerships in occupation, such as attorneys, brokers, contractors to build a road, farming or planting, mining or quarrying, livery stable, printing, real estate, insurance and collecting, tavern keeping, operating threshing machines, etc., and not the § 426 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 5J6 tion is, generally speaking, one doing business commercially (a business of buying and selling for profit), while those in which the business done is something other than buying and selling for profit constitute the nontrading class."®^ It is often necessary to determine whether a trading partnership exists in deciding the liability of a partnership upon a note executed by one of the partners. It has been held that partners in firms carrying on the following businesses had power to bind the firm by giving negotiable paper. One partner in a firm of stock- brokers doing business in London and Paris may bind the part- nership by drawing bills of exchange, if necessary to carry on the business ;°° a partner in manufacturing, by notes given for money for the use of the firm f a partner in a ginnery and com- mercial business, by notes for the purchase-price of cotton ;°* a partner in a country store which also buys cotton, by notes for the purchase-price of cotton. °® Partnerships in the follow- ing businesses have been held commercial partnerships : Manu- facturing articles for sale,''" such as refrigerators,^^ or lumber, .bark and railroad ties 5'^ conducting a country store ;^^ dealing in dry goods;'* a real estate, loan and insurance business;'^ plumbing contracting ■^'^ killing cattle for sale ;'' buying and sell- ing cotton seed;'^ buying and selling lumber. ''' Partnerships partnerships engaged in commerical ^''Winship v. Bank, 5 Pet. (U. S.) business, like those of banking con- 529, 8 L. ed. 216. cerns." McNeal v. Gossard, 6 Okla. 'i- Holt v. Simmons, 16 Mo. App. 97. 363, SO Pac. 159. " Rumsey v. Briggs, 139 N. Y. 323, 65 Schumacher v. Sumner Tele- 34 N. E. 929. phone Co., 161 Iowa 326, 142 N. W. " Dow v. Moore, 47 N. H. 419. 1034. See also Lee V. First Nat. Bank, t* Walsh v. Lennon, 98 111. 27, 38 45 Kans. 8, 25 Pac. 196, 11 L. R. A. Am. Rep. 75. 238. See cases cited in following '= Adams v. Long, 114 III. App. 277. notes. 76 Marsh v. Wheeler, 77 Conn. 449, 66 Nemeth v. Tracy, 159 App. Div. 59 Atl. 410, 107 Am. St. 40. 497, 144 N. Y. S. 901. 77 Wagner v. Simmons, 61 Ala. 143. 67Phipps V. Little, 213 Mass. 414, ^s Cotton Plant Oil Mill Co. v. 100 N. E. 615. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co., 92 Ark. 271, 68 Thompson v. Gosserand, 131 La. 122 S- W. 658. 1056, 60 So. 682. 79 First Nat. Bank of St. Paul v. 69 First Nat. Bank of Vicksburg v. Webster (Minn.), 153 N. W. 736. Mayer, 129 La. 981, 57 So. 308. 517 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT 426 engaged in the following businesses or occupations have been held not to be commercial partnerships : Sawing lumber, pickets and lathf* a single transaction in buying and selling timber;*^ repairing machinery and selling it on commission;*^ purchasing land;*^ buying stumpage and manufacturing and selling lum- ber;^* insurance, real estate and collections;*^ photo-engraving and printing ;*° fruit raising;*^ contracting;** real estate and in- surance;*® conducting a theater;®" operating a sawmill;®^ carry- ing on a dairy f^ to build a bridge ;°^ in a gas works ;®* in carry- ing on a laundry ;°° in owning a ship;®" in sugar refining;®^ in a water- works;®* between stevedores;®® mining;^ drilling wells and buying materials for pumps and windmills;^ contracting with the government for carrying mail f paving and curbing streets f milling;® publishing;* digging tunnels/ Partnerships in farming 80 Dowling V. National Exch. Bank, 145 U. S. 512, 12 Sup. Ct. 928, 36 L. ed. 795. 81 Bank of Monroe v. Drew Inv. Co., 126 La. 1028, 53 So. 129, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 255n. s2Faires v. Ross (Tex.), 18 S. W. 418. 83 Schaeffer v. Fowler, 111 Pa. St. 451, 2 Atl. 558. 8* National State Capital Bank v. Noyes, 62 N. H. 35. 85 Deardorf v. Thacher, 78 Mo. 128, 47 Am. Rep. 95. 88 Randall v. Lee, 68 Mo. App. 561. 8''McPherson v. Bristol, 115 Mich. 258, 4 Det. Leg. N. 848. 88 Harris v. Baltimore, 73 Md. 22, 17 Atl. 1046, 20 Atl. Ill, 985, 8 L. R. A. 677, 25 Am. St. 565. 89 Lee V. First Nat. Bank, 45 Kans. 8, 25 Pac. 196, 11 L. R. A. 238. 90 Pease v. Cole, 53 Conn. S3, 22 Atl. 681, 55 Am. Rep. 53. 91 Johnston v. Button, 27 Ala. 245. 92 Schellenbeck v. Studebaker, 13 Ind. App. 437, 41 N. E. 845, 55 Am. St. 240. 93 Linn V. Valz, 11 Ky. L. 846. 9*Bramah v. Roberts, 3 Bing. N. Cas. 963. 95 Neale v. Turton, 4 Bing. 149. »« Williams v. Thomas, 6 Esp. 18. 9^ Livingston v. Roosevelt, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 251, 4 Am. Dec. 273. 98 Broughton v. Manchester Water- works, 3 B. & Aid. 1, 21 R. R. 278. 99 Benedict v. Thompson, 33 La. Ann. 196. 1 Decker v. Howell, 42 Cal. 636. 2Vetsch V. Neiss, 66 Minn. 459, 69 N. W. 315. 3Sedalia Third Nat. Bank v. Faults, 115 Mo. App. 42, 90 S. W. 755. * Harris v. Baltimore, 73 Md. 22, 17 Atl. 1046, 20 Atl. Ill, 985, 8 L. R. A. 677, 25 Am. St. 565. 5 Lanier v. McCabe, 2 Fla. 32, 48 Am. Rep. 173. "Pooley V. Whitmore, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 629, 27 Am. Rep. 733. 7 Gray v. Ward, 18 111. 32. Com- pare Voorhees v. Jones, 29 N. J. L. 270. § 426 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 518 and planting, as well as professional ones, are generally recog- nized as noncommercial.' So a partner in the practice of medi- cine or surgery,' or law,^" is not a member of a commercial partnership, and has not the same measure of implied authority. Thus it has been said that "attorneys who are in partnership have no implied authority to become parties to negotiable instru- ments and bind the firm thereby. The authority to do such acts must in such cases be either expressly given, or be recog- nized as proper and necessary, or in the usual course of a par- ticular business of that firm."", "It is generally held that non- trading firms have no power to borrow money and sign nego- tiable paper, and that one member of such firm has no power to bind the other members by signing the firm name to such paper. * * * This is because such transactions are not generally within the legitimate scope of the business of such firms. There is no reason why such firms should not be bound by the acts of their members within the scope of their business. This would be true even in the case of negotiable paper, where it was shown that such paper was executed within the scope of the firm's business."^^ So, too, it has been said that this "liability of a partnership upon, negotiable instruments executed by one partner 8 "Farming partnerships, when Walker's Estate, 66 Vt. 285, 29 Atl. strictly confined to that purpose, are 146. And compare Burnley v. Rice, held to be within the exceptions to 18 Tex. 481. A note given for sup- the general rule, upon the ground plies with which to carry on the plant- * * * that their principal object ing business will bind the partnership, is to make profits out of the soil, by Selman v. Brown, 78 Ga. 332. gathering its fruits, and that the ^ Crosthwait v. Ross, 1 Humph, partners are in no proper sense en- (Tenn.) 23, 34 Am. Dec. 613. gaged in trade." Kimbro v. Bullitt, ^o Worster v. Forbush, 171 Mass. 22 How. (U. S.) 256, 16 L. ed. 313. 423, 50 N. E. 936; Garland v. Jacomb, See also McCrary v. Slaughter, 58 L. R. 8 Ex. 216, 28 L. T. 877, 21 W. Ala. 230; Tanner v. Hyde, 2 Colo. R. 868; Levy v. Pyne, Car. & M. 453. App. 443, 31 Pac. 344; Ulery v. Gin- "Friend v. Duryee, 17 Fla. Ill, rich, 57 111. 531 ; Freeman v. Gordon, 35 Am. Rep. 89. See also Worster v. 59 111. App. 189 ; Benton v. Roberts, Forbush, 171 Mass. 423, 50 N. E. 936. 4 La. Ann. 216 ; Prince v. Crawford, 12 Alley v. Bowen-Merrill Co., 76 50 Miss. 344; Hunt v. Chapin, 6 Lans. Ark. 4, 88 S. W. 838, 113 Am. St. 73. (N. Y.) 139; Walker's Admr. v. 519 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 426 in the name of the firm, exists not, only where the firm is a trad- ing or commercial partnership, but 'where the actual course of business pursued adopts the practice of issuing the mercantile paper of the firm to accommodate its necessities or convenience whenever the occasions occur.' "^^ In other words to render one partner liable on a promissory note made by his copartner in the firm name, it must appear that the note was made in the firm business and for firm purposes.^* A different presentation of practically this same doctrine is found in an early Illinois case in which it is declared in substance, that, in the eyes of the law, each partner possesses authority to issue notes in the name of his firm where such authority is essential to the successful conduct of the partnership business; where it is according to the usage of similar partnerships or is according to the course of trade of that particular partnership." "If the contract of partnership is silent, or the party with whom the dealing has* taken place has no notice of its limitations, the authority for each transaction may be implied from the nature of the busi- ness according to the usual and ordinary course in which it is carried on by those engaged in it in the locality which is its seat, or as reasonably necessary or fit for its successful prosecution. If it can not be found in that, it may still be inferred from the actual though exceptional course and conduct of the business of the partnership itself, as personally carried on with the knowl- edge, actual or presumed, of the partner sought to be charged."" Where the partnership business was the operation of a sawmill, 13 Bowling V. National Exch. Bank, Atl. 1046, 20 Atl. Ill, 985, 8 L. R. A. 145 U. S. 512, 36 L. ed. 795, 12 Sup. 677, 25 Am. Rep. 565 ; Deardorf v. Ct. 928. Thacher, 78 Mo. 128, 47 Am. Rep. "Ditts V. Lonsdale, 49 Ind. 521. 95; Fant v. West, 10 Rich. L. (S. See also Zuel v. Bowen, 78 111. 234; Car.) 149; Smith v. Sloan, 37 Wis. Wiley V. Stewart, 122 111. 545, 14 N. 285, 19 Am. Rep. 757. E. 835 ; Bays v. Conner, 105 Ind. 415, " irwin v. Williar, 110 U. S. 499, 5 N. E. 18; Blodgett v. Weed, 119 28 L. ed. 225, 4 Sup. Ct. 160, quoted Mass. 215. in Bowling v. National Exch. Bank, M Gray v. Ward, 18 111. 32. See 145 U. S. 512, 36 L. ed. 795, 12 Sup. also Bradley v. Linn, 19 111. App. 322; Ct. 928. Harris v. Baltimore, 73 Md. 22, 17 § 427 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 520 one partner has authority to bind the firm by executing notes for the purchase-price of property used in the business.^^ § 427. Indorsement of note as accommodation or surety. — So, also, it is undoubtedly true that a partner does not as a gen- eral thing bind his associates by an accommodation indorsement in the firm name,^^ so long as such indorsement has not passed into the hands of a bona-fide indorsee for value." One partner can not bind the firm by an accommodation paper,^" and where the firm name is signed to a note by way of indorsement or surety the assent of all partners must be shown by the holder before he can recover from the firm.^^ Again it seems that the authority given the managing partner by the artitles of associa- tion, to apply the proceeds of the business to, among other ob- jects, the payment of outstanding debts of one of his copartners, is not so broad that a note given for one of such debts will be binding upon the firm.^^ § 428. Presumptions as to firm notes given by one part- ner. — But it has been held that where a person loans money to a member of a mercantile firm and receives therefor a note signed in the partnership name, he is entitled to presume that the note was executed in the course of the business of the firm and that all the partners are bound thereby.^^ Prima facie a i^Letson v. Hall, 1 Ala. App. 619, App. 312, 68 Pac. 984; Rollins v. Ste- SS So. 944. vens, 31 Maine 454 ; Heffron v.. Hana- 18 Talmadge v. Milliken, 119 Ala. ford, 40 Mich. 305. 40, 24 So. 843 ; King v. Mecklenburg, 21 Clement Nat. Bank v. Connelly 17 Colo. App. 312, 68 Pac. 984; First (Vt.), 90 Atl. 794. Nat. Bank v. Sanders Bros., 162 Ky. 22 whitla v. Butler's Estate, 99 374, 172 S. W. 689; Vredenburgh v. Mich. 51, 57 N. W. 1082. Lagan, 28 La. Ann. 941 ; Union Nat. 23 piatt v. Koehler, 91 Iowa 592, 60 Bank v. Wickham, 18 Ohio C. C. 685, N. W. 178, following Sherwood v. 6 Ohio C. D. 790. But see Penfield Snow, 46 Iowa 481, 26 Am. Rep. 155. V. Mason, 17 Ohio C. Ct. 165, 9 Ohio See Jemison v. Bearing's Exrs., 41 C. D. 611. Ala. 283; Persons v. Oldfield, 101 " See Beach v. State Bank, 2 Ind. Miss. 110, 57 So. 417. See also Lam- 488. wersick v. Boehmer, 11 Mo. App. 20 King V. Mecklenburg, 17 Colo. 136; Kantrowitz v. Levin, 14 Misc. 521 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 429 firm is bound by the presence of the firin name on negotiable paper,^* On the other hand where a partner uses the name of the firm in giving a note for a purpose entirely distinct from those of the partnership, such apparent misuse or abuse of the common name is prima facie evidence that, in that particular transaction, he acts without authority and in fraud of the part- nership.^^ Moreover, where the note is of an accommodation character and the name under which the partnership business is conducted is the name of the partner making the paper, the innocent holder of the note will be required to prove that the same constitutes a firm obligation.^" § 429. Bona-fide purchasers. — ^The fact, however, that a note was given in violation of the articles of partnership has been held no defense as against a bona-fide holder for value and before maturity.^^- "Whenever there are written articles of agree- ment between the partners, their power and authority, inter se, are to be ascertained and regulated by the terms and conditions of the written stipulations. * * * y^^y restriction which, by agreement among the partners, is attempted to be imposed upon the authority which one partner possesses, as a general agent for the other, is operative only between the partners them- selves, and does not limit the authority as to third persons, who acquire rights by its exercise, unless they know that such re- 563, 35 N. Y. S. 1072, 70 N. Y. St. 716. different rule were established by And compare Hibbler v. De Forest, commercial partners, it would be 6 Ala. 92. without effect against third parties, 2* Persons v. Oldfield, 101 Miss, unless it were shown that such third 110, 57 So. 417. party had knowledge of that agree- 2s Eastman v. Cooper, IS Pick, ment." Cottam v. Smith, 27 La. Ann. (Mass.) 276, 26 Am. Dec. 600. 128. See Sandilands v. Marsh, 2 B. 26 Manufacturers' & Mechanics' & Aid. 673 ; Hogg v. Skeen, 34 L. J. Bank V. Winship, 5 Pick. (Mass.) C. P. 153, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 244, 11 L. 11, 16 Am. Dec. 369. See also Me- T. 709, 13 W. R. 383 ; Michigan Bank chanics' & Farmers' Bank v. Dakin, v. Eldred, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 544, 19 L. 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 411. But see ed. 763; Winship v. Bank of United Beach v. State Bank, 2 Ind. 488. States, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 529, 8 L. ed. 27 "If by an agreement inter se a 216. § 429 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 522 strictions have been made."^' So where a note was given by one of the partners in the firm name to pay certain partnership expenses, and signed by him as agent, it was decided in an action thereon by a bona-fide holder, who had discounted the same, that the partner had the power to make the note and thereby bind his copartners and that the restriction on his -authority con- tained in an agreement between the partners did not affect the plaintiff since such restriction had not been communicated to him.^'' So it has been held that the bona fide holder, for a val- uable consideration without notice, of a bill of exchange in- dorsed by one of the partners in a certain firm, might recover the amount thereof against all the partners, notwithstanding the indorsement of the name of the firm was expressly prohibited in the articles of partnership.^" And although partners may have agreed between themselves that no member of the firm should indorse paper to make the others liable, this will be no defense to an action on paper made payable to the firm and indorsed by one of the partners in the firm name to a bona-fide purchaser for value.^^ In the case, however, of an action by an indorsee against the members of a firm on a bill accepted in the name of the firm, upon its being proved that the acceptance was by one of the partners in fraud of the partnership and contrary to the articles of association, it has been decided that the burden rests on the plaintiff to show that he gave value.^^ And the fact that a note was executed or transferred in violation of the articles 28 Kimbro v. Bullitt, 22 How. (U. newed the note, his fraudulent con- S.) 256, 16 L. ed. 313. duct toward the firm was no defense 2^ National Union Bank v. Landon, against a holder for value before ma- 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 189 (affd. 45 N. Y. turity and without notice. See also 410). Albietz V. Mellon, Zl Pa. St. 367; 30 Bank of Kentucky v. Brooking, Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 2 Litt. (Ky.) 41. In Barber v. Van 221, 9 L. ed. 1063; Henderson v. An- Horn, 54 Kans. ZZ, 36 Pac. 1070, it derson, 3 How. (U. S.) li, 11 L. ed. was held that where a partnership 499. executed a firm note for money bor- si Barrett v. Russell, 45 Vt. 43. rowed and one of the partners drew ^^ Hogg v. Skeen, 34 L. J. C. P. 153, money to pay the same at maturity 11 Jur. (N. S.) 244, 11 L. T. 709, 13 and entered it on the books as paid, W. R. 383. See also Dickson v. Prim- but appropriated the money and re- rose, 2 Miles (Pa.) 366. 523 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT 430 of partnership will, it seems, be a good defense as against a holder with notice-^' § 430. Power of one partner to transfer firm negotiable paper. — Any member of a trading partnership has the same implied power to transfer negotiable paper payable to the firm by indorsing it in the firm name which he has to execute such paper.^* He may even transfer it to himself,^^ or another firm of which he is a member,^^ and the contract of indorsement will bind the firm.^^ An indorsement for his own benefit is not binding on the firm without actual authority or ratification.^^ The indorsement of firm paper by one partner in his own name does not pass full title.^^ However, a partner in a firm such that he has implied power to sell firm property may pass an equitable 33 Monroe v. Conner, IS Maine 178, 32 Am. Dec. 148; Dickson v. Prim- rose, 2 Miles (Pa.) 366; Gallway v. Mathew, 10 East 264, 1 Camp. 403, 10 R. R. 289. 3* Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 642, 5 L. ed. 70S; Fulton v. Loughlin, 118 Ind. 286, 20 N. E. 796; McGowan v. Bank of Kentucky, 5 Lit. (Ky.) 271; Emerson v. Harmon, 14 Maine 271 ; Mechanics' Bank v. Hildreth, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 3S6; Ne- gaunee First Nat. Bank v. Freeman, 47 Mich. 408 ; Manchester Commercial Bank v. Lewis, 13 S. & M. (Miss.) 226; Tevis v. Tevis, 24 Mo. 535; Burnham v. Whittier, S N. H. 334; Kirby v. Cogswell, 1 Caines (N. Y.) 505; Moorehead v. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St. 118, 18 Am. Rep. 435; Windham County Bank v. Kendall, 7 R. I. 17; Park V. Funderburk, 87 S. Car. 16, 68 S. E. 963. 35 Fulton V. Loughlin, 118 Ind. 286, 20 N. E. 796; Burnham v. Whittier, 5 N. H. 334; Kirby v. Cogswell, 1 Caines (N. Y.) 505. 3s Walker v. Kee, 16 S. Car. l(y. 3' Brown v. Torver, Minor (Ala.) 370; Meyer v. Hegler, 121 Cal. 682, 54 Pac. 271 ; Allen v. Mason, 17 111. App. 318. 38 Newman v. Richardson, 9 Fed. 865, 4 Woods (U. S.) 81 ; American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Georgia Construc- tion &c. Co., 87 Ga. 651, 13 S. E. 505 ; Fletcher v. Anderson, 11 Iowa 228; Blake v. Third Nat. Bank of St. Louis, 219 Mo. 644, 118 S. W. 641; Lyon V. Titch, 18 N. Y. S. 867, 46 N. Y. St. 541, 61 N. Y. Super. Ct. 74. 39 McCauley v. Gordon, 64 Ga. 221, 37 Am. Rep. 68; Estabrook v. Smith, 6 Gray (Mass.) 570, 66 Am. Dec. 443 ; Mclntire v. McLaurin, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 71, Z6 Am. Dec. 300. See also Deavenport v. Green River De- posit Bank, 138 Ky. 352, 128 S. W. 88, 137 Am. St. 386, holding that a partner can not purchase an interest in a firm note and then assign or hold the firm liable on the note. The only right remaining in him is the right to enforce contributions against his consignor, and he can only recover on the basis of the amount actually paid by him. § 431 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 524 title by such , indorsement.^'* In conformity to the general rule > as to nontrading partnerships, dne partner in such a firm has no implied power to transfer firm paper by indorsement/" But a partner may transfer paper payable to his order by indorsing in the firm name, as the firm signature includes the signature of every assenting partner/^ An individual partner who in- dorses a note of the firm is under the Negotiable Instruments Act a person not otherwise a party to the instrument, and liable as an indorsee and his individual estate is liable for the claim.*'' § 431. Fraudulent transfer. — Where paper belonging to the partnership is transferred by one of the partners, it has been held that it is no defense to an action against the maker that such transfer was fraudulent as to the firm.*^ The firm will, it seems, be bound in such cases, unless the person taking the paper knew or had reason to believe that it was executed or transferred in fraud of the partnership.** If, however, the cir- cumstances under which such paper was given or transferred were such as would naturally arouse suspicion so that the trans- feree can not be regarded as a bona-fide holder, it has been held that it may be shown that the partner acted in fraud of the firm and that the paper was given for accommodation without the firm's consent.*® And where the holder of the paper is a party ssa Alabama Coal Min. Co. V. Brain- States, S Pet. (U. S.) 529, 8 L. ed. ard, 35 Ala. 476; McConeghy v. Kirk, 216; Drexler v. Smith, 30 Fed. 754; 68 Pa. St. 200; Manitoba Mortgage In re Many, Fed. Cas. No. 9054; Bar- Co. V. Montreal Bank, 17 Can. Sup. ber v. Van Horn, 54 Kans. 33, 36 Pac. Ct. 692. 1070; Redlon v. Churchill, 73 Maine « Friend v. Duryee, 17 Fla. Ill, 35 146, 40 Am. Rep. 345; Hopkins v. Am. Rep. 89. Boyd, 11 Md. 107; Nichols v. Sober, " Finch V. De Forest, 16 Conn. 445 ; 38 Mich. 678; First Nat. Bank v. Warder v. Gibbs, 92 Mich. 29, 52 N. Morgan, 11 N. Y. 593; Windham W. n-, Gardner v. Wiley, 46 Ore. 96, County Bank v. Kendall, 7 R. I. 11; 79 Pac. 341. Duncan v. Clark, 2 Rich. L. (S. Gar.) ^2 Fourth Nat. Bank of Boston v. 587 ; Sutton v. Gregory, Peake's Nisi Mead, 216 Mass. 521, 104 N. E. 2,11, Prius Cas. 150; Ridley v. Taylor, \Z 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 225n. See Faneuil East 175. See also Hibernian Bank v. Hall Nat. Bank v. Meloon, 183 Mass. Everman, 52 Miss. 500. 66, 66 N. E. 410, 97 Am. St. 416. " Cotton v. Evans, 21 N. Car. 284. *3 Winship v. Bank of United *= Roth v. Colvin, 32 Vt. 125. 525 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 432 to the fraud of the partner upon his firm, such fraud, it seems, will be available as a defense to an action against the firm." In case of fraud by a partner in procuring the execution of a note to the firm, such fraud, it has been held, will be a defense to an action,by the latter on the instrument.*'^ § 432. What will put purchaser of partnership paper on inquiry. — Where in the discount or purchase of partnership paper the purchaser knows that a partner is applying the firm security to his individual use, thus apparently exceeding his authority, and committing a fraud on the other partners, he is put upon inquiry and must inquire as to such partner's authority before gaining the rights of a bona-fide holder.** This rule has been applied when the .firm's indorsement was not made in the usual course of business;*' where the selling partner was no- toriously insolvent ;°" where a note of the maker payable to the firm was offered for sale by the maker after indorsement by the firm;^^ where a note in the firm name was indorsed by a member in payment of an individual debt;^^ where a member of one firm made a note payable to another firm of which he was a member, and then indorsed it for his individual debt;^^ where it is apparent the indorsement was by way of surety or accommodation, or the paper was put up as collateral;" *6 Wells V. Masterman, 2 Esp. 731. N. H. 512 ; Brown v. Pettit, 178 Pa. *7 Kilgore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136, St. 17, 35 Atl. 865, 34 L. R. A. 723, 56 44 N. E. 108. Am. St. 742. *8 Bloon V. Helm, 53 Miss. 21 ; =2 New York Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Wagner v. Freschl, 56 N. H. 495; Bennett, 5 Conn. 574, 13 Am. Dec. Union Nat. Bank v. Underbill, 21 Hun 109; Cooper v. McClurkan, 23 Pa. St. (N.Y.) 178; First Nat. Bank v.Wes- 80; King v. Faber, 22 Pa. St. 21; ton, 25 App. Div. 414, 49 N. Y. S. Tanner v. Hall, 1 Pa. St. 417. 542 ; Dickson v. Primrose, 2 Miles ^^ Tbird Nat. Bank v. Marine Lum- (Pa.) 366. ber Co., 44 Minn. 65, 46 N. W. 145; *9Stainer V. Tysen, 3 Hill (N. Y.) Creigbton v. Halifax Bkg. Co., 18 279; Bank of Vergennes v. Cameron, Can. S. C. 140. 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 143. b4 United States Exch. Bank v. 50 Rotb V. Colvin, 32 Vt. 125. Zimmerman, 113 N. Y. S. 33 ; Chee- 51 Hendrie v. Berkowitz, 37 Cal. 113, ver v. Pittsburg &c. R. C, 28 App. 99 Am. Dec. 251; Bank v. Rider, 58 Div. 81, SO N. Y. S. 1067; Smith § 432 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 526 and where a note was signed in the surname of both partners, and the firm name was fictitious/^ A bank receiving a check for deposit was put upon inquiry where it was payable to a partnership and indorsed by the firm by its manager and then personally indorsed by him and deposited to his individual ac- count.^^ The mere fact that the name of a partnership is placed on a note below the signature of another obligor does not raise a presumption that it signed as surety." But where notes were taken in the usual course of business/® or the note was merely made by the firai by one member to the order of that member/* or one member of the firm was president of a bank which indorsed a note after the firm indorsed it/" or a firm name was the second signature to a note where all signed as makers,"^ or where the maker of a note indorsed by his firm, also indorsed on it the name of another firm in which he was a partner/^ it has been held there was nothing to put a purchaser on inquiry. It has been said that evidence of bad faith is necessary to put on inquiry.^^ And where circumstances were sufficient to put the purchaser on inquiry, but investigation would have disclosed the apparent authority of the disposing partner the firm has been held liable.^* A note signed by a member of a partnership in the partnership name, but which is not delivered until after V. Weston, 159 N. Y. 194, 54 N. E. 405, 8 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 217) ; Swan 38; Stall v. CatskiU Bank, 18 Wend. v. Staele, 7 East 209, 8 R. R. 618. (N. Y.) 466. 59 Potts v_ Taylor, 140 Pa. St. 601, == Lucker v. Iba, 54 App. Div. 566, 21 Atl. 443. 66 N. Y. S. 1019. 60 Kaiser v. First Nat. Bank, 78 =6 Buckley v. Lincoln Trust Co., 72 Fed. 281, 124 C. C. A. 88. Misc. 218, 131 N. Y. S. 105. ei Union Nat. Bank v. Neill, 149 "Union National Bank v. Neill, Fed. 711, 79 C. C. A. 417, 10 L. R 149 Fed. 711, 79 C. C. A. 417, 10 L. A. (N. S.) 426n. R. A. (N. S.) 426n; Warren Deposit «2 Moorehead v. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St. Bank v. Younglove, 112 Ky. 767, 66 118, 18 Am. Rep. 435. S. W. 749, 23 Ky. L. 1969. es Edwards v. Thomas, 66 Mo. 468. 58 Second Nat. Bank v. Weston, e* Buckley v. Lincoln Trust Co., 72 161 N. Y. 520, 55 N. E. 1080, 76 Am. Misc. 218, 131 N. Y. S. 105 ; Citizens' St. 283; Union Nut & Bolt Co. v. Sav. Bank v. Blakesley, 42 Ohio St. Doherty, 32 Misc. 247, 65 N. Y. S. 645. 786 (affd. 32 Misc. 496, 66 N. Y. S. 527 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 433 the dissolution of the firm, can not be received as a partnership obHgation."^ § 433. Firm liability on notes of individual partner. — Where several or all of the partners sign a note individually and there is nothing to show it a firm obligation, they are liable as individuals even if the money was used for the firm,^' but in some cases evidence has been permitted to show it a partnership obligation."^ The firm is generally not liable on a promissory note made in the name of one partner if his name is not the firm name.®^ But where the holder of such a note can show that it was executed for the firm's benefit and taken as a firm obligation, the firm is usually held liable thereon."' A note given in part for the individual debt of the partner who executed it, and in whose name the firm does business, may be enforced against the firm as to firm debts included in it.'"' In Kentucky 65 Woodford v. Dorwin, 3 Vt. 82, 21 118 S. W. 641 ; Coster v. Clarke, 3 Am. Dec. 573. Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 411; Holmes v. 66 In re Robson, 218 Fed. 452; De Burton, 9 Vt. 252, 31 Am. Dec. 621. Temple v. Rohrbach, 52 Pa. Super. ^^Van Reimsdyk v. Kane, 1 Gall. Ct. 455. See also John Spry Lumber (U. S.) 630, Fed. Cas. No. 16872 ; ' Co. V. Chappell, 184 111. 539, 56 N. E. Beebe v. Rogers, 3 G. Greene 794; Manufacturers' & Mechanics' (Iowa) 319; Thomas v. Hardsocg, Bank V. Winship, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 11, 137 Iowa 597; 115 N. W. 210; 16 Am. Dec. 369; Gay v. Johnson, 45 Seekell v. Fletcher, S3 Iowa 330, N. H. 587; Union Nat. Bank v. Un- 5 N. W. 200; Mills v. Riggle, 83 Kans. derhill, 102 N. Y. 336, 7 N. E. 293. 703, 112 Pac. 617, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 67 Dreyfus v. Union Nat. Bank, 164 616 ; Tucker v. Peaslee, 36 N. H. 167 ; 111. 83, 45 N. E. 408 ; Fosdick v. Van Rumsey v. Briggs, 139 N. Y. 323, 34 Horn, 40 Ohio St. 459; Crouch v. N. E. 929 ; National Bank v. Thomas, Bowman, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 209. 47 N. Y. 15; Maffet v. Lenckel, 93 68 Patriotic Bank v. Coote, 3 Pa. St. 468 ; Colwell v. Weybosset Cranch (U. S.) 169, Fed. Cas. No. Nat. Bank, 16 R. I. 288, 15 Atl. 80, 17 10807 ; Buckner v. Lee, 8 Ga. 285 ; Atl. 913 ; Sessums v. Henry, 38 Tex. Hubbell V. Woolf, 15 Ind. 204; Mills Zl ; Salt Lake City Brew. Co. v. V. Riggle, 83 Kans. 703, 112 Pac. 617, Hawke, 24 Utah 199, 66 Pac. 1058; Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 616; Fair v. Citi- Williams v. Donaghe, 1 Rand. (Va.) zens' State Bank, 9 Kans. App. 779, .59 300. See Cadwell v. Shaw, 4 Mont. Pac. 43; Gooding v. Underwood, 89 Q. B. 246. Compare Farmers' Bank Mich. 187, 50 N. W. 818; Blake v. St. v. Bayless, 35 Mo. 428. Louis Third Nat. Bank, 219 Mo. 644, 'o Gable v. Grimes, 2 Ind. 392 ; Le § 433 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 528 the firm is liable on a note executed in the name of one partner if consent of all partners is shown, and the note was given for the firm benefit/^ If given for a firm contract and indorsed by the firm all partners are bound/^ An ordinary note signed in the individual name of a partner whose name is used as the firm name is held to be prima facie his individual note,'^ but the firm becomes liable on a showing that its business was trans- acted in the individual partner's name and that the signature was intended as a partnership signature/* "It seems to be well settled that where a partnership is carried on in the name of an individual and a suit is brought against the partners upon a note or other obligation signed by such individual, the legal presumption is that it is the note of the individual and not of the partners. And the plaintiff, in order to recover against the partners, must not only prove the execution of the note but go farther and prove either that the money for which the note was given was borrowed on the credit of the partnership, or that when obtained it was used in the business of the partnership. * * * If the individual whose name is used declares at the time of the transaction that it is an account of the partnership that is sufficient to bind the partners. And it would seem from an examination of the reported cases that the legal presumption that the debt is the debt of the individual in whose name the obligation is made, and not of the firm, may be repelled and over- come by proof as to the business in which such person was en- gaged."'° And where no firm name has been adopted it has Mars Nat. Bank v. Gehlen, 85 Iowa Mason (U. S.) 176, Fed. Cas. No. 716, SO N. W. 944; Rice v. Doane, 16791; Nicholson v. Patton, 2 Cranch. 164 Mass. 136, 41 N. E. 126. (U. S.) 164, Fed. Cas. No. 102S0; ^1 Nat. Exch. Bank v. Wilgus, 95 Ontario Bank v. Hennessey, 48 N. Y. Ky. 309, 25 S. W. 2, 15 Ky. L. 763 ; 545 ; Bank of Rochester v. Monteath, Carter v. Mitchell, 94 Ky. 261, 22 S. 1 Denio (N. Y.) 402, 43 Am. Dec. 681. W. 83, 15 Ky. L. S3. See also Mercantile Bank v. Cox, 38 '2 Reed v. Bacon, 175 Mass. 407, 56 Maine 500; Buckner v. Lee, 8 Ga. N. E. 716. 285. "Germon v. Hoyt, 90 N. Y. 631; ^sQHphant v. Mathews, 16 Barb. Burroughs' Appeal, 26 Pa. St. 264. (N. Y.) 608. '* United States Bank v. Binney, 5 529 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 434 been held that it may be shown that a note in one partner's name was executed for firm purposes and all parties understood that the firm was bound, and the firm thus made liable.'"' § 434. Notes as discharging debt. — Notes given by one member of a firm in his individual name do not discharge the partnership debt, unless there is an agreement to that effect/^ But in Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont, it has been held that the acceptance of an individual note is prima facie payment of the partnership debt, the creditor having the burden of prov- ing that it is not/^ Taking the note of an ostensible partner does not discharge a dormant partner, it being said that the creditor can not be considered as intending to part with a se- curity of which he did not know,^" notes made by the firm, in the absence of such agreement, do not discharge the firm debt.^° But where there is an agreement made in good faith without fraud or mistake to receive the note of a partner or even of a third party in satisfaction of a firm debt, it is generally held 78 Dockery v. Faulkner (Tex. Civ. App.), 101 S. W. SOI. 77 Dellapiazza v. Foley, 112 Cal. 380, 44 Pac. 727; Dougal v. Cowles, S Day (Conn.) 511 ; Louderback v. Lilly, 75 Ga. 855; Lingenfelser v. Si- mon, 49 Ind. 82; Tyner v. Stoops, 11 Ind. 22, 71 Am. Dec. 341; Cras- well V. Pure Bred Cattle Com. Co., 148 Iowa 9, 126 N. W. 908 ; Medberry V. Soper, 17 Kans. 369; Sneed v. Wiester, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 277; Folk V. Wilson, 21 Md. 538, 83 Am. Dec. 599; Reyburn v. Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365, 16 S. W. 592, 27 Am. St. 350; Van Eps v. Dillaye, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 244; Claflin v. Ostrom, 54 N. Y. 581; Lee v. Larkin, 125 App. Div. 302, 109 N. Y. S. 480; Wilson v. Jen- nings, IS N. Car. 90 ; McKee v. Ham- ilton, 33 Ohio St. 7; White v. Rech, 171 Pa. St. 82, 32 Atl. 1130; Walker V. Tupper, 152 Pa. St. 1, 25 Atl. 172; Maffet V. Lenckel, 93 Pa. St. 468; Burdett v. Hayman (W. Va.), 60 S. E. 497, IS L. R. A. (N. S.) 1019; Hoelflinger v. Wells, 47 Wis. 628, 3 N. W. 589. 78 Paine v. Dwinel, S3 Maine 52, 87 Am. Dec. 533; Springer v. Shirley, 11 Maine 204; Chapman v. Durant, 10 Mass. 47; Stephens v. Thompson, 28 Vt. 77. 79 Parker v. Canfield, 37 Conn. 250, 9 Am. Rep. 317; Scott v. Colmesnil, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 416; Richardson V. Farmer, 36 Mo. 35, 88 Am. Dec. 129; Schemerhorn v. Loines, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 311; Nichols v. Cheairs, 4 Sneed. (Tenn.) 229. 80 Walsh V. Lennon, 98 111. 27, 38 Am. Rep. 75 ; Edwards v. Trulock, 37 Iowa 244; Melledge v. Boston Iron Co., 5 Cush. (Mass.) 158, 51 Am. Dec. 59; Davis v. Allen, 3 N. Y. 168. 34 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 435 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 530 that it is a payment of the debt, and the creditor's remedy is in the note.^^ The intent to release copartners may be inferred where one takes a note from' one partner for a firm debt and tells him that he accepts him for the debt.'^ § 435. Power to give note for individual debt. — A partner has no power to bind the other partners by giving notes in the firm name in payment of an individual debt or to secure an individual obligation/^ and one who loans money on firm notes, knowing that the money was for the individual use of one part- ner, can not recover from the partnership,** unless the copartners have consented or given authority,*^ or they ratified the act,*° or 81 Lamkin v. Phillips, 9 Port. (Ala.) 98; Usher v. Waddingham, 62 Conn. 412, 26 Atl. 538; Bonnell v. Chamber- lain, 26 Conn. 487; Hurd v. Black- man, 19 Conn. 177 ; Adams v. Reid, 56 Ga. 214; Stone v. Chamberlin, 20 Ga. 259; Maxwell v. Day, 45 Ind. 509; Drake v. Hill, 53 Iowa il, 3 N. W. 811, S N. W. 745 ; Crooker v. Crooker, 52 Maine 267, 83 Am. Dec. 509; Swain V. Frazier, 35 N. J. Eq. 326 ; Waydell V. Luer, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 410; Thur- ber V. Corbin, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 215 ; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Dickenson, n Hun 579, 26 N. Y. S. 175, 57 N. Y. St. 261 ; Fowler v. Richardson, 3 Sneed. (Tenn.) 508; Ricker v. Adams, 59 Vt. 154, 8 Atl. 278; Rob- inson V. Hurlburt, 34 Vt. 115 ; Dages V. Lee, 20 W. Va. 584; Fort Dar- lington Harbour Co. v. Squair, 18 U. C. Q. B. 533. See Arnold v. Camp, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 409, 7 Am. Dec. 328. 82Grubbe v. Pierce, 156 Wis. 29, 145 N. W. 207, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 358n, Ann. Cas. 1915 C, 1199. S3 First Nat. Bank of Miles City v. State Nat. Bank of Miles City, 131 Fed. 422; Mauldin v. Mobile Br. Bank, 2 Ala. 502; Terry v. Piatt, 1 Pennew. (Del.) 185, 40 Atl. 243; Mc- Rae V. Campbell, 101 Ga. 662, 28 S. E. 920 ; Hickman v. Reineking, 6 Blackf . (Ind.) 387; Breckenridge v. Shrieve, 4 Dana (Ky.) 375 ; Mutual Nat. Bank V. Richardson, Z7> L. Ann. 1312; Dan- iels V. Hammond, 154 Mass. 165, 28 N. E. 12 ; Roberts v. Pepple, 55 Mich. 367, 21 N. W. 319; Robinson v. Ald- ridge, 34 Miss. 352 ; Hickman v. Kun- kle, 27 Mo. 401; Williams v. Gil- christ, 11 N. H. 535; Union Nat. Bank V. Underbill, 102 N. Y. 336, 7 N. E. 293; Brown v. Haynes, 59 N. Car. 49; King v. Faber, 22 Pa. St. 21 ; Crosthwait v. Ross, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 23, 34 Am. Dec. 613; Poin- dexter v. Waddy, 6 Munf. (Va.) 418, 8 Am. Dec. 749; Arden v. Sharpe, 2 Esp. 524, 5 R. R. 748. 8*Phipps V. Little, 213 Mass. 414, 100 N. E. 615. 85 Randall v. Hunter, 76 Cal. 255, 18 Pac. 317, 66 Cal. 512, 6 Pac. 331 ; Wile V. Denison Clothing Co., 158 Iowa 109, 138 N. W. 1098; Midland Nat. Bank v. Schoen, 123 Mo. 650, 27 S. W. 547; Levi v. Latham, 15 Nebr. 509, 19 N. W. 460, 48 Am. Rep. 361 ; Pitfield v. T'-otter, 32 Nova Scotia 125. 8« Tompkins v. Woodyard, S W. Va. 216. 531 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 436 consented to the use of the money for partnership purposes/' or have held him oiit as having such authority, estopping them- selves,^* or the paper is in the hands of a bona-fide purchaser.*" Especially are the other partners not liable where the negotiable instrument was given for a debt contracted before the forma- tion of the partnership®" or after its dissolution or termina- tion,"^ unless there is a showing of authority from the partners other than the one making the note.°^ § 436, Power to make sealed note. — As a partner gen- erally has no power to bind the firm by the execution of a sealed instrument, so where one partner gives a sealed note in the firm name as a general rule he only is bound,"* and it has been held that they are not bound, even if the note would have been valid without seal,"* other courts, however, hold it may be disregarded as surplusage,"^ or they may be liable upon the original consid- eration,"^ or because of ratification."'^ But under the Georgia code, authority by an instrument under seal is not necessary before a partner can bind a partnership by signing its name to s'' Hamilton v. Summers, 12 B. Car. 417; Hoskinson v. Eliot, 62 Pa. Mon. (Ky.) 11, 54 Am. Dec. 509; St. 393; MiUwee v. Jay, 47 S. Car. Robinson v. Aldridge, 34 Miss. 352; 430, 25 S. E. 298. Whitaker v. Brown, 11 Wend. (N. 9* Hull v. Young, 30 S. Car. 121, Y.) 75. 8 S. E. 695, 3 L. R. A. 521 ; Gordon 88 Carver v. Dows, 40 III. 374; v. Funkhouser, 100 Va. 675, 42 S. E. Boardman v. Gore, 15 Mass. 331; 677. See Boyd v. Thompson, 153 Hayner v. Crow, 79 Mo. 293. Pa. St. 78, 25 Atl. 769, 34 Am. St. s^Driggs V. Driggs, 46 Hun 676, 685. 11 N. Y. St. 256. 95 Walsh v. Lennon, 98 111. 27, 38 soLandauer v. Littman, 135 N. Y. Am. Rep. 75; Purviance v. Suther- S. 8. land, 2 Ohio St. 478; Cowan v. Cun- »iShaw V. Gunby (Mo. App.), 176 ningham, 146 N. Car. 453, 59 S. E. S. W. 548. 992. 92 Harris v. Heilig, 84 N. J. L. 40, ss Daniel v. Toney, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 85 Atl. 1023. 523. 93 Morris v. Jones, 4 Harr. (Del.) 97 Henderson v. Barbee, 6 Blackf. 428; Brozee v. Poyntz, 3 B. Mon. (Ind.) 26. (Ky.) 178; Heath v. Gregory, 46 N. § 437 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 532 a note under seal/^ and he may even delegate this authority to an agent. °° § 437. Form o£ signature — ^Alteration or renewal of note. — If a note is signed in a name not materially different from the firm name, it is usually held to bind the firm.^ The holder usually may recover on paper not executed in the firm name, if he can show that the firm was intended to be bound thereby.^ If a partner has power to make a note binding on the firm, he has power to alter its terms,* as by changing the place,* or time of payment,® or date when interest begins.* If there is no implied power in one partner to issue such paper, all partners must assent to or authorize its alteration in order to bind the firm.^ A partner who has implied authority to make negotiable paper has the same authority to renew it.* 98 Swygert v. Bank of Haralson, 13 Ga. App. 640, 79 S. E. 759. ^'Merchants' &c. Bank v. John- ston, 130 Ga. 661, 61 S. E. 543, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 969n, 14 Ann. Cas. 546. ^ Caldwell v. Sithens, 5 Blackf . (Ind.) 99; Sherman v. Christy, 17 Iowa 322; Peck v. Tingley, 53 Nebr. 171, 73 N. W. 450; Mohawk Nat. Bank v. Van Slyck, 29 Hun (N. Y.) 188; Ganson v. Lathrop, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 455; Staats v. Howlett, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 559; McGregor v. Cleveland, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 475 ; Doty v. Bates, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 544; Horton v. Child, IS N. Car. 460; Moffat v. Mc- Kissick, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 517; In re Barnard, 55 L. J. Ch. 935, 32 Ch. Div. 447, 55 L. T. 40, 34 W. R. 782. 2 Melsheimer v. Hommel, 15 Colo. 475, 24 Pac. 1079; Bacon v. Hutch- ings, 5 Bush (Ky.) 595; Holden v. Bloxum, 35 Miss. 381 ; Farmers' Bank V. Bayless, 41 Mo. 274; Maynard v. Fellows, 43 N. H. 255. 3 Taylor v. Taylor, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 714. * Pahlman v. Taylor, 75 111. 629. ^Uhlendorf v. Kaufman, 41 111. App. 373. 6 Mace V. Heath, 30 Nebr. 620, 46 N. W. 918. 7 Horn V. Newton City Bank, 32 Kans. 518, 4 Pac. 1022; Greenslade V. Dower, 1 M. & Ry. 640, 7 B. & C. 635, 6 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 155, 31 R. R. 272. 8 Hayden Milling Co. v. Lewis, 3 Ariz. 277, 32 Pac. 263 ; Hurd v. Hag- gerty, 24 III 171; Barber v. Van Horn, 54 Kans. 33, 36 Pac. 1070; Na- tional Exch. Bank v. Wilgus, 95 Ky. 309, 25 S. W. 2, 15 Ky. L. 763; Mid- land Nat. Bank v. Schoen, 123 Mo. 650, 27 S. W. 547; Flour City Nat. Bank v. Widener, 163 N. Y. 276, 57 N. E. 471; McKee'v. Hamilton, 33 Ohio St. 7; Saylor v. Merchants Exch. Bank, 1 Walk. (Pa.) 328; Union Bank v. Eaton, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 499. But see Lime Rock F. & M. Ins. Co. V. Treat, 58 Maine 415. 533 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 440 § 438. Powers after dissolution. — The powers of a part- ner after dissolution with regard to binding other members as to commercial paper will be considered in the chapter on dis- solution. § 439, Power as to presentment and protest. — Where the persons primarily liable on the instrument are liable as partners, and no place of payment is specified, it was held that presentment for payment may be made to any of them, even though there has been a dissolution of the firm.® Protest of a bill drawn and in^ dorsed by a copartnership may be waived, it has been held, by one of its members even though he is cashier of the baiik which has discounted such bill ;^° although a liquidating partner after disso- lution of the firm, has no power to waive protest of a draft then given to pay a partnership debt and thus bind a former dormant partner.^^ "Where the parties to be notified (on a negotiable instrument) are partners, notice to any one partner is notice to the firm, even though there has been a dissolution."^^ § 440. Power to mortgage firm property. — If, as has been seen, a partner in certain classes of partnerships has the right to incur obligations and to give evidences of the obligations, signing the firm name thereto, the question naturally presents itself as to the partner's power to give collateral to the obligation, or, going a step farther, to sell firm property to raise the money directly. In a case in which the whole question as to sale and mortgage of real or personal property is very fully and satis- factorily discussed,^* it was said: "It is within the scope of ^ See § 469 on notice. See also Ne- ^^ Negotiable Instrument Law, § gotiable Instrument Law, § 137; 170. See also Brown v. Turner, IS Brown v. Turner, 15 Ala. 832; Mt. Ala. 832; Fourth Nat. Bank v. Althe- Pleasant Branch of State Bank v. Mc- mier, 91 Mo. 190, 3 S. W. 858 ; Hub- Leran, 26 Iowa 306; Fourth Nat. bard v.. Matthews, 54 N. Y. 43, 13 Bank v. Heuschen, 52 Mo. 207. Am. Rep. 562; Riddle v. McBeth, 2 10 Hays v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 101 Ohio Dec. 606. Ky. 201, -19 Ky. L. 367, 40 S. W. 573. ^^ Tapley v. Butterfield, 1 Met. iiMauney v. Coit, 80 N. Car. 300, (Mass.) 515, 35 Am. Dec. 374 (1840). 30 Am. Rep. 80. § 440 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 534 partnership authority for one partner to sell and dispose of all the partnership goods, in the orderly and regular course of business. It is also within the scope of partnership authority to pay the debts of the firm, and to apply the assets of the firm for that purpose. He (a partner), being authorized to sell the goods to raise money to pay their debts, may apply the goods directly to the payment of the debts; and according to the ex- igencies of the occasion, he may pledge the partnership goods to raise money to pay the debts of the firm. To this extent we think each partner has a disposing power over the partnership stock, arising necessarily from the nature of that relation. If it were in the form of a consignment to a commission merchant or an auctioneer, and an advance of money obtained for the use of the firm, we think there could be no question but that it would be within the scope of the partnership authority. And now that the law has given encouragement to mortgages of per- sonal property, which is only another mode of pledging goods, and has substituted an instrument in writing capable of being recorded in the town clerk's book, and has given to such record an effect equivalent to the actual delivery of the goods,^* we can not perceive why it may not be resorted to by partners as well as individual persons. To what extent one partner can bind another in the disposition lof the entire property of the concern is a question of power arising out of the relation of partnership, and does not, we think, depend upon the form or manner in which it is exercised. Lands held by partners are considered as lands held by tenants in common; and as one tenant in common can not pass any estate of his cotenant, and as land can not pass without deed, it follows that one partner can not convey away the real estate of the firm without special authority. But considering that the authority of selling and pledging the personal property is within the scope of partner- ship power, and may be done without deed, the courts are of opinion that such a mortgage, made by one partner in the ab- 1* Bullock v., Williams, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 33. 535 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT 440 sence of the other, * * * -^y^s binding upon the property, and constituted a valid lien upon the property." This case clearly shows the authority of a partner to mortgage or sell property within the apparent scope of the partnership business, unless precluded by other technical rules, such as are incorporated in real estate law. The law seems, as a general thing, to accord to each individual partner in a mercantile concern the power to bind his associates by a mortgage of the partnership chattels, executed in the firm name to secure a partnership debt,^^ pro- vided such mortgage will not have the effect of terminating the common business.^^ A mortgage in fraud of copartners 15 Union Nat. Bank v. Bank of Kansas City, 136 U. S. 223, 34 L. ed. 341, 10 Sup.- Ct. 1013 ; Settle v. Har- gadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co., 66 Fed. 850, 14 C. C. A. 144; O'Neal V. Judsonia State Bank, 111 Ark. 589, 164 S. W. 295; Jacks v. Greenhaw, 105 Ark. 615, 152 S. W. 160; Gates V. Bennett, 33 Ark. 475; Breen v. Richardson, 6 Colo. 605; Phillips v. Trowbridge Furniture Co., 86 Ga. 699, 13 S. E. 19; Denton Bros. v. Hannah, 12 Ga. App. 494, 11 S. E. 672; McCarthy v. Seisler, 130 Ind. 63, 29 N. E. 407; Tapley v. Butter- field, 1 Met. (Mass.) 515, .35 Am. Dec. 374; Beckman v. Noble, 115 Mich. 523, 73 N. W. 803 ; Robards v. Waterman, 96 Mich. 233, 55 N. W. 662; Harvey v. Ford, 83 Mich. 506, 47 N. W. 242 ; Keck v. Fisher, 58 Mo. 532; Holt v. Simmons, 16 Mo. App. 97; Horton v. Bloedorn, 7,1 Nebr. 666, 56 N. W. 321 ; Cohen v. Miller, 46 Misc. 106, 91 N. Y. S. 345 ; Stone Co. V. McLamb, 153 N. Car. 378, 69 S. E. 281 ; Hembree v. Blackburn, 16 Ore. 153, 19 Pac. 73 ; Morris v. Hub- bard, 14 S. Dak. 525, 86 N. W. 25; West Coast Grocery Co. v. Stinson, 13 Wash. 255, 43 Pac. 35; Williams V. Gillespie, 30 W. Va. 586, 5 S. E. 210; Rock v. Collins, 99 Wis. 630, 75 N. W. 426; Hage v. Campbell, 78 Wis. 572, 47 N. W. 179, 23 Am. St. 422; Ex parte Bosanquet, 1 De Gex 432; Mason v. Parker, 16 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 230. Likewise, a mortgage in the several names of the individ- ual partners. Patch v. Wheatland, 8 Allen (Mass.) 102. So also with his copartner's consent, a mortgage in his own name. Clay v. Greenwood, 35 Nebr. 736, 53 N. W. 659. IS Osborne v. Barge, 29 Fed. 725; McGrath v. Cowen, 57 Ohio St. 385, 49 N. E. 338. Contra : Letts-Fletcher Co. V. McMaster, 83 Iowa 449, 49 N. W. 1035. But see Union Nat. Bank V. Bank of Kansas City, 136 U. S. 223, 34 L. ed. 341, 10 Sup. Ct. 1013, in which it is said: "It was also well settled by the decisions of that court [the Supreme Court of Mis- souri], that each partner, by virtue of the relation of partnership, and of the community right and interest of the partners, had full power and au- thority to sell, pledge or otherwise dispose of all personal property be- longing to the partnership, for any purpose, within the scope of the part- nership business, and might there- fore, without the concurrence of his § 440 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 536 may be set aside.^' And if one partner actively dissents, it is held that the other can not mortgage the firm property even for the firm benefit." Where a partner mortgages his share in the firm, it is subject to all the copartners' equities. ^° It has even been held in a case decided not so very many years ago that, since partnership realty is personalty to the extent necessary for the satisfaction of the firm obligations, one partner may, to secure such an obligation, give a mortgage in the firm name upon land which forms a part of the firm assets, even though there has been no actual knowledge of, express consent to, or ratification of, his act on the part of his associate.^" Such an unqualified position, however, does not seem to be able to rally the weight of authority to its support. The view more generally adhered to is that a real estate mortgage made by a single part- ner must, in order to bind the firm, be executed at the instance, with the express consent, with the knowledge, or in the presence of, his associate or associates, as the case may be, or the latter must have subsequently ratified the act of the copartner in giving:! the same.^^ And yet an exception to the general rule, that an copartners, mortgage the partnership 20 Long v. Slade, 121 Ala. 267, 26 property by deed of trust, to secure So. 31. See also Neer v. Oakley, 18 the payment of a partnership debt N. Y. St. 374, 2 N. Y. S. 482. * * * although one partner, with- 21 ^cGahan v. National Bank of out the concurrence of his copart- Rondout, 156 U. S. 218, 39 L. ed. 403, ners, could not delegate to a stran- IS Sup. Ct. 347. See Greer v. Fer- ger the right of the partnership to guson, 56 Ark. 324, 19 S. W. 966; administer the partnership effects, Cottle v. Harrold, 72 Ga. 830; Ely and therefore could not make a gen- v. Hair, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 230; eral assignment of all the property Baker v. Lee, 49 La. Ann. 874, 21 So. of the partnership for distribution 388; Seawell v. Payne, 5 La. Ann. by the assignee among the partner- 255; Chittenden v. German-American ■ship creditors, retaining no equity of Bank, 27 Minn. 143, 6 N. W. 773; redemption in the partnership." See Hardin v. Dolge, 46 App. Div. 416, also Whitton v. Smith, Freem. Ch. 61 N. Y. S. 753; Tarbel v. Bradley, (Miss.) 231; Weir Plow Co. v. Ev- 7 Abb. N. Cas. 273 (affd. 86 N. Y. ans (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 38. 280) ; Williams v. Gillies, 13 Hun (N. "Kirby v. McDonald, 70 Fed. 139, Y.) 422; Napier v. Catron, 2 Humph. 17 C. C. A. 26. (Tenn.) 534; Schwab Clothing Co. 18 H. Y. McCord Co. v. Collaway, v. Claunch (Tex.), 29 S. W. 922; 109 Ga. 796, 35 S. E. 171. Caviness^v. Black (Tex. Civ. App.). "Kelly V. Hutton, L. R. 3 Ch. 703. 33 S. W. 712; Byrd v. Perry, 7 Tex. 537 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 440 authority to bind another by an instrument under seal must itself be created by a like instrument, seems, in some instances, to have been established in the case of partners.'^ If authority to execute a sealed contract having to do with personalty may be implied from this relation, no good reason can be assigned why the authority tO' execute a sealed conveyance of land should not likewise be implied. Thus Lord Kenyon has said that if the partnership relation gives this authority in the one case, it "would extend to the case of mortgages."^' "A conveyance of partner- ship property by one partner, with the consent of the other, for the purpose of paying partnership debts, binds such other part- ner, and his death does not operate to defeat the power of sale conferred by the instrument."^* And it has been said that one partner may give an equitable mortgage of partnership real estate.^^ But it has been held that where the members of a planting partnership acquire imroiovable property, they become joint owners of the same, and a mortgage by one of the partners in the firm name binds only his portion of the property.^" And yet where a partnership has at its own expense for its own purposes erected buildings and machinery on land belonging to one of the partners individually, without expressly agreeing as to the ownership of such fixtures, it has been held that the holder of the legal title to the land by mortgaging the latter, to- gether with the buildings, etc., to secure a loan obtained by him Civ. App. 378, 26 S. W. 749; Wilson herd, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 400, 22 Am. V. Hunter, 14 Wis. 683, 80 Am. Dec. Dec. 379; Swan v. Stedman, 4 Met. 795. Consult Cottle v. Harrold, 72 (Mass.) 548; Smith v. Kerr, 3 N. Ga. 830; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. John- Y. 144. son, 79 Iowa 290, 44 N. W. SSI; 23 Harrison v. Jackson, 7 Term Weeks v. Mascoma Rake Co., 58 N. Rep. 203. H. 101; Jones v. Davis (N. J.), 25 2* Barnett v. Houston, 18 Tex. Civ. Atl. 370; McNeal Pipe & Foundry App. 134, 4. S. W. 689. Co. V. Woltman, 114 N. Car. 178, 19 2= Ex parte Broadbent, 4 Deac. & C. S. E. 109 ; Baldwin v. Richardson, 33 3 ; Lindley Partnership (7th ed.) , p. Tex. 16. Compare Horton v. Bloe- 166. dorn, Zl Nebr. 666, 56 N. W. 321 ; 26 Baker v. Lee, 49 La. Ann. 874, 21 In re Blanchard, 161 Fed. 793. So. 588. See also Kahn v. Becnel, 22 See Wilson v. Hunter, 14 Wis. 108 La. 296, 32 So. 444. 683, 80 Am. Dec. 795 ; Cady v. Shep- § 441 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 538 for the purpose of discharging the partnership debts, binds his copartner's interest in the fixtures.^^ Moreover, where a mort- gage of chattels is signed by one of the partners without au- thority and without the knowledge or consent of his associate or the mortgagee, and is dehvered to another for the purpose of delivery to the mortgagee, and the latter, when he learns of the mortgage, takes time to decide whether he will accept and does not actually accept until a time subsequent to a dissolution of the firm and notice thereof, such mortgage is not binding upon the member of the firm who did not join in the sarne.^^ Again "one member of a nontrading partnership has no power to sell or mortgage all the assets of the concern without the consent of his copartner, unless the power is given otherwise than by implication from the ordinary nature of the business."^" The attempted transfer by one partner of his interest in partner- ship property can not prejudice the rights of a partnership mortgagee.^" § 441. Mortgage to secure partner's individual debt. — Since one member of a firm can not, without the consent of his [copartner,, use partnership property in discharging his indi- vidual obligations, he does not abridge the rights of his asso- ciate by giving to his personal creditor a mortgage thereon ex- ecuted in the firm name.^^ But if one partner mortgages his apparent interest in land, conveyed to the members of the firm as tenants in common, for a consideration paid him at the time, as, for instance, for a loan of money, the mortgagee having no " Chittenden v. German-American 306, 58 So. 799 ; H. Y. McCord Co. v. Bank, 27 Minn. 143, 6 N. W. ITi. Callaway, 109 Ga. 796, 35 S. E. 171 ; 28 Meyer v. Michaels, 69 Nebr. 138, Rainey v. Nance, 54 111. 29; Smith v. 95 N. W. 63, 91 N. W. 817. Andrews, 49 111. 28; Deeters v. Sell- 23 Huey V. Fish, 15 Tex. Civ. App. ers, 102 Ind. 458, 1 N. E. 854 ; Liv- 455, 40 S. W. 29. See also McManus ingston v. Roosevelt, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) V. Smith, 37 Ore. 222, 61 Pac. 844. 251, 4 Am. Dec. 273. See also Huis- 30 National Citizens' Bank of Man- kamp v. Moline Wagon Co., 121 U. kato V. McKinley (Minn.), 152 N. S. 310, 30 L. ed. 971, 7 Sup. Ct. 899. W. 879. And compare Walker v. White, 60 =1 Gossett V. Morrow, 4 Ala. App. Mich. 427, 27 N. W. 554. 539 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 441 notice of the character of the property in equity as copartner- ship property, it seems that he is entitled to hold it under his mortgage. He may rely upon the legal effect of the conveyance to his mortgagor, and upon his apparent title upon record. A person taking a mortgage without notice that it covers partner- ship property is a purchaser, and is subject to no equity in favor of the partnership or of its creditors.^^ If the property has been purchased by the individual partners with their own funds, each taking a conveyance of an undivided interest, the fact that the property has for a time been used for the partnership business is not generally sufficient to impress it with an equitable lien tor the payment of partnership debts as against a mortgage of one partner's interest to secure his individual debt.^' A mortgage made by a partner of his interest in partnership real estate, to one who knows it to be such, is not a mortgage of the partner's undivided interest in such real estate, but of his interest in the portion mortgaged after the payment of the firm debts upon a settlement of the partnership accounts. The mortgage is not available until the partnership accounts have been discharged, if the other partner chooses to assert his equity, or if subsequent partnership mortgagees assert their priority;'* or if creditors of the partnership attach the property or levy an execution upon it as belonging to the partnership.'^ There would in such case be no distinction between debts incurred prior to the mortgage and those incurred subsequently.'" Upon the bankruptcy of the firm, the assignee, in behalf of the creditors, would be entitled to the property in preference. If one partner, upon retiring 32 Hewitt V. Rankin, 41 Iowa 35 ; 74 Am. St. 613 ; Page v. Thomas, 43 Hiscock V. Phelps, 49 N. Y. 97 ; Seeley Ohio St. 38, 1 N. E. 79, 54 Am. Rep. V. Mitchell, 85 Ky. 508, 9 Ky. L. 86, 4 788. See also Goldthwaite v. Janney, S. W. 190. 102 Ala. 431, 15 So. 560, 28 L. R. A. 33 Wilhite's Admr. v. Boulware, 88 161, 48 Am. St. 56. Ky. 169, 11 Ky. L. 59, 10 S. W. 629. "s pargo v. Ames, 45 Iowa 491 3* Beecher V. Stevens, 43 Conn. 587 ; Seaman v. Huffaker, 21 Kans. 254 Seeley v. Mitchell, 85 Ky. 508, 4 S. Lovejoy v. Bowers, 11 N. H. 404 W. 190, 9 Ky. L. 86; Rockefellar v. French v. Lovejoy, 12 N. H. 458. Dellinger, 22 Mont. 418, 56 Pac. 822, 36 Lovejoy v. Bowers, 11 N. H. 404. § 442 LAW OF PAl^TNERSHIP 540 from the partnership, conveys his interest in the partnership real estate to another person, who then comes in and forms a new firm, and this new partner executes a mortgage of such real estate to secure the purchase-money, in the absence of any evidence that the mortgage was intended to be a mortgage of this partner's interest in the new firm, it is proper to regard it as a mortgage of the same partnership interest in the old firm which was conveyed to the new partner, and not of his in- terest in the new firm. Such a mortgage is subject to the pay- ment of the debts of the old firm, but not to the payment of the debts of the new firm/^ § 442. Bona-fide holders of mortgage on partnership real estate. — It has been held that the mortgagee must be in the position of a bona-fide purchaser for value ; he must have parted with money or goods, or something of value, in reliance upon the security that if he has simply taken the mortgage to secure an ex- isting debt, or has knowledge of the facts which make the property in equity assets of the firm, then his mortgage will be postponed to the equities of those who have a right to have the property applied . as assets of the copartnership.^* But a recital in a deed to three persons that the conveyance was in the proportion of an undi- vided half to one of them, and an undivided fourth to each of the others, "this being the proportional undivided interest of each of the above partners in the lumber firm and land" of the partnership, was held not necessarily to impart notice to a mortgagee of the interest of one of the grantees of the equitable rights of the others as representing the creditors of the firm.^" If the description of the property in the mortgage itself shows that the property is that of the partnership, as where it is de- scribed as all the right, title and interest of a partner individually, and as a member of a certain firm in all the real estate and other property of the firm, the mortgagee necessarily has no- 37 Beecher v. Stevens,, 43 Conn. 587. 39 Van Slyck v. Skinner, 41 Mich. See Phelps v. McNeely, 66 Mo. 554, 186, 1 N. W. 971. But the decision 27 Am. Rep. 378. in this case does not seem to be quite 38 Hiscock V. Phelps, 49 N. Y. 97. in harmony with other authorities. 541 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 443 tice of the partnership equities. The existence of such a mort- gage can not prevent the copartners from disposing of the real estate for the legitimate purposes of the firm, such as adjusting its affairs with creditors, or with each other. The recording of such mortgage is without effect upon the other members of the copartnership, or upon any one taking a conveyance made for partnership purposes.*" Where a copartnership carried on business in a store built by the firm upon land, the legal title to which was in A, and one of his copartners, to secure a copart- nership debt, executed a mortgage of the land with the consent of his copartners, and in the name of A & Co., and acknowledged the execution of it as "his free act and deed, * * * on be- half of said firm," it was held valid as against a person who, with actual notice of this, took a subsequent mortgage of the same property executed by A.*^ Such a mortgage is likewise valid as against a creditor of the firm whose lien is of subse- quent origin.*^ If a partner mortgage his separate property to secure a firm debt, it has been held that he becomes a surety for the firm and that his separate creditors, upon his bankruptcy or insolvency, have a right to insist that the partnership property be first appHed to the payment of the debt so secured.*^ § 443. Power to pledge firm property. — The authority to sell firm property or to borrow money for the firm carries with it implied authority to pledge or assign firm property to secure firm debts.** One partner may assign a mortgage to a firm as se- *o Tarbel v. Bradley, 7 Abb. N. Cas. 985, 8 L. R. A. 611, 25 Am. St. 565 ; (N. Y.) 273 (affd. 86 N. Y. 280). See Hopkins v. Thomas, 61 Mich. 389, 28 note in this case for decisions relat- N. W. 147; Clark v. Rives, 33 Mo. ing to partnership realty. 579; Holt v. Simmons, 16 Mo. App. 41 Wilson V. Hunter, 14 Wis. 683, 97; McClelland v. Remsen, 42 N. Y. 80 Am. Dec. 795. (3 Keyes) 454, 3 Abb. Dec. 74, S 42 Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Johnson, Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 250; Keller v. 79 Iowa 290, 44 N. W. 551. Smith, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 314, 49 S. 43 Averill v. Loucks, 6 Barb. (N. W. 263 ; Marshall v. MaClure, L. R. Y.) 470. 10 App. Cas. 325; Reid v. Hollins- , 4* George v. Tate, 102 U. S. 564, 26 head, 4 B. & C. 867. See In re Hill, L. ed. 232; Harris v. Baltimore, Ti 186 Fed. 569. Md. 22, 17 Atl. 1046, 20 Atl. Ill, § 444 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 542 curity for firm debts.*' There is no implied authority to pledge firm property as security for individual debts,*" but the conduct of his copartners may make them liable by estoppel.*^ The assign- ment or pledge by one partner of firm property to secure his individual debt, will, though not binding the firm, create a charge on his interest in the pledged property.** § 444. Power to sell firm property. — The power to sell firm property which is held for the purpose of sale in the course of business, is implied in a partner in a commercial business, and a sale by one partner is a sale by the firm.*' One partner who has power to sell firm goods as merchandise, may agree to exchange them for other goods suitable for the firm use within the scope of its business and thus bind his copartners.'" A partner in a nontrading partnership may transfer property of the firm to pay its debts.^^ But in a nontrading partnership. *5 Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232 (Gil. 212) ; Galway v. Ful- lerton, 17 N. J. Eq. 389; Dubois' Ap- peal, 38 Pa. St. 231, 80 Am. Dec. 478. *8 Blair v. Harrison, 57 Fed. 257, 6 C. C. A. 326; Claflin v. Bennett, 51 Fed. 693; Smith v. Andrews, 49 111. 28; Deeters v. Sellers, 102 Ind. 458, 1 N. E. 854; Brooks-Waterfield Co. V. Carpenter, 53 S. W. 40, 21 Ky. L. 851 ; Livingston v. Roosevelt, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 251, 4 Am. Dec. 273; Stock- dale V. Ullery, 37 Pa. St. 486, 78 Am. Dec. 440; Wilkinson v. Eykyn, 14 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 158; Smith v. Bur- rage, 4 Taunt. 684. *7 Day V. Perkins, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 359; Buchanan v. People's Bank (Tenn.), 57 S. W. 207; Liberty Sav. Bank v. Campbell, 75 Va. 534; Ex parte Darlington Joint-Stock Banking Co., 4 DeG., J. & S. 581. *8 Sloan v. Wilson, 117 Ala. 583, 23 So. 145; Rainey v. Nance, 54 111. 29; Patterson v. Atkinson, 20 R. I. 102, 2,1 Atl. 532. *^ Anderson v. Tompkins, 1 Brock. 456, Fed. Cas. No. 365; Planters' Trading Co; v. Moore, 7 Ala. App. 393, 62 So. 302; Bass Dry Goods Co. V. Granite Mfg. Co., 113 Ga. 1142, 39 S. E. 471 ; Hardy v. Jones, 13 Ga. App. 457, 79 S. E. 246; Hermann v. Louisiana State Ins. Co., 8 La. 285; Lamb v. Durant, 12 Mass. 54, 7 Am. Dec. 31 ; Quiner v. Marblehead So- cial Ins. Co., 10 Mass. 476; Boswell V. Green, 25 N. J. L. 390; Comstock v. Buchanan, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 127 (affd. 57 Barb. 146n.) ; Gross v. Gross, 128 App. Div. 429, 112 N. Y. S. 790 ; Christ v. Firestone, 7 Pa. Cas. 376, 11 Atl. 395; Lambert's Case, Godb. 244. 6» White V. Toles, 7 Ala. '569; Lemon v. Fox, 21 Kans. 152 ; Warder V. Newdigate, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 174, 52 Am. Dec. 567; Liberty Sav. Bank V. Campbell, 75 Va. 534. siUllman v. Myrick, 93 Ala. 532, 8 So. 410; Denton v. Hannah, 12 Ga. App. 494, n S. E. 672; Schneider v. Schmidt, 82 N. J. Eq. 81, 88 Atl. 543 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 444 while one partner, it seems, should have the power to dispose of any property held for sale, he has no power to sell property not so held, unless the other partners consent.^^ A partner in farming has no authority to sell the farming implements and live stock.®' It is held that a member of a bakery firm can bind the other by his contract disposing of part of their route and good will.'^* A partner has no right to give away firm prop- erty,^^ nor can he convey title in fraud of the other partners.^" Each partner has implied authority to deal with, sell and trans- fer choses in action belonging to the firm and an assignment of a chose in action by a partner in the firm name will give valid title to the assignee-®^ Among choses in action capable of such transfer are, it is held, a debt with a power of attorney to col- lect,^''^ a judgment,®* an insurance policy,®* claims held by a law firm for collection,"*^ or under the Montana code a contract right to purchase land."^ As a general rule a partner does not have the power to sell partnership real estate and pass a legal title,"^ and such conveyance will pass but his own interest.®' And 179; Mabbett v. White, 12 N. Y. 442; 69 N. J. L. 452, 55 Atl. 1133; Gerli Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Fleenor, 104 Ark. v. Poidebard Silk Mfg. Co., 57 N. 119, 148 S. W. 650; Henderson v. J. L. 432, 31 Atl. 401, 51 Am. St. Nicholas, Gl Cal. 152, 7 Pac. 412; 611, 30 L. R. A. 61; Radt v. Rosen- Moynahan v. Prentiss, 10 Colo. App. feld, 20 Misc. 312, 45 N. Y. S. 847; 295, 51 Pac. 94; Lowman v. Sheets, Clarke v. Hogeman, 13 W. Va. 718. 124 Ind. 416, 24 N. E. 351, 7 L. R. s'a Mills v. Barber, 4 Day (Conn.) A. 784; Phillips v. Thorp, 12 Okla. 428. 617, 73 Pac. 268. ^s Randolph Bank v. Armstrong, 11 53 Rutherford v. McDonnell, 66 Iowa 515. Ark. 448, 51 S. W. 1060. =» Hermann v. Louisiana State Ins. 5* Gewirtz v. Abraham, 171 111. Co., 8 La. 285. App. 433. ^° Pierce v. Jarnagin, 57 Miss. 107. 55 Daniel v. Daniel, 9 B. Men. *i Milwaukee Land Co. v. Ruesink (Ky.) 195; Lobdell v. Slawson, 90 (Mont), 148 Pac. 396. Mich. 201, 51 N. W. 349. «2 Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. (U. S.) 5« Gill V. Crosby, 63 111. 190. 333, 11 L. ed. 622 ; Calder v. Credit- s' Little V. Britten (Ala.), 66 So. ors, 47 La. Ann. 346, 16 So. 852; Ar- 694 ; Whitehurst v. Brice, 14 Ga. App. nold v. Stevenson, 2 Nev. 234 ; Mc- 209, 80 S. E. 670; Quiner v. Marble- Whorter v. McMahon, Clarke Ch. (N. head Social Ins. Co., 10 Mass. 476; Y.) 400. Morse v. Bellows, 7 N. H. 549, 28 ea Elliott v. Dycke, 78 Ala. 150; Am. Dec. 372 ; Sullivan v. Visconti, Brewer v. Browne, 68 Ala. 210 ; God- § 444 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 544 where the conveyance was made in the presence of the copart- ners, or with their assent, or has been ratified by them, all the partners are bound.** As has been seen, a partner has no im- plied power to execute a sealed conveyance of real estate, and it is upon this ground that many of the cases deny his right to convey real property.*'' But it has been said that one partner may make a binding contrarct to convey partnership real estate, though not a binding conveyance.** Generally a mortgage to a partnership should be assigned by a deed executed by all the partners; for although it belongs to the partnership, the legal estate is in the individual members of it, as tenants in common, and it is held that one partner can not make a legal assignment by executing an assignment in the name of the firm,*'' but he can make an equitable assignment by a transfer of the debt.*' A partner may make a valid conveyance and give legal title to firm real estate which stands in his name, conveying free from equities of his copartners as to a good-faith purchaser.** And if the business of the partnership is to deal in real estate which is held as partnership stock for sale, it seems the power in one dard v. Renner, 57 Ind. 532; Willey 74 Pa. St. 391, IS Am. Rep. 553. V. Carter, 4 La. Ann. 56; Tinnin v. e^Tutt v. Davis, 13 Gal. App. 715, Brown, 98 Miss. 378, 53 So. 780, Ann. 110 Pac. 690. Cas. 1913 A, 1081n; Walton v. Tus- «7 Dillon v. Brown, 11 Gray (Mass.) ten, 49 Miss. 569; Garner's Appeal, 179, 71 Am. Dec. 700. 1 Walk. (Pa.) 438; Jones v. Neale, esjn re Dubois' Appeal, 38 Pa. St. 2 Pat. & H. (Va.) 339; Crane v. Rap- 231, 80 Am. Dec. 478. pie, 22 Ont. 519. m Robinson Bank v. Miller, 153 111. 64 Ferguson v. Hanauer, 56 Ark. 244, 38 N. E. 1078, 27 L. R. A. 449, 179, 19 S. W. 749; Lee v. Onstott, 1 46 Am. St. 883; Clark v. Allen, 34 Ark. 206; Little v. Hazzard, 5 Har. Iowa 190; Rivarde v. Rousseau, 7 La. (Del.) 291; Haynes v. Seachrest, 13 Ann. 3; Bond Realty Co. v. Pounds, Iowa 455; Weld v. Peters, 1 La. Ann. 128 App. Div. 91, 112 N. Y. S. 433; 432; Shirley v. Fearne, 33 Miss. 653, TiUinghast v. Champlin, 4 R. I. 173, 69 Am. Dec. 375; Lawrence v. Tay- 67 Am. Dec. 510. See also Clark v. lor, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 107; Frost v. Allen, 34 Iowa 190; Goldthwaite v. Wolf, 77 Tex. 455, 14 S. W. 440, 19 Janney, 102 Ala. 431, 15 So. 560, 28 Am. St. 761; Baldwin v. Richardson, L. R. A. 161. 48 Am. St. 56; Chit- 33 Tex. 16. tenden v. German -American Bank, 27 s5 See ante § 422. Arnold v. Stev- Minn. 143, 6 N. W. 773 ; Tarbell ▼. enson, 2 Nev. 234; Foster's Appeal, West, 86 N. Y. 280. 545 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 444 partner to make a valid contract of sale should be implied/" or where the land is considered as converted into personalty for all purposes.'^ If it comes about in the course of trade as an incident to the firm's regular business a partner, as a general rule, has the implied power to dispose of the firm's entire per- sonal property, and his copartners are bound by such a sale in good faith.'^ But a transfer of all the partnership goods by one partner not made in the course of trade, for a purpose not within the scope of the partnership, and not in payment of or security for a firm debt, is not valid,'^^ especially if there is no necessity for such transfer,'* or the effect is practically to ter- minate the business and break up the firm.''^ If the copartner '■"Thompson v. Bowman, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 316, 18 L. ed. 736; Rovelsky V. Brown, 92 Ala. 522, 9 So. 182, 25 Am. St. 83 ; Batty v. Adams, 16 Nebr. 44, 20 N. W. 15; Chester v. Dicker- son, 54 N. Y. 1, 13 Am. Rep. 550; Sage V. Sherman, 2 N. Y. 417; Lud- low V. Cooper, 4 Ohio St. 1 ; Moder- well V. MuUison, 21 Pa. St. 257; Robinson v. Crowder, 4 McCord (S. Car.) 519, 17 Am. Dec. 762. 71 Young V. Wheeler, 34 Fed. 98; Davis V. Smith, 82 Ala. 198, 2 So. 897; Paton v. Baker, 62 Iowa 704, IS N. W. 586. 72 Anderson v. Tompkins, 1 Brock. (U. S.) 456, Fed. Cas. No. 365; Ellis V. Allen, 80 Ala. SIS, 2 So. 676; Williams v. Barnett, 10 Kans. 455; Coakley v. Weil, 47 Md. 277; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 296; Whitton v. Smith, Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 231; Graser v. Stell- wagen, 25 N. Y. 315; Phillips v. Thorp, 12 Okla. 617, IZ Pac. 268; Deckard v. Case, S Watts (Pa.) 22, 30 Am. Dec. 287; Williams v. Rob- erts, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 493; Schnei- der V. Sansom, 62 Tex. 201, 50 Am. Rep. 521; Forkner v. Stuart, 6 Grat. (Va.) 197; Kubillus v. Ewert, 40 Wash. 38, 82 Pac. 147; Fox v. Han- bury, Cowp. 445; Paterson v. Maughan, 39 U. C. Q. B. 391. But compare Bender v. Hemstreet, 12 Misc. 620, 34 N. Y. S. 423, 68 N. Y. St. 254; and Halstead v. Shephard, 23 Ala. 558. Also see as to effect of statutes on such sales, Carrie v. Clo- verdale Banking &c. Co., 90 Cat. 84, ' 27 Pac. 58; Myers v. Moulton, 71 Cal. 498, 12 Pac. 505 ; Crites v. Wil- kinson, 65 Cal. 559, 4 Pac. 567; Doll V. Hennessy Merc. Co., Z'Z Mont. 80, 81 Pac. 625. 73 Wilcox V. Jackson, 7 Colo. 521, 4 Pac. 966; Cayton v. Hardy, 27 Mo. 536; Freeman v. Abramson, 30 Misc. 101, 61 N. Y. S. 839. 7* Drake v. Thyng, 37 Ark. 228; Horton v. Bloedorn, 37 Nebr. 666, 56 N. W. 321. 75 Osborne v. Barge, 29 Fed. 725; Kimball v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co., 8 Bosw. (N. Y.) 495; McGrath v. Cowen, 57 Ohio St. 385, 49 N. E. 338; McNair v. Wilcox, 121 Pa. St. 437, IS Atl. S7S, 6 Am. St. 799. 35 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 445 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 546 is accessible or within easy communication by mail or wire, it is the partner's duty to consult him prior to a sale of all the firm property/^ and where the sale is made without consultation of an accessible copartner it may be avoided by him/^ and passes no more than the interest of the transferring partner.'^ A part- ner who has implied power to sell personal property of the firm in the course of its business, has power to bind it by a warranty incidental to the sale.'" His power as to a deed with covenants of general warranty is very limited.^" § 445. Power to purchase property. — A partner may, as we have seen heretofore, sell or mortgage property of the firm, and may incur firm obligations and sign the name of the partnership to evidences of firm obligation. It would necessarily follow as a part, perhaps, of the right to incur firm obligations, and as implied from the other powers mentioned above, that, he would be empowered, under certain qualifications, that is, within the scope of the firm business, to purchase such goods as are necessary to carry on its business in an ordinary way, and may pledge the firm credit for such purchases, and this rule applies in both trading and nontrading partnerships," and the creditor ' 76 Hunter V. Wayneck, 67 Iowa SSS, 641, 118 N. W. 484; McPherson v. 25 N. W. lid; Blaker v. Sands, 29 Bristol, 122 Mich. 3S4, 81 N. W. 254; Kans. 551. Vaiden v. Hawkins (Miss.), 6 So. "McGrath v. Cowen, 57 Ohio St. 227; Morgan v. Pierce, 59 Miss. 210; 385, 49 N. E. 338. Israel v. Finkelstein, 74 N. H. 604, 7SRuffner v. McConnell, 17 111. 212, 69. Atl. 576; Ketcham Nat. Bank v. 6Z Am. Dec. 362; Steinhart v. Fyhrie, Hagen, 164 N. Y. 446, 58 N. E. 523; 5 Mont. 463, 6 Pac. 367. Wells v. Gates, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 7" Drumright V. Philpot, 16 Ga. 424, 554; Johnston v. Bernheim, 86 N. 60 Am. Dec. 738; Edwards v. Dillon, Car. 339; Dickson v. Alexander, 29 147 111. 14, 35 N. E. 135, Z1 Am. St. N. Car. 4; Crary v. Williams, 2 Ohio 199; Kemp v. Miller, 46 111. App. 65; Kenney v. Altvater, 11 Pa. St. 213 ; Janney v. Springer, 78 Iowa 617, 34 ; Venable v. Levick, 2 Head 43 N. W. 461, 16 Am. St. 460 ; Sweet (Tenn.) 351; Hatchett v. Sunset V. Bradley, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 549; Brick &c. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 Erringer v. Miller, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 344. S. W. 174; Rose v. Murchie, 2 Call so Ruffner V. McConnell, 17 111. 212, (Va.) 409; Hudson's Bay Co. v. 63 Am. Dec. 362. Stewart, 6 Manitoba 8. 81 Hoffmaster v. Hodges, 154 Mich. 547 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 445 can rely on the partner's apparent authority.*^ Of course a firm dealing in merchandise can bind the firm by a purchase of such merchandise as the partnership sells in its business/^ even, it has been held, though the copartners oppose the purchase.^* Thus when the firm credit is pledged the firm is bound, or when a part- ner in a livery business buys horses/" or a partner in a firm of contracting carpenters orders lumber to be used by the firm,^^ or a partner purchases supplies for a partnership plantation,^^ or a partner in a butcher business buys cattle,*^ or a member of a firm of general merchants purchases a storehouse and stationery."" So, if the purchase of real estate is within the scope and course of the partnership business the firm may be bound by the con- tract of one partner to buy land,°^ and one partner in a firm engaged in buying and selling lands may purchase an outstand- ing title against their lands,"^ although in one case it was held that a purchase of land by one partner did not bind the firm, be- cause the quantity contracted for was so large as to be outside the course of trade,*^ and in Louisiana a partner in a commercial partnership has no implied power to purchase land for his firm.°* It has been held a partner in a law firm may bind his partner by buying law books reasonably necessary to carry on the busi- ness.°* A partnership will not be bound for a purchase made by 82 Flock V. Williams, 175 111. App. 87 McDonald v. McLeod, 3 Colo. 319; Barton v. Ash (Tex. Civ. App.), App. 344, 32 Pac. 285. 154 S. W. 608. ®^ Lowenberg v. Lewis-Herman Co., 83 Alabama Fertilizer Co. v. Reyn- 94 Miss. 916, 48 So. 517. olds, 79 Ala. 497; Johnson v. Barry, «» McFadden v. Shanley (Ariz.), 95 III. 483; Thompson v. Gosserand, 141 Pac. 732. 131 La. 1056, 60 So. 682 ; Dennistoun so Davis v. Cook, 14 Nev. 265. V. Debuys, 6 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) s^Wormser v. Meyer, 54 How. Pr. 48; Smith &c. Co. v. Schmidt, 142 (N. Y.) 189; Brooke v. Washington, Mich. 1, 105 N. W. 39; J. A. Ruhl 8 Grat. (Va.) 248, 56 Am. Dec. 142. Clothing Co. v. Singleton, 161 Mo. ^^ Grant v. McArthur, 153 Ky. 356, App. 366, 143 S. W. 529; Bond v. 155 S. W. 732. Gibson, 1 Campb. 185. »3 Brooke v. Washington, 8 Grat. 84 Richardson v. Thacher (Tex.), (Va.) 248, 56 Am. Dec. 142. 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App., »* Kemper v. Smith, 3 Mart. (O. § 138. S.) (La.) 622. 8s Chappie V. Davisj 10 Ind. App. ^b Alley v. Bowen-Merrill Co., 76 404, 38 N. E. 355. Ark 4, 88 S. W. 838, 113 Am. St. 73. § 446 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 548 one partner for a strictly private purpose foreign to the partner- ship business, which the seller knew."" Nor has a partner in a firm of commission merchants the implied authority to buy any property.'^ It is without the scope of the firm business when a partner in a seed-growing and selling firm buys flowers, and such purchase from one who knows the firm business does not bind the firm.®* Partners are not liable for purchases by a part- ner without the scope of the business, except by authorization or adoption of his act.®' Where a person dealing with the firm has notice that one partner has refused to be liable for goods purchased by the other partner, the partner giving notice is not bound by a sale to the other partner.^ A partner who buys goods apparently as an individual is alone liable on his contract.^ A partner's misappropriation to his own use of goods purchased within the scope of the firm business, does not relieve the firm from liability,^ nor does his intention to defraud his copartners, where the seller is not aware of it.* § 446. Power to hire or lease property for firm. — A part- ner may hire property for the firm if such transaction falls within 96Gullat V. Tucker, 2 Cranch S. W. 993; Hazard v. Boyd, 4 Mart. (U. S.) 33, Fed. Cas. No. 5866; (N. S.) (La.) 347; Norton v. Vinegar Bend Lumber Co. v. Thatcher, 8 Nebr. 186; Bankhead v. Howard, 186 Ala. 4S1, 65 So. Alloway, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 56; 172; Eady v. Newton Coal &c. Hendricks v. Cameron, 3 Tex. App. Co., 123 Ga. 557, 51 S. E. 661, 1 L. Civ. Cas., § 261. R. A. (N. 5.) 650; Grunerv. Stucken, i Dawson v. Elrod, 105 Ky. 624, 39 La. Ann. 1076, 3 So. 338; Gray 49 S. W. 465, 20 Ky. L. 1436, 88 Am. V. Tiernan, 18 La. 53 ; Riverside Lum- St. 320 ; Monroe v. Conner, 15 Maine ber Co. v. Lee, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 522, 178, 32 Am. Dec. 148; Sladen v. 27 S. W. 161 ; McBain v. Austin, 16 Lance, 151 N. Car. 492, 66 S. E. 449. Wis. 87, 82 Am. Dec. 705. 2 Bannister v. Miller, 54 N. J. Eq. 97 Alabama Fertilizer Co. v. Reyn- 121, 32 Atl. 1066; Heckert v. Fegely, olds, 85 Ala. 19, 4 So. 639. 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 139; Holmes v. 98 Sargent v. Henderson, 79 Ga. Burton, 9 Vt. 252, 31 Am. Dec. 621 ; 268, 5 S. E. 122. Emly v. Lye, 15 East 1. 99 Alabama Fertilizer Co. v. Reyn- ^ Bond v. Gibson, 1 Campb. 185. olds, 85 Ala. 19, 4 So. 639 ; Sutton v. * Clark v. Johnson, 90 Pa. St. 442 ; Weber, 127 Iowa 361, 101 N. W. 775; Kenney v. Altvater, 17 Pa. St. 34; Hyslop V. Johnson, 30 Ky. L. 379, 98 Carver v. Dows, 40 111. 374. 549 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 447 the scope of the firm business/ As regards the lease under seal to others by one partner in the name of the firm of real property of the firm his copartners are not bound and their interest in the leased property does not pass, unless they authorized or rati- fied the contract.® Nor can one partner surrender a lease on firm property without consulting his copartner, if the latter is rea- sonably accessible/ As a general rule one partner in a firm can not take a new lease, or a renewal of an existing one of the firm, in his own name or for his own benefit, and if he at- tempts to do so it inures to the benefit of the firm/ § 447. Power to insure firm property. — One partner has implied power to make a contract for the insurance of firm property which will bind the firm/ He also has power to con- sent to the surrender and cancelation of a policy,^" and to make a settlement with the insurers in case of loss/^ 5 Stillman v. Harvey, 47 Conn. 26; Marks v. Chumos, 82 Kans. 562; 109 Pac. 397 ; Penn v. Kearny, 21 La. Ann. 21; Reynolds v. Swain, 13 La. 193; Bodey v. Cooper, 82 Md. 625, 34 Atl. 362; Koch v. Endriss, 97 Mich. 444, 56 N. W. 847; Webb v. Parks, 85 App. Div. 621, 83 N. Y. S. 66; Sweet V. Wood, 18 R. I. 386, 28 Atl. 335; Rhodius v. Storey, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 336; Seaman v. Ascher- man, 57 Wis. 547, IS N. W. 788; Sharp V. Milligan, 22 Beav. 606. « Springer v. Simpson, 175 111. App. 631; Dillon v. Brown, 11 Gray (Mass.) 179, 71 Am. Dec. 700. 7 Bergland v. Frawley, 72 Wis. 559, 40 N. W. 372. 8 Sneed v. Deal, 53 Ark. 152, 13 S. W. 703; Knapp v. Reed, 88 Nebr, 754, 130 N. W. 430, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 869n, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 1095n; Speiss v. Rosswog, 96 N. Y. 651; Mitchell V. Reed, 61 N. Y. 123, 19 Am. Rep. 252; Struthers v. Pearce, 51 N. Y. 357; Betts v. June, 51 N. Y. 274; Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 12 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 116; In re Johnson's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 129, 8 Atl. 36, 2 Am. St. 539; Lacy v. Hall, 37 Pa. St. 360; Clegg v. Edmondson, 22 Beav. 125, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 824; Clegg V. Fishwick, 1 Macn. & G. 294, 1 Hall & Tw. 390, 19 L. J. Ch. 49, 13 Jur. 993; Featherstonhaugh v. Fenwick, 17 Ves. 298, 11 Rev. Rep. TJ ; Alder v. Fouracre, 3 Swanst. 489, 19 Rev. Rep. 256; Clements v. Hall, 2 DeG. & J. 173; Hawkins v. Haw- kins, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1044. See Keech v. Sandford, 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. in Eq. 44. However, if the lease is owned by one of the partners solely to the exclusion of the firm he may re- new for his benefit. Phillips v. Reed- er, 18 N. J. Eq. 95. 8 Hooper v. Lusby, 4 Camp. 66. 10 Hillock V. Traders Ins. Co., 54 Mich, 531, 20 N. W. 571. 11 Brown v. Hartford Ins. Co., 117 Mass. 479. § 448 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 550 § 448. Power to appoint agents. — So far as a partner has the power to contract and bind the firm, he has power to ap- point agents to carry on firm business. He is as to the firm both a principal and a general agent, and hence all members of the firm are bound by his appointment of an agent.^^ Thus, where a general partner has authority to execute a note in the firm name to obtain money for use in the partnership business, he may delegate to a clerk or agent such power.^* Agents thus ap- pointed are not merely agents of the appointing partner, but are agents of the firm, acting for all of its members and subject as much to the control of one partner as of another,^* and all are liable to him for compensation for his services.^^ All the part- ners are liable for .the consequences of his acts, even where they did not know that he was employed by the firm.^° But in min- ing partnerships the appointment of an agent by one partner does not make him the agent of all for the reason that each partner in such a partnership is not an agent of the others and the firm.^^ A partnership may ratify the acts of its agents not ultra vires in character.^^ 12 Burgan v. Lyell, 2 Mich. 102, 55 v. Somers, 117 Mass. 55 ; Bodwell v. Am. Dec. 53. See Banner Tobacco Eastman, 106 Mass. 525 ; Moist's Ap- Co. V. Jenison, 48 Mich. 459, 12 N. peal, 74 Pa. St. 166; Carley v. Jen- W. 655 ; Paton v. Baker, 62 Iowa kins, 46 Vt. 721 ; Beckham v. Drake, 9 704, 15 N. W. 586; Bond Realty Co. M. & W. 79. V. Pounds, 128 App. Div. 91, 112 N. " Lucas v. Bank of Darien, 2 Stew. Y. S. 433; TilHer v. Whitehead, 1 (Ala.) 280; Ziegenheim v. Smith, 116 Dall. (Pa.) 269, 1 L. ed. 131. 111. App. 80; Harvey v. McAdams, 32 i3Inman v. Brookman, 28 S. Dak. Mich. 472. 361, 133 N. W. 810. See also Lucas " Charles v. Eshleman, S Colo. 107. V. Bank of Darien, 2 Stew. (Ala.) ^^ Forbes v. Hagman, 75 Va. 168. 280; Evans v. Evans, 82 Iowa 492, See also Chouteau v. Goddin, 39 Mo. 48 N. W. 929; Tillier v. Whitehead, 229, 90 Am. Dec. 462; Baldwin v. 1 Dall (Pa.) 269, 1 L. ed. 131. Leonard, 39 Vt. 260, 94 Am. Dec. 1* Johnston v. Brown, 18 La. Ann. 324. In Louisiana it is held that the 330; Ayer v. Ayer, 41 Vt. 302. See receiver of a partnership appointed also Wheatley v. Tutt, 4 Kans. 240. by consent of the partners pending a In Rex V. Leech, 3 Stark. 70, the serv- suit for dissolution is the agent of ant of a partnership is held the serv- the partners and not an officer of ant of each partner. the court. Kellar v. Williams, 3 Rob. isBartlett v. Powell, 90 111. 331; (La.) 32L Froun v. Davis, 97 Ind. 401; Durgin 551 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 449 § 449. Power to employ servants. — One partner may or- dinarily bind his firm by a contract with another for services to be rendered by the latter in behalf and for the benefit of the partnership as a whole, especially if such act of employment is done in the ordinary course of the business/® Thus, a person may be employed to examine the books of a firm which has sold miost of its property but not dissolved.^" The firm is bound when the other partners by their conduct allow the person em- ployed to assume that the contract is that of the firm, or when they have actually assented to it,^^ and the servant thus employed is the servant of the firm, not of the partner who employed him.^^ Moreover it has been held that not only in general, but in par- ticular partnerships as well, each member is the agent of the firm and may bind it by his contracts in everything necessary to carry on its business, and in everything within the apparent scope thereof. Thus where partners for the construction of a school building employ a tradesman to do the plastering accord- ing to the plans of the architect and before the completion of the building one of the partners engages such tradesman to do addi- tional plastering made necessary by the installation of the heating and ventilating apparatus, the last contract is within the appar- " Woodruff V. Scaife, 83 Ala. 152, Coons v. Renick, 11 Tex. 134, 60 Am. 3 So. 311; Lichenstein v. Murphree, Dec. 230; Carley v. Jenkins, 46 Vt. 9 Ala. App. 108, 62 So. 444; Froun 721; Hills v. Bailey, 27 Vt. 548; For- V. Davis, 91 Ind. 401 ; Hoffman v. tis v. Hermanos, 6 Philippine 100. Toll, 2 Ind. App. 287, 28 N. E. 557; Compare Briggs v. Smith, 4 Daly (N. Boyd V. Watson, 101 Iowa 214, 70 Y.) 110 ; Palliser v. Erhardt, 46 App. N. W. 120; Mattingly v. Moore, 17 Div. (N. Y.) 222, 61 N. Y. S. 191. Ky. L. 220, 30 S. W. 870; Willard ^oReirden v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. V. Wright, 203 Mass. 406, 89 N. E. 430, 89 Atl. 465. 559; Durgin v. Somers, 117 Mass. ^^G^cnntx v. Stucken, 39 La. Ann. 55; Bodwell v. Eastman, 106 Mass. 1076, 3 So. 338; Banner Tobacco Co. 525; Burgan v. Lyell, 2 Mich. 102, v. Jenison, 48 Mich. 459, 12 N. W. 55 Am. Dec. 53 ; Cashman v. Lawson, 655 ; Brewer v. Wright, 25 Nebr. 305, 175 N. Y. 488, Q N. E. 1081 ; Mead 41 N. W. 159. V. Shepard, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 474; ^^Munroe v. Judson, 82 Hun 215, Burns v. Rowland, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 31 N. Y. S. 299, 63 N. Y. St. 748; 368 ; Bank of North America V. Ems- Wiley v. Logan, 95 N. Car. 358;. bury, ZZ Barb. (N. Y.) 323; Rice v. Hills v, Bailey, 27 Vt. 548. Jackson, 171 Pa. St. 89, 32 Atl. 1036; § 449 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 552 ent scope ot the partnership business and recovery may be had thereon as against the firm notwithstanding the fact that, as between the partners themselves, the one entering into such con- tract was not authorized to act for the firm.°* So, too, it has been held that where a partnership is composed of three mar- ried women and each of the three gives a power of attorney to her husband to transact the business for her, and the conduct of such business is then apportioned among the husbands, each of the latter is the agent of the firm as such and not alone of his own wife.^* Again, it has been held that the employment by one partner of an attorney to defend a suit against the partner- ship does not preclude another member of the firm who feels in- secure in the matter from binding his associates by a contract with a second attorney to assist in the defense.^^ But where a partnership has been formed to carry on the business of farming - or planting it seems that no one of the partners has the implied authority, as a matter of law, under ordinary circumstances at least, to bind the firm for medicine and medical supplies furnished by a practicing physician to the laborers employed on the farm or plantation. ^° Again when it is manifest that the contract was not executed in good faith, the partnership will not be liable thereon especially when a contrary holding would prejudice its bona-fide creditors,^' So also where one partner agrees to fur- nish the money-capital and the other the labor, the latter will not bind the firm by his employment of another, with knowledge, to render services for the use and benefit of the partnership.^" Moreover, it has been held that a partnership will not be liable to an employe, engaged by it at a stipulated price, for additional compensation guaranteed to him after he has rendered his re- quired services by one of the partners who has not received 23 Hoffman y. Toll, 2 Ind. App. 26 Woodruff v. Scaife, 83 Ala. 152, 287, 28 N. E. 557. 3 So. 311. 2iMunroe v. Judson, 82 Hun 215, 27 Beste v. His Creditors, 15 La. 31 N. Y. S. 299, 63 N. Y. St. 748. Ann. 55. 25 Appeal of Messinger,' 43 Leg. Int. so Pollock v. Williams, 42 Miss. 88. (Pa.) 101. See also Wheatley v. See also Dooner v. Haws, 21 Mjsc. Tutt, 4 Kans. 240. 639, 47 N. Y. S. 1112; Connell v. 553 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 450 . the consent of his associates thus to do.°^ A partner has no right as between himself and his partners, to employ servants when there is an agreement denying this right, yet such a contract of employment would be binding on the partnership as to the rights of the employe thereunder, provided he had no knowledge of the restriction upon the partner/^ If the servant knows that the employment is by the partner personally to perform services such partner owes the firm, he can not hold the firm." From the fact that the employment is not in the ordinary course of business, the employe may be held to knowledge that the part- ner was not authorized to make himi the servant of the firm.°* § 450. Power to collect and pay debts. — There is no right and power of a partner better or more universally recognized than the right to collect and pay debts for the firm. The right is strengthened by the peculiar rules of partnership law as to the liability of each partner for firm debts. As to payment of debts, each partner can be compelled by the creditor to pay the claim, whether he wishes to or not, and can by means of the well-known principle of contribution, which is discussed elsewhere herein, compel the other partners to pay their proportion. This rule has been held applicable where a partner pays firm debts by the use of his individual property, since by such transfer the firm debt is ex- tinguished.^® This is not a fraud on the partner's separate cred- itors.^* And each partner, since he has the right to have firm Alexander, 21 Misc. 644, 47 N. Y. S. Jarman v. Ellis, 52 N. Car. 11; Ty- 1115. son V. Pollock, 1 Penn. & W. (Pa.) 51 Conn V. Conn, 22 Ore. 452, 30 375; Sprague v. Ainsworth, 40 Vt. Pac. 230. Compare Carley v. Jen- 47; Watson v. Woodman, L. R. 20 kins, 46 Vt. 721. Eq. 721; Innes v. Stephenson, 1 M. 52Burgan v. Lyell, 2 Mich. 102, SS & Rob. 145. And see Schmidt v. Am. Dec. S3 (1851). Fouchcr, 38 La. Ann. 93; Bradbury ssPollockv. Williams, 42 Miss. 88; v. Barnes, 19 Cal. 120; Booth v. Briggs V. Smith, 4 Daly (N. Y.) 110; Farmers' &c. Nat. Bank, 74 N. Y. Conn V. Conn, 22 Ore. 452, 30 Pac. 228. Compare also Barker v. Blake, 230. 11 Mass. 16. 54Beste V. His Creditors, 15 La. =« Gallagher's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. Ann. 55. 353, 7 Atl. 237, 60 Am. Rep. 350, 4 == Cannon v. Wildman, 28 Conn. Sad. 297. 472; Osborn v. Osborn, 36 Mich. 48; § 450 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 554 property applied to the payment of its debts, may pay firm debts by transferring firm property."'' If the same person is a creditor of the partnership and also of one of its individual partners, payments by the latter out of partnership funds must be applied to the partnership debt,'* unless the other partners consent to its application to the partner's debt.°^ But if a part- ner pays his own individual money to a creditor who is also a creditor of the partnership the money must first be applied to his individual debt, unless he agrees to its application on the firm debt.^" As to the collection of accounts outstanding, it is. a recognized rule that it is within the scope of a partner's au- thority to accept payments of firm claims, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary,^^ and a creditor may, as a general " Ullman v. Myrick, 93 Ala. 532, so Gass v. Stinson, 3 Sumn. (U. S.) 8 So. 410; Bernheim v. Porter, 65 98, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5262; Lewis v. Cal. xix, 4 Pac. 446 (1884); Ran- Pease, 85 111. 31; Flarsheim v. Brest- dolph Bank v. Armstrong, 11 Iowa rup, 43 Minn. 298, 45 N. W. 438; Ba- 515; Murrell v. Murrell, 33 La. Ann. ker v. Stackpoole, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 420, 1233; Hodges v. Harris, 6 Pick. 18 Am. Dec. 508; Lee v. Larkin, 125 (Mass.) 360; Waite v. Vinson, 14 App. Div. 302, 109 N. Y. S. 480; Mont. 405, 36 Pac. 828; Schneider v. Miles v. Ogden, 54 Wis. 573, 12 N. 'Schmidt, 82 N. J. Eq. 81, 88 Atl. W. 81. 179; Egberts v. Wood, 3 Paige (N. " Mosby v. United States, 194 Fed. Y.) 517, 24 Am. Dec. 236; Wenham 346; Little v. Britton (Ala.), 66 So. V. Campbell, 4 Ohio Dec. 122, 1 Clev. 694; Noyes v. New Haven &c. R. Co., Law. Rep. 47; Dubois' Appeal, 38 Pa. 30 Conn. 1; Heartt v. Walsh, 75 111. St. 231, 80 Am. Dec. 478; Barnet v. 200; Gregg v. James, 1 111. 143, 12 Am. Houston, 18 Tex, Civ. App. 134, 44 Dec. 151; Yandes v. Lefavour, 2 S. W. 689. See § 444, on selling firm Blackf. (Ind.) 371 ; Chase v. Buhl property. Iron-works, 55 Mich. 139, 20 N. W. =8 Downing v. Linville, 3 Bush 827; Vanderburgh v. Bassett, 4 Minn. (Ky.) 472; Campbell v. Mathews, 6 242; Chapin v. Clenitson, 1 Barb. (N. Wend. (N. Y.) 551 ; Nottidge v. Y.) 311 ; Shepard v. Ward, 8 Wend. Prichard, 8 Bligh 493; Thompson v. (N. Y.) 542; McKee v. Stroup, Rice Brown, M. & M. 40. (S. Car.) 291; Allen v. Farrington, s^Farris v. Morrison, 66 Ark. 318, 2 Sneed. (Tenn.) 526; Scott v. Trent, 50 S. W. 693; Davis v. Smith, 27 1 Wash. (Va.) 77; Brasier v. Hud- Minn. 390, 7 N. W. 731 ; Cornells v. son, 9 Sim. 1 ; Collins v. Collins, 26 Stanhope, 14 R. I. 97; Wiesenfeld Ky. L. 1037, 83 S. W. 99; People v. V. Byrd, 17 S. Car. 106; Rogers v. Devlin, 63 Misc. 363, 118 N. Y. S. Betterton, 93 Tenn. 630, 27 S. W. 478; Salmon v. Davis, 4 Bin. (Pa.) 1017. 375, 5 Am. Dec. 410. 555 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 451 rule, rely on a payment made to a partner/^ unless he has no- tice that the partner is not authorized to receive payments."^ Likewise if the same person is debtor to the firm and to an indi- vidual partner payments by him to a partner should first be ap- plied to the discharge of the debt to the firm."* § 451. Power to make releases, settle and compromise. — - A partner also has power to give receipts for payments and releases of debts,"° which, if fraudulent, may be impeached by the firm."" Thus, one partner of a firm may sign a deed of com- position and release a debt due the firm." But a release in his own name of a partnership debt binds the firm."^ He has the power to receive negotiable paper, or in some instances, goods which may be used in the firm business in payment of debts."' A copartner may be bound by fraud of his copartner in obtaining a release of a mechanic's lien.''" A partner also has power to settle and compromise disputed claims of the firm or against it without the knowledge and participation of the other partners if he acts reasonably and in good faith," and, in the absence 62 Mosby V. United States, 194 Fed. Evans, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 251 ; Eisen- 346. hart v. Slaymaker, 14 Serg. & R. 63 Clark V. Lauman, 63 111. App. (Pa.) 153. 132. 68 Brown v. Laurence, 5 Conn. 397 ; 6* Eaton V. Whitcomb, 17 Vt. 641 ; White v. Jones, 14 La. Ann. 681. Scott V. Trent, IWash. (Va.) 11. 69 Heartt v. Walsh, 75 111. 200; Lee 65 Dyer v. Sutherland, 75 111. 583 ; v. Hamilton, 12 Tex. 413 ; Tomlin v. Gordon v. Freeman, 11 111. 14; Emer- Lawrence, 3 Moore & P. 555. soa V. Knower, 8 Pick. (Mass.) (iZ; '»Tuttle v. Harris (N. J.Eq.), 92 Salmon v. Davis, 4 Bin. (Pa.) 375, S Atl. 596. Am. Dec. 410 ; Henderson v. Wild, ^i Beltzhoover v. Stockton, 4 Cranch Camp. 561. (U. S.) 695 , Fed. Cas. No. 1283 ; Mor- 66 Gordon v. Albert, 168 Mass. 150, timore v. Atkins, 98 Ark. 183, 135 S. 46 N. E. 423. W. 865 ; Nicklase v. Griffith, 59 Ark. ST Myrick v. Dame, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 641, 26 S. W. 381 ; Greek American 248; Morse v. Bellows, 7 N. H. 549, Produce Co. v. Pappas, 9 Ala. App. 28 Am. Dec. 372; Kimball v. Wilson, 311, 63 So. 799; Hawn v. Seventy-six 3 N. H. 96, 14 Am. Dec. 342 ; Bruen Land &c. Co., 74 Cal. 418, 16 Pac. V. Marquand, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 58; 196; Cannon v. Wildman, 28 Conn. Fitch V. Forman, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 472; Dyer v. Sutherland, 75 111. 583; 172; Pierson v. Hooker, 3 Johns. (N. Leafgreen v. Telford, 169 111. App. Y.) 68, 3 Am. Dec. 467; Wells v. 582; Yandes v. Lefavour, 2 Blackf. § 452 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP SS6 of fraud, such settlement is binding on the other partners.''^ Members of a firm may be bound by a compromise of a firm debt by which they accept less than the amount actually due them.'^ § 452. Power to alter contracts, — The power of a partner to alter or rescind a contract of the firm is usually measured by his authority to have made such a contract in its inception. If he can bind the firm by executing for it an original contract of the same character, then he can rescind or alter a firm contract al- ready made.'* The attempted alteration or rescission of a firm contract by a partner, in the exercise of a power not ordinarily incident to the conduct of the partnership business, does not bind the firm unless assented to or authorized by the copartners.'^ § 453. Power to make acknowledgment or affidavit. — Where one partner has the power in law to bind the firm by his execution of an instrument, his acknowledgment of such instru- ment if executed by him is sufficient, also if the other partners have given him authority to execute and acknowledge an instru- ment, his acknowledgment is sufficient.'® If all have executed (Ind.) 371; Holderman v. Tedford, ^a South Fork Canal Co. v. Gor- 7 Kans. App. 657, S3 Pac. 887; Collins don, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 561, 18 L. ed. V. Collins, 26 Ky. L. 1037, 83 S. W. 894; Busby v. Rooks, 72 Ark. 657, 99; Walker v. Yellow Poplar Lumber 81 S. W. 1056; Adams v. Long, 114 Co, 18 Ky. L. 1(>, 35 S. W. 272; 111. App. 277; People v. Devlin, 63 White V. Jones, 14 La. Ann. 681; Misc. 363, 118 N. Y. S. 478; Storrie Smith V. Stone, 4 Gill & Johns. (Md.) v. Ft. Worth Stockyards Co. (Tex. 310; Emerson v. Knower, 8 Pick. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 286; Farrar v. (Mass.) 63; Cook v. Blake, 98 Mich. Hutchinson, 9 A. & E. 641. 389, 57 N. W. 249; Anable v. McDon- '^s Storrie v. Ft. Worth Stockyards aid Land & Min. Co., 144 Mo. App. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 286. 303, 128 S. W. 38; Allen v. Cheever, '* Shellito v. Sampson, 61 Iowa 40, 61 N. H. 32; Pierson v. Hooker, 3 15 N. W. 572; Harper v. McKinnis, Johns. (N. Y.) 68, 3 Am. Dec. 467; SZ Ohio St. 434, 42 N. E. 251. Gates V. Pollock, 50 N. Car. 344; De "Jones v. Anderson, 76 Ala. 427; Haven v. Coup, 5 Ohio Dec. 562, 6 Aultman &c. Co. v. Shelton, 90 Iowa Am. L. Rec. 593 ; Salmon v. Davis, 4 288, 57 N. W. 857 ; Custard v. Bin. (Pa.) 375, 5 Am. Dec. 410; Stout Hodges, 155 Mich. 361, 119 N. W. v. Ennis Nat. Bank, 69' Tex. 384, 8 583. S. W. 808; Henderson v. Wild, 2 ^e McCoy v. Boley, 21 Fla. 803; Campb. 561. Citizens* Nat. Bank v. Johnson, 79 557 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 454 the instrument, it seems all must acknowledge iV Where ex- press authority from the copartners is necessary before one partner can execute a contract, then acknowledgment by one partner of such a contract is prima facie insufficient and evi- dence of authority or ratification must be shown.'^ It is not necessary that the name of the partner acknowledging should appear in the firm name, if it is shown from the acknowledg- ment that the partner acknowledged it for the firm whose con- tract it appeared to be.'' But an acknowledgment in the firm name not stating what member of the firm acknowledged it is insufficient.^" A partner has power on behalf of the firm to make affidavits required in certain actions.*^ § 454. Power to make contract of guaranty or suretyship, or bond.-^The making of a contract of guaranty or surety- ship is so far outside the scope of an ordinary partnership busi- ness that undoubtedly one partner can have no power to make , such a contract as the agent of the firm. The purpose of a part- nership is to engage in business for profit and this precludes the idea of guaranteeing the performance of other persons' con- tracts or the payment of their debts. Hence there is no implied power of one partner to bind the firm to a contract of guaranty or suretyship.^^ As a general rule, one member of a partnership Iowa 290, 44 N. W. SSI; Klumpp v. Shirley v. Fearne, 33 Miss. 653, 69 Gardner, 114 N. Y. 153, 21 N. E. 99; Am. Dec. 375. McCuUoch County Land &c. Co. v. . ''« Keck v. Fisher, 58 Mo. 532. Whiteford, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 314, SO s" Hughes v. Morris, 110 Mo. 306, S. W. 1042; Leon & H. Blum Land 19 S. W. 481; Sloan v. Owens &c. Co. V. Dunlap, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 315, Mach. Co., 70 Mo. 206. Contra : Bar- 23 S. W. 473. See also Malloye v, row v. Conlee, 89 111. App. 625. Coubrough, 96 Cal. 649, 31 Pac. 622 ; si Standard Carbonating & Supply Hanson v. Metcalf, 46 Minn. 25, 48 Co. v. Capital City Guards, 99 Ga. N. W. 441; Keck v. Fisher, 58 Mo. 265, 25 S. E. 670; Reed v. Carlson, 532; National Bank v. Scriven, 63 89 Minn. 417, 95 N. W. 303; Hamp- Hun 375, 18 N. Y. S. 277, ton v. Bogan, 55 S. Car. 547, 33 S. E. 77 Sanders v. Pepoon, 4 Fla. 465. S81. 78 Tinnin v. Brown, 98 Miss. 378, 53 ^2 Burke v. Mountain Timber Co., So. 780, Ann. Cas. 1913 A, 1081 and 224 Fed. 591 ; Mauldin v. Mobile note ; Walton v. Tusten, 49 Miss. 569 ; Branch Bank, 2 Ala. 502 ; Lewin v. § 454 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 558 has no right to lend the credit of the firm to a stranger, unless it is done in the course of the firm's business.^^ If it can be shown that such a contract is an incident in .the usual course of business of the firm, as a banking firm,^* or to the previous course of dealing between the parties,^^ or was actually authorized by the other partners,^^ or that they ratified it,^^ then the firm may be held on such contract. Even if the firm is interested in a transaction it has been held that one partner does not have authority to bind it by guaranteeing negotiable paper of a third person, unless it was necessary to carry on the firm business in the usual way.*^ Authorization or ratification must be un- equivocally proved and will not be presumed.*' It is not neces- Barry, IS Colo. App. 461, 63 Pac. 121 ; Mayberry v. Bainton, 2 Harr. (Del.) 24; Hollister v. Bluthenthal, 9 Ga. App. 176, 70 S. E. 970 ; Seeberger V. Wyman, 108 Iowa 527, 79 N. W. 290; McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. V. Reiner, 4 Kans. App. 725, 46 Pac. 539; Rollins v. Stevens, 31 Maine 454; Sweetser v. French, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 309, 48 Am. Dec. 666; Osborne v. Thompson, 35 Minn. 229, 28 N. W. 260; Persons v. Oldfield, 101 Miss. 110, 57 So. 417; Vaiden v. Hawkins (Miss.), 6 So. 227 (1889) ; Seufert v. Gille, 230 Mo. 453, 131 S. W. 102, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 471n; Kelley-Goodfellow Shoe Co. v. Long- Bell Lumber Co., 86 Mo. App. 438; Boyd v. Plumb, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 309; Charman v. McLane, 1 Ore. 339; Sutton v. Irwine, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 13; Olive v. Morgan, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 654, 28 S. W. 572; Gordon v. Funkhouser, 100 Va. 675, 42 S. E. an-, Avery v. Rowell, 59 Wis. 82, 17 N. W. 875; Duncan v. Lowndes, 3 Campb. 478 ; Marks v. Wright, 1 N. Brunsw. 174. 83 Osborne v. Thompson, 35 Minn. 229, 28 N. W. 260; Avery v. Rowell, S9 Wis. 82, 17 N. W. 875. 8* First Nat. Bank of Pipestone v. Rowley, 92 Iowa 530, 61 N. W. 195; First Nat. Bank v. Carpenter, 41 Iowa 518; McNeal v. Gossard, 6 Okla. 363, 50 Pac. 159. *^ Sweetser v. French, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 309, 48 Am. Dec. 666; Cam- eran v. Blackman, 39 Mich. 108. See also Sutton v. Irwine, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 13; Jordan v. Miller, 75 Va. 442; Day v. McLeod, 18 U. C. Q., B. 256. 8^ Cunningham v. Lamar, 51 Ga. 574; Mechanics' Bank v. Livingston, Z7> Barb. (N. Y.) 458; Boyd v. Plumb, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 309. s'' Seeberger v. Wyman, 108 Iowa 527, 79 N. W. 290; Clark v. Hyman, 55 Iowa 14, 7 N. W. 386, 39 Am. Rep. 160; Sutton v. Irwine, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 13. 88 Clarke v. Wallace, 1 N. Dak. 404, 48 N, W. 339, 26 Am. St. 636. MMoran v. Prather, 23 Wall. 492, 23 L. ed. 121 ; Marsh v. Thompson Nat. Bank, 2 111. App. 217; Love v. Payne, 73 Ind. 80, 38 Am. Rep. Ill; Kelley-Goodfellow Shoe Co. v. Long- Bell Lumber Co., 86 Mo. App. 438; Pinckney v. Keyler, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 469; Mercein v. Andrus, 10 559 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 454 sary, however, that the authorization or ratification be express ; it may be implied/" The partner making an unauthorized guar- anty contract in the firm name is bound thereby."^ Indorsing or accepting negotiable paper as an accommodation to another is but a modified form of suretyship, and therefore the rule applies that one partner has no implied power to bind the firm by such an act,®^ But, like most acts of a partner outside of his au- thority, an accommodation indorsement of the firm name by him may be authorized or ratified."^ The Hability of the mem- bers of a partnership as an accommodation indorser is joint, not several.®* If there is nothing on the face of the paper to show that the partnership is an accommodation indorser, it is liable to an innocent third purchaser for value.*^ But even this rule may be qualified by the nature and usages of the partnership business."^ As a rule a partner can not bind the firm by executing a bond,®'^ Wend. (N. Y.) 461 ; McGuire v. Blan- ton, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 361. so Clark v. Hyman, 55 Iowa 14, 7 N. W. 386, 39 Am. Rep. 160 ; Bloom V. Stern, 23 La. Ann. 747; Sweetser V. French, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 309, 48 Am. Dec. 666. siGunderson v. Hasterlik, 100 III. App. 429; Boyd v. Plumb, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 309. S2 Ft. Madison Bank v. Alden, 129 U. S. 372, 32 L. ed. 725, 9 Sup. Ct. 332; Lang v. Waring, 17 Ala. 145; New York Firemen Ins. Co. v. Ben- nett, 5 Conn. 574, 13 Am. Dec. 109; Presbrey- v. Thomas, 1 App. D. C. 171; American Exchange Nat. Bank V. Georgia Constr. &c. Co., 87 Ga. 651, 13 S. E. 505; Whitmore v. Ad- ams, 17 Iowa 567; Chenowith v. Chamberlin, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 60, 43 Am. Dec. 145; Darling v. March, 22 Maine 184; Heffron v. Hanaford, 40 Mich. 305; Andrews v. Planters' Bank, 7 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 192, 45 Am. Dec. 300; Smith v. Weston, 159 N. Y. 194, 54 N. E. 38; Wilson v. Williams, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 146, 28 Am. Dec. 518; Bowman v. Cecil Bank, 3 Grant (Pa.) 33; Bank of Tennessee V. Saffarrans, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 597. s^ Steuben County Bank v. Al- burger, 101 N. Y. 202, 4 N. E. 341; Baldwin's Bank v. Morris, 63 Hun 625, 17 N. Y. S. 286, 42 N. Y. St. 585 ; Trullinger v. Corcoran, 81 Pa. St. 395; Flemming v. Prescott, 3 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 307, 45 Am. Dec. 766. 8* Clipperton v. Spettigue, 15 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 269. 95 Reed v. Bacon, 175 Mass. 407, 56 N. E. 716; Catskill Bank v. Stall, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 364; Hawes v. Dunton, 1 Bailey L. (S. Car.) 146, 19 Am. Dec. 663. ssPooley v. Wliitmore, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 629, 27 Am. Rep. 733. »'■ Russell V. Annable, 109 Mass. 72, 12 Am. Rep. 665 ; Smith v. Tupper, 4 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 261, 43 Am. Dec. 483; Wharton v. Woodburn, 20 § 455 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 560 unless by the authorization or consent of the other partners,®* and as a rule only the individual obligor is bound.°* But he may have a right of contribution against the other partners.'' And some cases hold that a partner has the power to bind the^firm by ex- ecuting bonds of a certain character,^ and others hold that equitable relief may be had, where ground is shown.^ § 455. Power to pay individual debts with firm assets. — It is a well established rule of law that individual debts of a partner can not be paid out of partnership funds or with part- nership property as between the partners themselves, without their consent.* There is no liability of a partnership for the debts N. Car. 647; Hart v. Withers, 1 Penn. & W. (Pa.) 285, 21 Am. Dec. 382. 98 United States v. Astley, 3 Wash. (U.S.) S08,'Fed.Cas. No. 14472; Jef- freys V. Coleman, 20 Fla. 536; Gwinn V. Rooker, 24 Mo. 290; Kasson v. Brocker, 47 Wis. 79, 1 N. W. 418. 99 Armstrong v. Robinson, 5 Gill'& J. (Md.) 412; Dickinson v. Legare, 1 Desaus. (S. Car.) 537. 1 Green v. Walker, 5 Del. Ch. 26; Durant v. Rogers, 71 III. 121; 87 111. 508. 2 Wallis V. Wallace, 6 How. (Miss.) 254; Walker v. Dickerson, 3 N. Car. 23; GroUman v. Lipitz, 43 S. Car. 329, 21 S. E. 272. s Gait's Exrs. v. Calland's Exr., 7 Leigh (Va.) 594. * Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 221, 9 L. ed. 1063; Cannon v. Lindsey, 85 Ala. 198, 3 So. 676, 7 Am. St. 38; Nail v. Mclntyre, 31 Ala. 532; Pierce v. Pass, 1 Port. (Ala.) 232; Gossett v. Morrow, 4 Ala. App. 306, 58 So. 799; FiUey v. Phelps, 18 Conn. 294; Yale v. Yale, 13 Conn. 185, 33 Am. Dec. 393 ; Claf- lin V. Ambrose, 37 Fla. 78, 19 So. 628; McGhees v. McCutchen, 82 Ga. 788, 9 S. E. 785; Jacksonville Nat. Bank v. Mapes, 85 111. 67; Janney v. Springer, 78 Iowa 617, 43 N. W. 461, 16 Am. St. 460 ; Brewster v. Reel, 74 Iowa 506, 38 N. W. 381 ; Jackson v. Holloway, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 133; Cadwallader v. Kroesen, 22 Md. 200; Grover v. Smith, 165 Mass. 132,' 42 N. E. 555, 52 Am. St. 506; Brickett V. Downs, 163 Mass. 70, 39 N. E. 116; Kingsbury v. Tharp, 61 Mich. 216, 28 N. W. 74; Hinds v. Backus, 45 Minn. 170, 47 N. W. 655; Stegall V. Coney, 49 Miss. 761 ; Blake v. Third Nat. Bank, 219 Mo. 644, 118 S. W. 641 ; Forney v. Adams, 74 Mo. 138; Caldwell v. Scott, 54 N. H. 414; Matlack V. James, 13 N. J. Eq. 126; Concord Const. Co. v. Plante, 137 App. Div. 243, 121 N. Y. S. 1026; Broaddus v. Evans, 63 N. Car. 633; Caldwell Banking &c. Co. v. Porter, 52 Ore. 318, 95 Pac. 1, 97 Pac. 541 ; Leonard v. Winslow, 2 Grant (Pa.) 139 ; Daugherty v. Hajmes (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 692 (1894) ; Hub- bard V. Moore, 67 Vt. 532, 32 Atl. 465; Viles v. Bangs, 36 Wis. 131; Assong V. Shoughing, 1 Hawaii 186. 561 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT I 455 of its individual members.^ Nor has a partner the right to pledge firm credit for his individual debts.'' But assent of the other members of the firm to the payment by one partner of individual debts with firm property may be shown or ratifica- tion of such act and the firm thus bound/ or it may be shown that their conduct has been such that they are estopped to deny the partner's authority.® If the other partners have not assented to or ratified the act of a partner in applying firm property to the payment of his individual debt and if they are not estopped, then such transfer does not pass their rights, and it does not matter that the debtor does not know that he was receiving part- nership property in satisfaction of his debt." Mr. Justice Story said in one of his opinions : "The implied authority of each partner to dispose of the partnership funds strictly and rightfully extends only to the business and transac- tions of the partnership itself, and any disposition of those funds by any partner beyond such purposes is an excess of his authority as partner, and a misappropriation of those funds, for which BFiUey V. Phelps, 18 Conn. 294; Brobston v. Penniman, 97 Ga. 527, 25 S. E, 350; Union Mut. &c. Co. v. Doherty, 20 Misc. 23, 44 N. Y. S. 781. 6 Cumner v. Butler, 45 Maine 434 ; Huttig Sash &c. Co. v. McMahon, 81 Mo. App. 440; Brown v. Pettit, 178 Pa. St. 17, 35 Atl. 865, 34 L. R. A. 723, 56 Am. St. 742; Ramey v. Mc- Bride, 4 Strob. (S. Car.) 12; Jones' Case, 1 Overt. (Tenn.) 455. ^Janney v. Springer, 78 Iowa 617, 43 N. W. 461, 16 Am. St. 460; Mitchell V. Whaley, 29 Ky. L. 125, 92 S. W. 556; Hutchinson v. Brassfield, 86 Mo. App. 40; Lucker v. Iba, 54 App. Div. 566, 66 N. Y. S. 1019; Carter v. Beaman, 51 N. Car. 44; McKinney v. Brights, 16 Pa. St. 399, 55 Am. Dec. 512; Kendall v. Wood, L. R. 6 Exch. 243. sGrover v. Smith, 165 Mass. 132, 42 N. E. 555, 52 Am. St. 506; Locke V. Lewis, 124 Mass. 1, 26 Am. Rep. 631 ; Flanagan v. Alexander, 50 Mo. 50; Ross V. Whitefield, 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 50; Piaster v. Andrews, 2 Penn. & W. (Pa.) 160; Miller v. Dow, 17 Vt 235. 9 Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 221, 9 L. ed. 1063; Cannon v. Lindsey, 85 Ala. 198, 3 So. 676, 7 Am. St. 38; Brewster v. Mott, 5 111. 378; Janney v. Springer, 78 Iowa 617, 43 N. W. 461, 16 Am. St. 460; Buck V. Mosley, 24 Miss. 170 ; Hagar V. Graves, 25 Mo. App. 164; Geery V. Cockroft, 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 146; Purdy V. Powers, 6 Pa. St. 492 ; Lib- erty Sav. Bank v. Campbell, 75 Va. 534; McLinden v. Wentworth, 51 Wis. 170, 8 N. W. 118, 192. 36— Row. ON Partn.— Vol. 1 § 455 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 562 the partner is responsible to the partnership ; though in the case of bona-fide purchasers \yithout notice, for a valuable considera- tion, the partnership may be bound by such acts. Whatever acts, therefore, are done by any partner, beyond the scope and objects of the partnership, must in general, in order to bind the partnership be derived from some further authority, express or implied, conferred upqn such partner, beyond that resulting from his character as partner. Such is the general principle, and in our judgment, it is founded in good sense and reason. One man ought not to be permitted to dispose of the property or to bind the rights of another, unless the latter has authorized the act. In the case of a partner paying his own, separate debt out of the partnership funds, it is manifest that it is a violation of his duty and of the right of his partners, unless they have assented to it. The act is an illegal coniversion of the funds, and the separate creditor can have no better title to the funds than the partner himself had. Does it make any difference that the separate cred- itor had no knowledge at the time that there was a misappropria- tion of the partnership funds ? We think not. If he had such knowledge, undoubtedly he would be guilty of gross fraud, not only in morals, but in law. * * * But we do not think that such knowledge is an essential ingredient in such a case. The true question is whether the title to the property has passed from the partnership to the separate creditor. If it has not, then the partnership may reassert their claim to it in the hands of such creditor. * * * -pj^g -j-j-yg principle to be extracted from the authorities is that one partner can not apply the part- nership funds or securities to the discharge of his own private debt without their consent; and that without their consent their title to the property is not divested in favor of such separate creditor, whether he knew it to be partnership property or not. In short, his right depends, not upon his knowledge that it was partnership property, but upon the fact whether the other part- ners had assented to such disposition of it or not."^" The cred- 10 Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 221, 9 L. ed. 1063. 563 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 455 1 itor who knowingly takes from one partner property of the firm in satisfaction of an individual debt, without the other partners' consent, is guilty of fraud as to them.^^ It has been lield^^ that a creditor can not knowingly take part- nership property in payment of a partner's debt unless the other partners assent, or, in other words, that such a payment is not within the apparent scope of the partnership business. The ap- parent scope of authority in partnership relations is that authority which naturally and by custom arises by reason of the nature of the business and the actions of the partners. Even if the payment were assented to by the other partners, it could be set aside under certain conditions if it were in fraud of creditors of the firm, for, as we shall see hereafter, under the bankruptcy laws, firm creditors are preferred as to firm assets over the creditors of a separate partner, on his individual debt. The consent of the other partners is necessary before a partner can discharge a debt due the firm by setting off his individual debt against it." If such set-off has been made and the firm debt apparently discharged, the copartners are entitled to relief in equity,^* but " Johnson V. Crichton, 56 Md.' 108 ; Smed. & M. (Miss.) 322; Columbia Williams v. Brimhall, 13 Gray Nat. Bank v. Rice, 48 Nebr. 428, 67 (Mass.) 462; Forney v. Adams, 74 N. W. 165; Evernghim v. Enswood, Mo. 138; Hagar v. Graves, 25 Mo. 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 326; Carter v. Bea- App. 164 ; Venable V. Levick, 2 Head man, 51 N. Car. 44; Thomas v. (Tenn.) 351. Pennrich, 28 Ohio St. 55; Todd v. 12 Columbia Nat. Bank v. Rice, 48 Lorah, 75 Pa. St. 155 ; Pepper v. Nebr. 428, 67 N. W. 165 (1896). Peck, 17 R. I. 55, 20 Atl. 16; Wilson isCowen v. Eartherley Hdw. Co., v. Dargan, 4 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 544; 95 Ala. 324, 11 So. 195; Withering- Nugent v. Allen, 95 Tenn. 97, 32 S. ton V. Huntsman, 64 Ark. 551, 44 S. W. 91 ; Goode v. McCartney, 10 Tex. W. 74; Eady V. Newton Coal &c. Co., 193; Woolson v. Fuller, 71 Vt. 335, 123 Ga. 557, 51 S. E. 661, 1 L. R. A. 45 Atl. 753 ; Cotzhausen v. Judd, 43 (N. S.) 650; McNair v. Piatt, 46 111. Wis. 213, 28 Am. Rep. 539; Piercy 211; Bates v. Halliday, 3 Ind. 159; v. Fynney, L. R. 12 Eq. 69; Fisher Thomas v. Stetson, 62 Iowa 537, 17 v. Linton, 28 Ont. 322. N. W. 751, 49 Am. Rep. 148; Chase "Hoff v. Rogers, dl Miss. 208, 7 v.Buhl Iron Works, 55 Mich. 139, So. 358, 19 Am. St. 301; Craig v. 20 N. W. 827; Minor v. Gaw, 11 Hulschizer, 34 N. J. L. 363; Cor- § 456 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 564 it seems an action at law is generally not maintainable/" though some authorities incline to a contrary view.^® Where a creditor held a note against copartners, and it was agreed by all that, in consideration of the transfer by one partner to the others of all his interest in the partnership property, the latter would pay the note, this was held a valid accord and satisfaction/^ § 456. Power to institute litigation. — It follows from the power to collect debts that each partner has the power to use ordinary legal process to enforce such collection. Therefore, one partner may engage attorneys to sue in behalf of the firm, and it is held may even execute a power of attorney under seal for such purpose.^* Any partner may perfect a mechanic's lien in the firm name for the firm.^* The power to sue on behalf of the firm also inivolves the power to defend suits against it, and to employ counsel to appear for the firm.^" Such appearance binds the members of the firm as partners, not as individuals, and it is held that such appearance is not binding individually upon a partner in another jurisdiction who did not authorize it.^^ Though one partner does not need the consent of the others to sue, if he sues against their will, he should indemnify them nells V. Stanhope, 14 R. I.; 97; Mid- See also McKeen v. Morse, 49 Fed. land Counties R. v. Taylor, 8 H. L. 253, 1 C. C. A. 237, 1 U. S. App. 7. Cas. 751. 18 In re Barrett, 2 Hughes (U. S.) is-Bumpus V. Turgeon, 98 Maine 444, Fed. Cas. No. 1043; Wheatley v. 550, 57 Atl. 883; Horner v. Wood, 11 Tutt, 4 Kans. 240. Cush. (Mass.) 62; Chase v. Bean, 58 is German Bank v. Schloth, 59 Iowa N. H. 183; Craig v. Hulschizer, 34 316, 13 N. W. 314; Jones v. Hurst, 67 N. J. L. 363. Mo. 568. "Busby V. Rooks, 72 Ark. 657, 81 2<> Wheatley v. Tutt, 4 Kans. 240; , S. W. 1056; McNair v. Wilcox, 121 Bennett v. Stickney, 17 Vt. 531. Pa. St. 437, 15 Atl. 575, 6 Am. St. 21 Phelps v. Brewer, 9 Cush. 799. (Mass.) 390, 57 Am. Dec. 56. Com- ^''Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 65 Hun pare Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S. 160, 491, 20 N. Y. S. 384, 48 N. Y. St. 182; 23 L. ed. 271; and Haslet v. Street, Hills V. Sommer, 53 Hun 392, 6 N. 2 McCord (S. Car.) 310, 13 Am. Dec. Y. S. 469, 25 N. Y. St. 1003; Looby 724n. V. West Troy, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 78. 565 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 457 for costs.^^ A partner has power to assign a judgment recov- ered by the firm.^* § 457. Power to confess judgment. — The general rule is that without special authority a partner by confessing judgment for a firm debt can not bind his copartners' estate.^* This rule is followed by the Uniform Partnership Act.^° In Pennsylvania, before the adoption of the Uniform Partnership Act, the rule was that a confession of judgment by one partner in the firm name for a firm debt, binds the partner confessing and the part- nership property, but does not bind a partner not consenting either individually or as to his separate estate,^' nor could one partner bind the person or separate estate of a nonassenting partner by executing judgment notes under seal in the firm name.^^ Assent or ratification by the copartners will make the firm liable.^^ The judgment is usually held binding on the partner who assumed to confess to it,^* and has been held to 22Kuhn V. Weil, IZ Mo. 213; Ward Remington v. Cummings, 5 Wis. 138; V. Barber, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 423; Rathbone v. Drakeford, 6 Bing. 375; Whitehead v. Hughes, 2 Cromp. & M. Huff v. Cameron, 1 Ont. Pr. 255. 318. 25 Uniform Partnership Act, § 9 23 Little V. Britton (Ala.), 66 So. (2) (d), 694. 26Feighan v. Sobers, 239 Pa. 284, 2* Hall V. Lanning, 91 U. S. 160, 86 Atl. 857; Adams v. James L. 23 L. ed. 271; Buchanan v. Scandia Leeds Co., 195 Pa. St. 70, 45 Atl. 666; Plow Co., 6 Colo. App. 34, 39 Pac. Boyd v. Thompson, 153 Pa. St. 78, 899; Seal v. Seal, 1 Houst. (Del.) 25 Atl. 769, 34 Am. St. 685; Frank- 516; Harper v. Cunningham, 8 App. Hn v. Morris, 154 Pa. St. 152, 26 Atl. D. C. 430; Hier v. Kaufman, 134 111. 364. 215, 25 N. E. 517; Sloo v. State Bank, 27 Punk v. Young, 241 Pa. 72, 88 2 111. 428; Davenport Mills Co. v. Atl. 291. Chambers, 146 Ind. 156, 44 N. E. 28 Edwards v. Pitzer, 12 Iowa 607 ; 1109; North v. Mudge, 13 Iowa 496, Werner v. Her, 54 Nebr. 576, 74 N. 81 Am. Dec. 441; Soper v. Fry, Z7 W. 833; Overton v. Tozer, 7 Watts Mich. 236; Morgan v. Richardson, 16 (Pa.) 331; Bivingsville Cotton Mfg. Mo. 409, 57 Am. Dec. 235; Burr v. Co. v. Bobo, 11 Rich. (S. Car.) 386; Mathers, SI Mo. App. 470; Ellis v. Alexander v. Alexander, 85 Va. 353, Ellis, 47 N. J. L. 69; Crane v. French, 7 S. E. 335, 1 L. R. A. 125; Brutton 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 311 ; Richardson v. Burton, 1 Chit. 707. v. Fuller, 2 Ore. 179; Mills v. Dick- 29 Davenport Mills Co. v. Cham- son, 6 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 487; Shedd bers, 146 Ind. 156, 44 N. E. 1109; v. Bank of Brattleboro, 32 Vt. 709; St. John, v. Holmes, 20 Wend. 609, § 458 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 566 bar another action against the firm on the same cause/" And a judgment against a firm upon a firm debt entered by confession upon a warrant of attorney executed by one partner without authority from the others is only voidable at the election of the partners who did not assent, and not void, and is valid, as to firm creditors against their attack.^^ Howevei: creditors may impeach such a judgment on confession if actually fraudulent/^ The nonconsenting partner in different jurisdictions may have the judgment opened,^^ or set aside,^* or execution stayed/^ § 458. Power to make assignment for the benefit of credi- tors. — The aim of a partnership is to promote and conduct some business or transaction, and the implied scope of a part- ner's authority is limited to acts incidental thereto. Hence, if a partner attempt to make an assignment for the benefit of cred- itors, and thereby divest his copartners from the possession and ownership of the firm property as a whole, an act tending to destroy the business, he is acting beyond his authority and the transfer is invalid.^" This rule is followed by the Uniform 32 Am. Dec. 603. Contra : Seal v. ^^ McCormick Harvesting Mach. Seal, 1 Houst. (Del.) 516. Co. v. Coe, 53 111. App. 488; Everson 3° North V. Mudge, 13 Iowa 496, v. Gehrman, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 167, 81 Am. Dec. 441; Frisbie v. Larned, 10 How. Pr. 301; Bridenbecker v. 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 450. But see un- Mason, 16 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 203; der statutes, Yoho v. McGovern, 42 Siegel v. Chidsey, 28 Pa. St. 279, 70 Ohio St. 11; Mason v. Eldred, 6 Am. Dec. 124. Wall. (U. S.) 231, 18 L. ed. 783; ss Mellvain v. James I. Leeds Co., Kauffman v. Fisher, 3 Grant (Pa.) 189 Pa. St. 638, 42 Atl. 307. 302; Nathanson v. Spitz, 19 R. I. 70, s* Sloo v. State Bank, 2 111. 428; 31 Atl. 690. Davenport Mills Co. v. Chambers, 146 siParwell v. Huston, 151 III. 239, Ind. 156, 44 N. E. 1109; McKee v. 37 N. E. 864, 42 Am. St. 237; Young Mt. Pleasant Bank, 7 Ohio St. 175, V. Clapp, 147 111. 176, 32 N. E. 187, Pt. 2; Bitzer v. Shunk, 1 Watts & 35 N. E. 372; Rosenberg v. Boehm, S. (Pa.) 340, 37 Am. Dec. 469; Pit- 25 N. Y. S. 936, 56 Ni Y. St. 76; field v. Oakes, 25 Nova Scotia 116; Grazebrook v. McCreedie, 9 Wend. Berg v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 84 (N. Y.) 437; George W. McAlpin 111. App. 614 (not unless there is a Co. v. Finsterwald, 57 Ohio St. 524, showing of injury). 49 N. E. 784; Grier v. Hood, 25 Pa. ^s Green v. Beals, 2 Cai. (N. Y.) St. 430. Contra : Hickman v. Bran- 254. son, 1 Houst. (Del.) 429. =« Parker v. Brown, 85 Fed. 595, 567 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT 458 Partnership Act.^^ There must be actual authority sho^vn, to make such assignment valid/^ but this may be implied from the conduct of the partners,^* or the circumstances/" The above general rule that the firm is not bound by one partner's assignv ment for benefit of creditors has been held not to apply whert one partner is absent from the country on an extended trip and can not be recalled quickly,*^ also when the nonassigning part- ner has absconded and abandoned the business.*^ The contrary 29 C. C. A. 357; Adams v. Thorn- ton, 82 Ala. 260, 3 So. 20 ; Wilcox v. Jackson, 7 Colo. 521, 4 Pac. 966; Mills V. Miller, 109 Iowa 688, 81 N. W. 169; Loeb v. Pierpont, 58 Iowa 469, 12 N. W. 544, 43 Am. Rep. 122; Shattuck V. Chandler, 40 Kans. 516, 20 Pac. 225, 10 Am. St. 227 ; Maugh- lin V. Tyler, 47 Md. 545; Kirby v. Ingersoll, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 477, Harr. 172 ; Foot V. Goldman, 68 Miss. 529, 10 So. 62; Steinhart v. Fyhrie, 5 Mont. 463, 6 Pac. 367; Coope v. Bowles, 42 Barb. 87, 18 Abb. Pr. 442, 28 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 10; Havens v. Hussey, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 30; Post- man V. Rowan, 65 Misc. 50, 119 N. Y. S. 248; H. B. Clafflin Co. n. Evans, 55 Ohio St. 183, 45 N. E. 3, 60 Am. St. 686; Fox v. Curtis, 176 Pa. St. 52, 34 Atl. 952; Ormsbee v. Davis, 5 R. I. 442; Henderson v. Haddon, 12 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 393; Robinson v. Crowder, 4 McCord (S. Car.) 519, 17 Am. Dec. 762; Kittrell v. Blum, n Tex. 336, 14 S. W. 69; Bell V. Beazley, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 639, 45 S. W. 401; Hill v. Postley, 90 Va. 200, 17 S. E. 946; Coleman v. Darling, 66 Wis. 155, 28 N. W. 367, 57 Am. Rep. 253 ; Harper v. Godsell, L. R. 5 Q. B. 422; Stevenson v. Brown, 9 Can. L. J. 110. 37 Uniform Partnership Act, § 9 (2) (a) (c). 88 Paul V. Cullum, 132 U. S. 539, 33 L. ed. 430, 10 Sup. Ct. 151 ; Calla- han V. Heinz, 20 Ind. App. 359, 49 N. E. 1073 ; Tyler v. His Creditors, 9 Rob. (La.) 372; Metropolitan Trust Co. V. Northern Trust Co., 61 Minn. 462, 63 N. W. 1030; Mayer v. Bern- stein, 69 Miss. 17, 12 So. 257; Klumpp V. Gardner, 114 N. Y. 153, 21 N. E. 99; Hennessy v. Western Bank, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 300, 40 Am. Dec. 560; Jackman v. Fortson (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 215 (1896). Si* Kirby v. Ingersoll, 1 Doug:. (Mich.) 477, Harr. 172; Lowenstein V. Flauraud, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 399, 53 How. Pr. 463. *» Callahan v. Heinz, 20 Ind. App. 359, 49 N. E. 1073 ; Graves v. Hall, 32 Tex. 665; Rumery v. McCulloch, 54 Wis. 565, 12 N. W. 65. "Forbes v. Scannell, 13 Cal. 242; H. B. Clafflin Co. v. Evans, 55 Ohio St. 183, 45 N. E. 3, 60 Am. St. 686; Kellar v. Self, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 393, 24 S. W. 578; McCuUough v. Som- merville, 8 Leigh ( Va.) 415 ; Williams v. GiUispie, 30 W. Va. 586, 5 S. E. 210. ' *2Newhall v. Buckingham, 14 111. 405; Welles v. March, 30 N. Y. 344; Palmer v. Myers, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 509, 29 How. Pr. 8; Kemp v. Cam- ley, 3 Duer (N. Y.) 1; Sullivan v. Smith, IS Nebr. 476, 19 N. W. 620, 48 Am. Rep. 354 ; Deckard v. Case, 5 § 458 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 568 has been held in Maryland, where the court held that, where one of the partners absconded from the state, the remaining part- ner could not in the name of the partnership, apply for the bene- fit of the insolvent law of the state/^ A few cases hold that if the emergency is such that there is a crisis in the affairs of the business, and the other partner can not be reached in time to meet the conditions, then the one partner may make an assign- ment.** It seems that such an assignment is not necessary to secure the property from sacrifice or protect the rights of all creditors, since one partner in an insolvent firm has power to institute bankruptcy proceedings,*°or insolvency proceedings,*' or may sue in equity for a dissolution and distribution of assets.*' The insanity,** sickness,*' or temporary absence,®" of one part- ner gives the other no power to make such an assignment.®^ In some cases a managing partner is held to have power to make an assignment where the others are nonresidents. If the assign- ing partner sets up that the assignment was made with the consent of his partners, or that the partners were absent from the coun- try, the burden of proof is upon him to establish such facts."^ The authority to make such an assignment may be expressly given to one partner by his copartners, or it may be implied from the acts of the partners, or the general conditions of the part- nership. It is generally held that the nonassigning partners Watts (Pa.) 22, 30 Am. Dec. 287; ^^ Holmes v. McDowell, IS Hun Blum V. Bratton, 2 Tex. Civ. App. (N. Y.) S8S. 226, 21 S. W. 65 ; Voshmik v. Urqu- *8 Friedburgher v. Jaberg, 20 Abb. hart, 91 Wis. 513, 65 N. W. 60. N. Cas. 279, 11 N. Y. St. 718. *3 Second Nat. Bank v. Willing, 66 *» Stadelman v. Loehr, 47 Hun 327, Md. 314, 7 Atl. 558. 14 N. Y. St. 247. ** Trumbull v. Union Trust Co., «" Stockham v. Wells, 25 Wkly. 33 111. App. 319. But see Stein v. La Notes Cas. (Pa.) 84. Dow, 13 Minn. 412; Mayer v. Bern- «! Williams v. Frost, 27 Minn. 255, stein, 69 Miss. 17, 12 So. 257; 6 N. W. 793; H. B. Clafflin Co. v. Welles V. March, 30 N. Y. 344; In re Evans, S5 Ohio St. 183, 45 N. E. 3, Daniels, 14 R. I. 500. 60 Am. St. 686. *5 Pleasants v. Meng, 1 Dall. (Pa.) "aShattuck v. Chandler, 40 Kans. 380, 1 L. ed. 185. 516, 20 Pac. 225, 10 Am. St 227. *^ Durgin v. Coolidge, 3 Allen (Mass.) 554. 569 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 459 may ratify the assignment made by one or more of the partners, even after the assignment."'' A few cases hold to the contrary rule. In Montana^^ it is held that an assignment for the benefit ' of creditors is so important and solemn an act that public policy requires that the authority be given in advance, and under such circumstances that no question can arise as to it. A Texas case°^ goes so far as to hold that declarations to the effect that authority to assign had been given, made by the signing partner when he executed the assignment and by the other partner when he ratified it, are not competent evidence. Most, if not all juris- dictions, however, agree that if any liens intervene between the assignment and the attempted ratification, the ratification can not relate back so as to interfere with the intervening liens.°* § 459. Power to submit to arbitration. — Upon the ques- tion of the power of one partner to bind the firm by a submis- sion to arbitration, the various courts are divided, some holding the submission valid as to the firm, and more holding the con- trary doctrine. In most jurisdictions it is held that one partner may not bind the others by submitting partnership matters to arbitration,^^ for such is no part of the regular business of an 51b Pearpoint v. Graham, 4 Wash. ^* Trumbull v. Union Trust Co., 33 (U. S.) 232; Dunklin v. Kimball, 50 111. App. 319; Mills v. Miller, 109 Ala. 25 1 ; Corbett v. Cannon, 57 Kans. Iowa 688, 81 N. W. 169; Stein v. La 127, 45 Pac. 80; Ely v. Hair, 16 B. Dow, 13 Minn. 412; Steinhart v. Mon. (Ky.) 230; Kirby v. Ingersoll, Fyhrie, S Mont. 463, 6 Pac. 367; Hol- 1 Doug. (Mich.) 477, Harr. 172; Adee land v. Drake, 29 Ohio St. 441; V. Cornell, 93 N. Y. 572; Sheldon v. Mayer v. Bernstein, 69 Miss. 17, 12 Smith, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 593; Hoi- So. 257; Coleman v. Darling, 66 Wis. land V. Drake, 29 Ohio St. 441; 155, 28 N. W. 367, 57 Am. Rep. 253. Hodenpyl v. Hines, 160 Pa. St. 466, ssKarthaus v. Yilas y Ferrer, 1 28 Atl. 825; McNutt v. Strayhorn, 39 Pet. (U. S.) 222, 7 L. ed. 121. See Pa. St. 269; Kittrell v. Blum, 77 Tex. also Fancher v. Bibb Furnace Co., 80 336, M S. W. 69; Coleman v. Darling, Ala. 481, 2 So. 268; Jones v. Bailey, 66 Wis. 155, 28 N. W. 367, 37 Am. 5 Cal. 345 ; Horton v. Wilde, 8 Gray Dec. 253. (Mass.) 425; Davis v. Berger, 54 62 Steinhart v. Fyhrie, 5 Mont. 463, Mich. 562, 20 N. W. 629; Walker v. 6 Pac. 367. Bean, 34 Minn. 427, 26 N. W. 232; 53 Kittrell v. Blum, 77 Tex. 336, 14 Hoifman v. Westlecraft, 85 N. J. S. W. 69. I" 484, 89 Atl. 1006; Harrington v. § 460 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 570 ordinary copartnership, nor can a majority bind the other part- ners/° Under the Uniform Partnership Act one partner may not submit a partnership claim or hability to arbitration or reference.®^ In some jurisdictions, however, it is held that one partner has implied power to submit on behalf of the partner- ship.^' Some of the conflicting decisions turn upon whether or not such submission must be under seal, and these decisions hold that where a seal is necessary the power is not implied in a partner.^* On the contrary, if there is, under the laws of any particular state, nothing requiring such agreement to be under seal, it is held that such a power is within the scope oi a part- ner's authority, and valid at least in some jurisdictions."" Even the above distinction is not of universal application, it having been held in some jurisdictions that there is no implied power of a partner to bind his copartners by submission to arbitra- tion, regardless of the question of seal or lack of seal, basing their opinion upon the statement that the exigencies and con- veniences of business do not require a partner to possess such a power."^ § 460. Submission to arbitration by consent. — It should be kept in mind that the foregoing applies simply to the implied Higham, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 660, 15 Wright (Ohio) 420; Gay v. Waltman, Barb. (N. Y.) 524; Tillinghast v. Gil- 89 Pa. St. 453; Alexander v. Mulhall, more, 17 R. I. 413, 22 Atl. 942 ; St. 1 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 764. Martin V. Thrasher, 40 Vt. 460; Wood =» Karthaus v. Ferrer, 1 Pet. (U. V. Shepherd, 2 Pat. & H. (Va.) 442. S.) 222, 7 L. ed. 121 ; Barlow v. Reno, And see Stead v. Salt, 3 Bing. 101, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 252; Armstrong v. 11 E. C. L. 58; Woody v. Pickard, 8 Robinson, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 412; Blackf. (Ind.) 55; Eastman v. Bur- Buchoz v. Grand] ean, 1 Mich. 367; leigh, 2 N. H. 484; Steiglitz v. Eg- Buchanan v. Curry, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) ginton, Holt N. P. 141, 3 E. C. L. 63; 137, 10 Am. Dec. 200; Wood v. Shep- French v. Weir, 17 U. C. Q. B. 245. herd, 2 Pat. & H. (Va.) 442. 58 Stead V. Salt, 3 Bing. 101, 11 E. eoHallack v. Marsh, 25 111. 48; C. L. 58. Southard v. Steele, 3 T. B. Mon. 5'' Uniform Partnership Act, § 9 (Ky.) 435; Wilcox v. Singletary, (3) (e). Wright (Ohio) 420; Gay v. Waltman, esHallack v. March, 25 111.48; 89 Pa. St. 453. Southard v. Steele, 3 T. B. Mon. «i Harrington v. Higham, 13 Barb. (Ky.) 435; Wilcox v. Singletary, (N. Y.) 660; St. Martin v. Thrasher, 571 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 461 right of a partner to submit firm matters to arbitration, and does not apply to cases where actual authority is given by the other partners, in which case, as in other proper and legal matters, such authority may be given, and any distinct expression of this intent, by the other copartners, is sufficient authorization/^ The question naturally arises as to whether or not the power to conduct a suit includes the power of reference to arbitration. In the United States the question is answered as a rule, in the affirmative, at least in a limited manner.®^ This is probably based upon the theory that where a person commences a suit, one of the possibilities is that circumstances may be such that it may be advantageous to refer it to arbitration, and that, conse- quently, this possibility was in the mind of the partner giving the power to conduct the suit, as a necessary part of the full power of conducting the suit. In England, however, the rule is not in accord with the gen- eral American doctrine, and it has there been held that where one member of a dissolving partnership authorized the other member to collect the assets and sue in their joint names, there is no resulting authority to submit to arbitration a suit brought under this authority.®* § 461. Ratification of submission. — The lack of actual au- thority of a partner to submit to arbitration- may, in general, be remedied by the others by ratification of the unauthorized submission." A' distinction has been made, however, upon the question of whether the attempted ratification was made before 40 Vt. 460 ; Stead v. Salt, 3 Bing. 101 ; e* Hattoti v. Royle, 3 H. & N. SOO ; Morley v. Boothby, 10 Moore 395. Russell Arbitration, § 20. 82Karthaus v. Ferrer, 1 Pet. (U. ss Hallack v. March, 25. 111. 48 ; Ab- S.) 222, 7 L. ed. 121; Davis v. Ber- bott v. Dexter, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 108; ger, 54 Mich. 652, 20 N. W. 629 ; Mc- Hamilton v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 106 Bride v. Hagan, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) Mass. 395 ; Davis v. Berger, 54 Mich. 326; McKay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. 652, 20 N. W. 629; McArthur v. (N. Y.) 285; Wilcox v. Singletary, Oliver, S3 Mich. 299, 305, 19 N. W. Wright (Ohio) 420; Adams v. Bank- 5; Buchanan v. Curry, 19 Johns. (N. art, 1 C. M. & R. 681. Y.) 137, 10 Am. Dec. 200 ; St. Mar- »3 Morse Arbitration and Award, tin v. Thrasher, 40 Vt. 460; Baby v. § 10. Davenport, 3 U. C. Q. B. 54. § 461 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 572 or after the award was made. The point is well illustrated by a New Hampshire case/' which lays down the principle that where a party, not bound by his partner's unauthorized submis- sion to arbitration, does not ratify before the award has been made, and so make himself liable thereto if it be against him, he can not, after an award has been made in his favor, by rati- fication take advantage of it. In case one partner submits to arbitration in behalf of himself and the firm and by reason of lack of either implied or actual authority, or of proper ratifica- tion has not the power to bind the other members within the partnership, he is nevertheless individually bound by the award,"' though the other partners repudiate the submission.®^ Ratifica- tion, as well as assent in advance, may be either express or im- plied, and all the circumstances must be considered by the jury in arriving at a conclusion,"" but there can be no ratification unless the partner claimed to halve ratified did so with a full knowledge of the unauthorized act.'* And the ratification, whether express or implied, must be definite. In a Texas case" the innocent partner promised the creditor tO' pay, provided he could secure sufficient evidence of ratification, and the court held that this was not sufficient. 66 Eastman v. Burleigh, 2 N. H. 484. Bailey, 5 Cal. 345 ; Armstrong v. See also McKay v. Bloodgood, 9 Robinson, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 412; Johns. (N. Y.) 285; Tillinghast v. Harrington v. Higham, 13 Barb. (N. Gilmore, 17 R. I. 413, 22 Atl. 942. Y.) 660; Wood v. Shepherd, 2 Pat. «7 Karthaus v. Ferrer, 1 Pet. (U. & H. (Va.) 442 ; Runyon v. Ruther- S.) 222, 7 L. ed. 121 ; Jones v. Bailey, ford, 55 W. Va. 436, 47 S. E. 150. 5 ,Cal. 345 ; Armstrong v. Robinson, 69 Ellis v. Allen, 80 Ala. 515, 2 So. 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 412; McBride v. 676. Hagen, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 326; Brink ^o Sargent v. Henderson, 79 Ga. V. New Amsterdam F. Ins. Co., 5 268, 5 S. E. 122; Gray v. Ward, 18 Rob. (N. Y.) 104; Harrington v. 111. 32 ; Hotchin v. Kent, 8 Mich. 526 ; Higham, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 660; Wood Andrews v. Planters' Bank, 7 Smed. V. Shepherd, 2 Pat. & H. (Va.) 442; & M. (Miss.) 192, 45 Am. Dec. 300; Strangford v. Green, 2 Mod. 228. Norton v. Thatcher, 8 Nebr. 186; 68 Karthaus v. Ferrer, 1 Pet. (U. Hull v. Young, 30 S. Car. 121 ; Biggs S.) 222, 7 L. ed. 121. See also Strang- ,v. Hubert, 14 S. Car. 620. ford V. Green, 2 Mod. 228; Jones v, ^i Burleigh v. Parton, 21 Tex. 585. 573 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 464 § 462. What constitutes arbitration. — Arbitration consists in the submitting, by two or more parties, of matters in dispute between them, to another party, for a decision by him upon the question in dispute. The party deciding must do so, however, acting, as it were, in a judicial capacity, and not in a clerical or ministerial manner, an4 if the person acting for them is simply an accountant, who adjusts their accounts from their books, and thus arrives at a conclusion as to the balances between them, this is not arbitration,''^ nor is it such where one partner, in pur- chasing anything which must be weighed, counted or measured, agrees to adopt the figures of a person who is selected to so weigh, count or measure the articles purchased.''* § 463. Power over partnership real estate. — The powers of a partner as to partnership real estate have been included in the discussion of various particular powers, such as to purchase or sell firm property, to mortgage firm property, to make leases, to make assignments for benefit of creditors, all of which sub- jects should be seen. The conveyance of partnership property is treated in the chapter on partnership property. A partner may convey his interest in partnership real estate, but this will be treated later in the chapter on change of membership. § 464. Rights and powers of dormant partner as to con- tracts. — A dormant partner has certain rights in the making of firm contracts as against copartners and creditors. He may insist that the firm shall not be bound on liability known by the other party to be for the benefit of an individual partner.''* He ^2 Stage V. Gorich, 107 III. 361. option. In an action on an alleged 73 Perkins v. Hoyt, 35 Mich. 506. award made by arbitrator, de- An agreement to arbitrate a dispute fendant can not, under an answer de- as to the interest of a deceased part- nying the agreement to arbitrate, show ner in a firm entered into between his that the arbitration was void because widow and surviving partner can of the party interested being a minor. not be repudiated by the latter be- Chambers v. Ker, 6 Tex. Civ. App. cause it does not bind the deceased's 373, 24 S. W. 1118. minor children since the minor's con- ''* In re Munn, 3 Biss. (U. S.) 442, tract is avoidable only at the minor's Fed. Cas. 9925 ; Miller v. Manice, § 465 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 574 can revoke the implied power of his copartners to bind him by their contracts/^ He can also refuse to be charged on a firm obligation, unless it is shown that the firm was benefited by the transaction or gave its credit for the obligation/* § 465. Acts creating individual liability. — It has been seen that a contract by one partner though without the scope of the firm business and without the consent of copartners may some- times bind the partner making the contract individually/' The assumption by the firm of the liability of partners for their indi- vidual debts does not discharge the partner individually/^ And a partner individually joining the firm in making a note is indi- vidually and primarily liable on it/* And one partner who' con- tracts for the purchase of goods on his own credit without refer- ence to the firm is liable for them individually,^" and one who sells to a partner on his individual account, not intending to look to the firm for payment, can not hold the copartners, even if the goods were used in the firm business.^^ So where one partner only signs a lease containing allegations of partnership, action on the covenants may be maintained against him alone/^ But where one rendered services to a company, which one part- ner misrepresented to be a corporation, he can recover from the 6 Hill (N. Y.) 114; Bank of Penn- Bank's Appeal, 36 Pa. St. 458; Wood sylvania v. Hadfeg, 3 Yeates (Pa.) v. Shepherd, 2 Pat. & H. (Va.) 442. 560. 78 The Swallow, Olcott (U. S.) 334, " Leavitt v. Peck, 3 Conn. 124, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 13665. Am. Dec. 157. 79 Qrman v. Potter, 46 Colo. 54, 102 76 Palmer V. Elliott, 1 Cliflf. (U. S.) Pac. 893; Kanawha Hardwood Co. 63, Fed. Cas. No. 10690; Alexandria v. Evans, 65 W. Va. 622, 64 S. E. Bank v. Mandeville, 1 Cranch (U. S.) 917; Bell v. Ottawa Trust &c. Co., 28 575, Fed. Cas. No. 851 ; Fosdick v. Van Ont. 519. Horn, 40 Ohio St. 459. so Brown v. Brown (Tex. Civ. 77 Jones V. Bailey, 5 Cal. 345; App,), 155 S. W. 551. Cooke V. Allison, 30 La. Ann. 963; "George Bohon Co. v. Moren, 151 Taft V. Church, 162 Mass. 527, 39 N. Ky. 811, 152 S. W. 944. E. 283 ; Harrington v. Higham, 15 ^2 Springer v. Simpson, 175 111. App. Barb. (N. Y.) 524; In re York 631. 575 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 466 one partner personally only by showing reliance on his represen- tations/^ § 466. Admissions and representations by partner. — Ordi- narily the law will, where the evidence establishes the existence of a partnership, regard in general as binding upon the latter any admission or representation made by an individual member of the firm about partnership matters and in the due course thereof.^* By the Uniform Partnership Act: "An admission or representation made by any partner concerning partnership affairs within the scope of his authority as conferred by this act is evidence against the partnership."*^ Thus the receipt by one of the members of the partnership engaged in distilling and in the purchase of corn, by which he acknowledges the delivery 83 Gettins v. Hennessey, 60 Ore. 566, 120 Pac. 369. ** Swoflford Bros. Dry Goods Co. V. Mills, 86 Fed. 556; In re Many, 17 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 514, Fed. Gas. No. 9054; Croswell v. Lehman, 54 Ala. 363, 25 Am. Rep. 684; Hogan v. Reyn- olds, 8 Ala. 59; Talbot v. Wilkins, 31 Ark. 411; Dennis v. Kolm, 131 Cal. 91, 63 Pac. 141; Munson v. Wick- wire, 21 Conn. 513; Lanier v. Chap- pell, 2 Fla. 621; Lewis v. Allen, 17 Ga. 300; Daugherty v. Heckard, 189 111. 239, 59 N. E. 569; Wanner v. Winters, 33 111. App. 149; Bisel v. Hobbs, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 479; Waite V. High, 96 Iowa 742, 65 N. W. 397; Wiley V. Griswold, 41 Iowa 375; Bemis v. Becker, 1 Kans. 226; Sneed V. Kelly's Exr., 3 Dana (Ky.) 538; Byrne v. Hooper, 2 Rob. (La.) 229; Fickett V. Swift, 41 Maine 65, 66 Am. Dec. 214; Folk v. Wilson, 21 Md. 538, 83 Am. Dec. 599; Cook v. Cast- ner, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 266; Burgan v. Lyell, 2 Mich. 102, 55 Am. Dec. S3; Milwaukee Harvester Co. v. Finne- gan, 43 Minn. 183, 45 N. W. 9; Cole- man V. Pearce, 26 Minn. 123, 1 N. W. 846; Faler v. Jordan, 44 Miss. 283; Henslee v. Cannefax, 49 Mo. 295; Caris v. Nimmons, 92 Mo. App. 66; Gulick V. Gulick, 14 N. J. L. 578; Hoboken Sav. Bank v. Beckman, 36 N. J. Eq. 83; Sweet v. Bradley, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 549; Comstock v. Warner, 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 663; Griswold V. Haven, 25 N. Y. 595, 82 Am. Dec. 380; McKee v. Hamilton, 33 Ohio St. 7; Frick v. Reynolds, 6 Okla. 638, 52 Pac. 391; North Pa- cific Lumber Co. v. Spore, 44 Ore. 462, 75 Pac. 890; Crawford v. Will- ing, 4 Dall. (Pa.) 286, 1 L. ed. 836; Gavin v. Walker, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 643; Fergusson v. Fyffe, 8 CI. & F. 121. See English Partnership Act (1890), § IS. And compare Gooding V. Underwood, 89 Mich. lS7, SO N. W. 818; National Bank of Commerce V. Meader, 40 Minn. 325, 41 N. W. 1043; Kaiser v. Fendrick, 98 Pa. St. 528; Hetterman Bros. Co. v. Young (Tenn.), 52 S. W. 532; Wilson v. McCormick, 86 Va. 995, 11 S. E. 976. 85 Uniform Partnership Act, § 11. § 466 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 576 of a specific quantity of corn to him by a certain person, may be introduced in evidence by the latter in an action by him against the firm.^" So also it has been held that a partner will be bound by the representations of his copartner that the money, which he procures by loan on the credit of the firm and on the faith of the partnership business, is desired for partnership purposes.*^ But generally, in accordance with the law of agency, admissions by a partner are not competent to prove a partnership, or that a certain particular transaction was a partnership trans- action.'* "The authority of a partner to act on behalf of the firm is based upon the general principles regulating the authority of agents ; and it is a primary principle that the authority of an agent can not be proved by the declarations of the agent him- self."** So it has been held that a partner can not bind his asso- ciates by admissions as to the scope of the partnership business, not made at the time of the execution of the contract in suit.*" Again "one partner can not by his acts or declarations, in the absence of the others, deprive them or either of them of their interest in the firm property.'"^ So also it has been said by no less a person than Justice Cooley himself that "a partner's dec- larations may bind his associates in partnership matters, but not in concerns foreign to the partnership; and he can not by his mere admission or declaration bring a transaction within the scope of the business when upon the facts in proof it appears to ssBisel V. Hobbs, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) N. E. 665; Thomas v. Harding, 8 479. Greenl. (Maine) 417; Ostrom v. Ja- " Gavin V. Walker, 14 Lea (Tenn.) cobs, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 454; Hefifron 643. See also Deitz v. Regnier, 27 v. Hanaford, 40 Mich. 305 ; Freeman Kans. 94. V. Bloomfield, 43 Mo. 391 ; Rumsey ssHahn v. St. Clair Sav. & Ins. v. Briggs, 63 Hun 11, 17 N. Y. S. Co., SO 111. 456; Taft v. Church, 162 562, 44 N. Y. St. 38; Kittel v. Calla- Mass. 527, 39 N. E. 283; Tuttle v. han, 19 N. Y. S. 397, 46 N. Y. St Cooper, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 414; Lock- 404. wood V. Beckwith, 6 Mich. 168, 72 soTaft v. Church, 162 Mass. 527, Am. Dec. 69. 39 N. E. 283. See also in this con- 89 Columbia Nat. Bank v. Rice, 48 nection, Shellito v. Sampson, 61 Iowa Nebr. 428, 67 N. W. 165. See also 40, 15 N. W. 572. Ex parte Agace, 2 Cox Ch. 312; 9i Williams v. Lewis, 115 Ind. 45, Rush V. Thompson, 112 Ind. 158, 13 17 N. E. 262, 7 Am. St. 403. 577 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 467 have no connection.'""^ So also, in an action against partners on a promissory note executed by one of them in the name of the firm, it has been held that admissions by him are not admissible to prove the note a partnership obligation."* But a declaration by a partner outside the scope^of his agency may be binding on his copartners if authorized or ratified,"* or they may be estopped to deny liability."^ § 467. Admissions made after dissolution. — The general rule is that admissions made by one partner after the dissolu- tion of the partnership relating to the business of the finn, are not binding on the other partners, and hence may not be ad- mitted in evidence against them."® The reason for the rule has thus been stated :"^ "The admission of one partner, of a debt of the partnership made when the partnership has no existence, 92Heffron' v. Hanaford, 40 Mich. 305. See Lockwood v. Beckwith, 6 Mich. 168, 72 Am. Dec. 69. See also Edgell V. MacQueen, 8 Mo. App. 71; Rumsey v. Briggs, 63 Hun 11, 17 N. Y. S. 562, 44 N. Y. St. 38; Taylor v. Thompson, 62 App. Div. 159, 70 N. Y. S. 997; Folk v. Schaeffer, 180 Pa. St. 613, Zl Atl. 104. 93 Tuttle V. Cooper, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 414. 8* Gooding v. Underwood, 89 Mich. 187, SO N. W. 818; Nixon v. Jenkins, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 318. ssBemis v. Becker, 1 Kans. 226; Coleman v. Pearce, 26 Minn. 123, 1 N. W. 846; Griswold v. Haven, 25 N. Y. 595, 82 Am. Dee. 380; Blair v. Bromley, 2 Phillips 354. 98 Thompson v. Bournan, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 316, 18 L. ed. 736; Burns v. McKenzie, 23 Cal. 101; Hitt v. Al- len, 13 IlL 592; Boor v. Lowery, 103 Ind. 468, 3 N. E. 151, 53 Am. Rep. 519; Taylor v. Hillyer, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 433, 26 Am. Dec. 430; Hamil- ton V. Summers, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) Zl — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 11, 54 Am. Dec. 509; Clarke v. Jones, 1 Rob. (La.) 78; Herrick v. Conant, 4 La. Ann. 276; Ellicott v. Nichols, 7 Gill (Md.) 85, 48 Am. Dec. 546; Hurst V. Hill, 8 Md. 399, 63_Am. Dec. 70S; Gates v. Fisk, 45 Mich. 522, 8 N. W. 558; Shakopee First Nat. Bank v. Strait, 65 Minn. 162, 67 N. W. 987; Maxey v. Strong, 53 Miss. 280; Dowzelot v. Rawlings, 58 Mo. 75 ; Brady v. Hill, 1 Mo. 315, 13 Am. Dec. 503 ; Baker v. Stackpoole, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 420, 18 Am. Dec. 508; Pringle v. Leverick, 97 N. Y. 181, 49 Am. Rep. 522; Willis v. Hill, 19 N. Car. 231, 31 Am. Dec. 412; Tassey V. Church, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 141, 39 Am. Dec. 65; Moore v. Palmer, 132 N. Car. 969, 44 S. E. 673; Crum- less V. Sturgess, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 190; Hunter v. Hubbard, 26 Tex. 537; Burdett v. Greer, 63 W. Va. 515, 15 Ann. Cas. 935. See also Brewster v. Hardeman, Dud. (Ga.) 38; Southwick v. McGovern, 28 Iowa 533. w Miller v. Neimerick, 19 111. 172. § 467 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 578 if sufficient to establish the liability of all the partners, involves the power to bind all by the creation of a partnership liability; for it is indifferent to the other partners whether their liability be established by the admission or the undertaking, written or verbal, of one of their number. The effect in either case is the same. A joint liability is prima facie established and imposed, which may be satisfied not only out of the partnership property, but out of the separate estates of the former partners. If the several members of a dissolved firm can, by admission or stipu- lation, charge their former partners, not only may the partner- ship assets be swallowed up, but the individual members of the late firm may be made bankrupt, by admissions made after the partnership has ceased to exist, by one no longer their agent, — without the sanctions of an oath or any of the ordinary guaran- ties of truth, and who may be without pecuniary ability, to re- spond in damages, is influenced by ill will or private gain, and has in fact no real concern as to consequences of mere legal liability." In the application of this principle, it has been held that admissions of a partner after dissolution would not bind the other partners as tO' a balance due from the firm,'^ the protest of a draft, a new contract, °" or the existence of a partnership where a contract was executed.^ In some cases it is held that if the party to whom the admission is made does not know of the dissolution, all partners are held.^ There is very respectable authority to the effect that the admissions of partners after dis- solution as to past partnership transactions are binding on all the partners and admissible in evidence.^ As to the reason for 88 Miller V. Neimerick, 19 111. 172. v. Leverick, 97 N. Y. 181, 49 Am. s^Yandes v. Lefavour, 2 Blackf. Rep. 522. (Ind.) 371. 3 Munson v. Wickwire, 21 Conn. 1 Barringer v. Smeed, 3 Stew. 513 ; Hinkley v. Gilligan, 34 Maine (Ala.) 201, 20 Am. Dec. 74. 101; Bridge v. Gray, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 2 Price V. Towsey, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 55, 25 Am. Dec. 358; Cady v. Shep- 423, 14 Am. Dec. 81; Spears v. To- herd, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 400, 22 Am. land, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 203, 10 Dec. 379; Pennoyer v. David, 8 Mich. Am. Dec. 722; Southwick v. McGov- 407; Rich v. Flanders, 39 N. H. 304; ern, 28 Iowa 533. Contra : Pringle Feigley v. Whitaker, 22 Ohio St. 606, 10 Am. Rep. 778; Woodworth vi, 579 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 468 this rule it has been said :* "Clearly the admission of one partner, made after the partnership has ceased, is not evidence to charge the othei", in any transaction which has occurred since their sep- aration, but the power of partners with respect to rights cre- ated pending the partnership, remains after the dissolution. Since it is clear that one partner can bind the other during all the part- nership, upon what principle is it that from the moment when it is dissolved, his account of their joint contracts 'should cease to be evidence, and that those who are to-day as one person in interest, should to-morrow become entirely distinct in interest with regard to past transactions which occurred while they were so united?" Under this rule there have been held binding on all partners admissions made after dissolution by one partner as to a balance due the firm," or a payment to one partner for the firm made after dissolution," but not to show that a partnership for- merly existed.'' It has been held that admissions made by a partner after his discharge in bankruptcy may bind other partners,* but also it is held that the admissions of a partner discharged in bankruptcy do bind his copartners.^ In South Carolina admis- sions made by one partner after dissolution are not sufficient to establish the existence of a partnership or of a partnership debt, but when these have been shown otherwise, such admissions may be received to bind the other partners." § 468. Admissions after dissolution as taking firm debt out of statute of limitations. — The cases are not in harmony as the effect of admissions of a partner after dissolution to re- move the defense of the statute of limitations. It seems gen- Downer, 13 Vt. 522, Zl Am. Dec. !■ Robbins v. Willard, 6 Pick. 611; Wilson v.- McCormick, 86 Va.' (Mass.) -464. 995, 11 S. E. 976; Burton v. Issit, 5 s Martin v. Root, 17 Mass. 222. B. & Aid. 267; Fisher v. Russell, 2 » Grant v. Jackson, Peake N. P. L. C. Jur. (Can.) 191. 204; Parker v. Morrell, 2 C. & K. * Mansfield, C. J., in Wood v. 599. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 104. " Fripp v. Williams, 14 S. Car. 502 ; 5 Wood V. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 104. Meggett v. Finney, 4 Strob. (S. Car.) " Pritchard v. Draper, 1 Russ. & 220. M. (Eng.) 191. § 469 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 580 erally to be held that the statute of limitations extinguishes a debt, so that a new promise is necessary in order to revive it, and after a debt is thus barred by the statute, a partner after dissolution has no more right to revive it and make his former copartners liable than he would have to create a new debt and bind them/^ Some cases, presumably on the theory that the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt, but merely bars the remedy, allow the admission of one partner after dis- solution, to raise the bar of the statute as to his copartners.^^ The same conflict exists as to whether a part payment on a firm debt by one partner, after dissolution, but before the statute has taken effect, will prolong the running of the statute of limitations as to his partners. Most cases hold that it will not.^^ But some cases hold that such payment after dissolution is for the benefit of all partners and therefore the running of the statute of limi- tations is postponed as to all.^* A creditor having no notice of dissolution may rely on a payment by or promise of a partner as postponing the running of the statute of limitations/^ § 469. Notice to partner. — A partnership will be bound by notice received in good faith by an acting partner as to any matter regarding a transaction within the ordinary scope of its " Bell V. Morrison, 1 Pet. (U. S.) See also In re Leeds & Co., 49 La. 351, 7 L. ed. 174; Lang's Heirs v. Ann. 501, 21 So. 617. Waring, 17 Ala. 145 ; Newman v. Mc- " Curry v. White, 51 Cal. S30; Tate Comas, 43 Md. 70; Mayberry v. Wil- v. Clements, 16 Fla. 339, 26 Am. Rep. loughby, 5 Nebr. 368, 25 Am. Rep. 709; Tappan v. Kimball, 30 N. H. 491; Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 N. 136; Wilson v. Waugh, 101 Pa. St. Y. 523, 51 Am. Dec. 322 ; Kerper v. 233 ; Haddock v. Crocheron, 32 Tex. Wood, 48 Ohio St. 613, 29 N. E. 501, 276, 5 Am. Rep. 244. 15 L. R. A. 656; Reppert v. Colvin, "Burr v. Williams, 20 Ark. 171; 48 Pa. St. 248; Lodge v. Ainscow, 1 Bissell v. Adams, 35 Conn. 299; Van Pennew. (Del.) 327, 41 Atl. 187; Jack Staden v. Kline, 64 Iowa 180, 20 N. V. McLanahan, 191 Pa. St. 631, 43 W. 3; McClurg v. Howard, 45 Mo. Atl. 356; McCahan v. Smith, 9 Pa. 365, 100 Am. Dec. 378; Whitcomb v. Super. Ct. 318. Whiting, 2 Doug. 628. 12 Day V. Merritt, 38 N. J. L. 32, is Sage v. Ensign, 2 Allen (Mass.) 20 Am. Rep. 362 ; Wheelock v. Doo- 245 ; Gates v. Fisk, 45 Mich. 522, 8 little, 18 Vt. 440, 46 Am. Dec. 163; N. W. 558; Forbes v. Garfield, 32 Whitcomb v.' Whiting, 2 Doug. 628. Hun (N. Y.) 389; Clement v. Clem- 581 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT 469 business." The Unifomi Partnership Act expresses the general rule thus: "Notice to any partner of any matter relating to partnership affairs, and the knowledge of the partner acting in the particular matter, acquired while a partner or then present to his mind, and the knowledge of any other partner who rea- sonably could and should have communicated it to the acting partner, operate as notice to or knowledge of the partnership, except in the case of a fraud on the partnership committed by or with the consent of that partner."^^ Thus, where the drawer and acceptor of a bill are partners, notice of the dishonor of. the ent, 69 Wis. 599, 35 N. W. 17, 2 Am. St. 760. Contra: Tate v. Clements, 16 Fla. 339, 26 Am. Rep. 709. 18 "This court in its opinion held that notice to one partner was notice to the other of any transaction oc- curring after the partnership was formed, which is a correct rule of law." Miller v. Jones, 33 Ky. L. 848, 111 S. W. 295 (overruling on an- other point. Miller v. Jones, 32 Ky. L. 1078, 107 S. W. 783). See further Williamson v. Barbour, 9 Ch. Div. 529; Overall v. Taylor, 99 Ala. 12, 11 So. 738; Burritt v. Dickson, 8 Cal. 113; Cochran v. Hume, 8 Mackey (D. C.) 517; Baskins v. Valdosta Bank & Trust Co., 5 Ga. App. 600, 63 S. E. 648; Middleton Sav. Bank v. Dubuque, 19 Iowa 467; Wright v. Railey, 13 La. Ann. 536; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15, 29 N. W. 352; Cartis v. Sexton, 252 Mo. 221, 159 S. W. 512; Hall v. Goodnight, 138 Mo. 576, 37 S. W. 916; King v. National Oil Co., 81 Mo. App. .55; Drake v. White Sew. Mach. Co., 133 App. Div. 446, 118 N. Y. S. 178; Ross V. Whitefield, 31 N. Y. Super. Ct. 318, 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 50; Rid- dle V. Canby, 2 Ohio Dec. 586; Thompson v. Christie, 138 Pa. St. 230, 20 Atl. 934, 11 L. R. A. 236, 27 Wkly. Notes Cas. 87; McClurkan v. Byers, 74 Pa. St. 405; Flynn v. Bank of Mineral Wells, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 481, 118 S. W. 848; Barney v. Currier, 1 D. Chip. (Vt.) 315, 6 Am. Dec. 739; Loosen v. Schissler, 149 Wis. 449, 135 N. W. 1008; Sadler v. Lee, 6 Beav. 324, 7 Jur. 476. But compare with this case Baldwin v. Leonard, 39 Vt. 260, 94 Am. Dec. 324; Parrish v. Adwell (Tex. Civ. App.), 124 S. W. 441; Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Pool, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 307, 114 S. W. 685; Loosen v. Schissler, 149 Wis. 449, 135 N. W. 1008; Tomlinson v. Broad- smith (1896), 1 Q. B. 386; Driffill v. Goodwin, 23 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 431. See also Lacey v. Hill, 4 Ch. Div. 537; Townsend v. Hagar, 72 Fed. 949, 19 C. C. A. 256; Watson v. Wells, 5 Conn. 468; Gedge v. Cromwell, 19 App. D. C. 192; Loeb v. Stern, 198 111. 371, 64 N. E. 1043 ; Barber v. Van Horn, 54 Kans. 33, 36 Pac. 1070 Hays V. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 101 Ky. 201, 40 S. W. 573, 19 Ky. L. 367 Adams Oil Co. v. Christmas, 101 Ky, 564, 41 S. W. 545, 19 Ky. L. 760 Howland v. Davis, 40 Mich. 545 Fitch v. Stamps, 6 How. (Miss.) 487 Parlin, Orendorff Co. v. Glover, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 112, 118 S. W. 731. 17 Uniform Partnership Act, § 12. § 469 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 582 paper given to the drawer will be sufEcient.^^ So upon the question of protest and notice in the case of a partnership, it has been held that such notice is properly left at the residence of one of the partners or at the firm's place of business with some one there in charge/® Likewise it has been held that if a bank holds a foreign bill and has notice of its nonpayment, the fact that its cashier is one of the members of the firm which drew and in- dorsed the paper renders protest of such bill unnecessary to charge the partners.^" So, also, the members of a partnership will be jointly liable when, as mortgagees they have failed to meet the statutory requirement of entry of satisfaction of the mortgage although the notice or request has been given or made to one of their number only.^^ Again when one partner buys for the benefit of the firm in fraud of the vendor's creditors, notice of the fraud has been imputed to the purchaser's asso- ciate.^^ In like manner where one partner purchases timber in behalf of the firm, his associates will be charged with his knowl- edge that the timber was cut from land which was not the prop- erty of the seller, to the extent at least that all will be liable for .the statutory damages.^^ So, also, a banking partnership will be charged with the knowledge of one of its members as to the facts having to do with the issuance of a note held by the firm.^* , Again, the statement of the payor that his note is still unpaid does not relieve the partner to whom such declaration is made from knowledge that the note has in reality been paid to his copartner, the latter being fully authorized to receive payment.^^ Further, an early case is authority for the proposition that where isRhett V. Poe, 2 How. (U. S.) So. 427; Renfro v. Adams, 62 Ala. 457, 11 L. ed. 338. See also Collins 302. V. Titusville Bank, 1 Walk. (Pa.) 194. 22 Patterson v. Seaton, 70 Iowa 689, See § 439, on power as to present- 28 N. W. 598. But compare Jones v. ment and protest. ■ Draper, 26 Ohio C. C. 785. "Fourth Nat. Bank v. Altheimer, 23 Tucker v. Cole, 54 Wis. 539, 11 91 Mo. 190, 3 S. W. 858. N. W. 703. 20 Hays V. Citizens' , Sav. Bank, 101 ■ 24 Adams v. Ashman, 203 Pa. St. Ky. 201, 19 Ky. L. 367, 40 S. W. 573. 536, 53 Atl. 375. 21 Johnson v. Frix, 177 Ala. 251, 58 25 Bigelow v. Henniger, 33 Kans. 362, 6 Pac. 593. 583 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT f 469 one of the members of a mercantile firm against which suit has been brought is served with notice of the taking of depositions, his knowledge will be imputed to his copartner who lives in another state and this notwithstanding the fact that dissolution of the partnership precedes the time of trial.^" This imputation to all the members of the firm of notice given to one of the partners is not apparently restricted to cases where the personnel of the firm remains the same after the consummation of the transaction involved, as it was at the time when the same took place. In other words, it seems that where a person becomes a member of the partnership after one of its members has re- ceived notice of a certain fact, he will be charged with the same in like manner as if he had entered the firm before the knowl- edge was actually obtained.^^ Notice to one member of a firm, which took a mortgage on land, that there was a prior mortgage is notice to the firm.^^ "The rule of law which attaches a re- sponsibility tothe status of a partnership relation for the acts of a copartner within the scope of business transactions is founded upon a just view of the requirernents of public commercial in- terests. To extend its operation to the extent of imputing the notice or knowledge of one copartner, acquired in transactions outside of the partnership business, and which were had for his individual benefit, to the other, would be to convert the rule into an instrumentality of injustice."^' Moreover, one partner individually acting as trustee under a deed of trust will not be held to have the knowledge of his copartner concerning such trust.^" Again an agent who deals with a partner without disclosing his 26 Gilly V. Singleton; 3 Litt. (Ky.) Tex. Civ. App. 481, 118 S. W. 848 249. German Sav. Bank v. Wulfekuhler, 27 Middleton Sav. Bank v. Dubuque, 19 Kans. 60 ; Tennent Shoe Co. v, 19 Iowa 467; Herbert V. Odlin, 40 N. Birdseye, 105 Mo. App. 696, 78 S H. 267; Flour City Nat. Bank v. W. 1036; Van Bergen v. Lehmaier, Widener, 163 N. Y. 276, 57 N. E. 72 Hun 304, 25 N. Y. S. 356, 55 N. 471. Y. St. 532; Atlantic State Bank of 28 Watson V. Wells, 5 Conn. 468. Brooklyn v. Savery, 82 N. Y. 291. 29Bienenstok v. Ammidown, 155 ^o Tennent Shoe Co. v. Birdseye, N. Y. 47, 49 N. E. 321. See further 105 Mo. App. 696, 78 S. W. 1036. Flynn v. Bank of Mineral Wells, 53 § 470 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 584 agency can not escape personal liability through the simple fact that the copartner who did not even know of the particular transaction had on another occasion been informed that the one who subsequently contracted with his associate bore the rela- tion of agent to a certain individual.^^ Furthermore, a partner may not be charged with knowledge of the act of his copartner when the latter has been guilty of a fraudulent concealment of the same.^^ Nor are the other partners bound by notice to a partner who is perpetrating a fraud on them.*^ And knowledge of a partner executing a note and mortgage in the firm name has been held not notice to a copartner and other persons who purchased the partner's interest.^* A demand upon one partner upon a claim or matter arising within the scope of the firm business is a demand binding on all the partners. ''° Waiver of tender by one partner will bind the firm.^° § 470. Notice o£ authority of partner as affecting rights of third parties. — As was stated in a preceding section, a third person dealing with the firm is not bound by secret restrictions not known to him on the ordinary authority of a partner as gen- eral agent for the firm in its business,^' and it has been held that one dealing with a partner is chargeable with notice of what acts are within the ordinary scope of the firm business which it is held out as conducting, and must be held to notice of lack of authority in a partner to hurt the firm by acts without such 31 Baldwin v. Leonard, 39 Vt 260, Kans. App. 160, 43 Pac. 288 (in re- 94 Am. Dec. 324. plevin) ; Gates v. Beecher, 60 N. Y. 32 Hawkins v. Western Nat. Bank 518, 19 Am. Rep. 207 (on note) ; Hoi- . (Tex. Civ. App.), 146 S. W. 1191. brook v. Wight, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) ' 33Gilruth V. Decell, 72 Miss. 232, 169, 35 Am. Dec. 607 (in action for 16 So. 250 ; Bienenstok V. Ammidown, conversion); Nisbet v. Patton, 4 155 N. Y. 47, 49 N. E. 321 ; Jones v. Rawle (Pa.) 120, 26 Am. Dec. 122. Draper, 26 Ohio Cir. Ct. 785. se Curtis v. Sexton, 252 Mo. 221, 3* Hawkins v. Western Nat. Bank 159 S. W. 512. of Hereford (Tex. Civ. App.), 146 S. 37 See § 418, on restrictions of au- W. 1191. thority. Bass Dry Goods Co. v. 35 Miller V. Phenix Ins. Co., 109 Granite City Mfg. Co., 113 Ga. 1142, 111. App. 624 (to pay money) ; La 39 S. E. 471. Crosse Milling Co. v. Williams, 2 585 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 471 scope.^' Thus, one must take notice of the lack of power of one partner to bind his firm by a pledge of partnership tobacco to secure payment of advances made to buy tobacco in the name of another firm of which he was a member.^" Where the part- nership does business in the name of "Taylor Coal Co," one dealing with it is put on inquiry as to who are its members, and if he keep firm property from "Taylor" without the knowledge or consent of the other partner, he does so at his peril/" What facts are sufficient to put the holder of negotiable paper made or indorsed in a firm name, on inquiry, have been discussed." But merely the taking by a bank of an order to pay firm money to secure a partner's individual debt and applying the proceeds to the debt has been held not enough to put the bank on inquiry as to whether the partner had authority from his copartner/^ § 471. Ratification of acts of partner. — It has been seen in preceding sections on particular powers that where an unau- thorized contract on behalf of the firm has been entered into by one of the partners, the firm's liability thereon may ordinarily be established by a subsequent ratification thereof, and this is equivalent to antecedent authority.*^ To establish such rati- os Standard Wagon Co. v. Few, 119 tings Bank, 1 Dill. (U. S.) 462, Fed. Ga. 293, 46 S. E. 109; Victoria Lum- Cas. No. 6244; United States v. Bax- ber Co. v. Montgomery, 130 La. 120, ter, 46 Fed. 350; Gunter v. Williams, 57 So. 650; Peterson v. Armstrong, 40 Ala. 561; Pacific Mut. Life Ins. 24 Utah 96, 66 Pac. 767. Co. v. Fisher, 109 Cal. 566, 42 Pac. 39 Brooks-Waterfield Co. v. Carpen- 154 ; Garden City Nat. Bank v. Schul- ter, 21 Ky. L. 851, 53 S. W. 40. man, 131 Pac. 559, 89 Kans. 182 ; Lays *'o Plimpton v. Taylor, 21 Ohio Cir. v. Hurley, 215 Mass. 582, 103 N. E. Ct. 260, 11 Ohio C. D. 570. 52. See also Tischler v. Kurtz, 35 41 See ante § 432. Fla. 323, 17 So. 661 ; Sparks v. Flan- *2 Breeze v. International Banking nery, 104 Ga. 323, 30 S. E. 823; Corporation, 25 Cal. App. 437, 143 Easter v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 57 111. Pac. 1066. 215; Trumbull v. Union Trust Co., *3McGahan v. National Bank, 156 33 III. App. 319; Buettner v. Stein- U. S. 218, 39 L. ed. 403, 15 Sup. Ct. brecher, 91 Iowa 588, 60 N. W. 177; 347 ; United States v. Turner, 2 Bond Corbett v. Cannon, 57 Kans. 127, 45 (U. S.) 379, Fed. Cas. No. 16547; Pac. 80; Saufley v. Howard, 7 Dana In re Norris, 2 Hask. (U. S.) 19, (Ky.) 367; O'Connor v. Sherley, 107 Fed. Cas. No. 10302 ; Hawkins v. Has- Ky. 70, 52 S. W. 1056, 21 Ky. L. 735 ; § 471 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 586 fication, it must appear the partner who is sought to be held thereby had knowledge of the act of his copartner, or should have had such knowledge in the use of ordinary prudence.** Such ratification may be accomplished by acquiescence, with knowledge of the fact, in the terms of the agreement after its execution.*^ Thus, acquiescence by one partner in a chattel mortgage executed by the other has been held to amount to a ratification of such mortgage.*^ So, also, a jury would be war- ranted in finding that each of the firms in whose names the lease was executed had ratified the same where it appears in evidence that the "renting" firm entered into occupation and possession of the premises described in the lease, paid the rent resei'ved Stewart v. Caldwell, 9 La. Ann. 419; Waite V. Foster, 33 Maine 424 ; Burk- hardt v. Yates, 161 Mass. 591, 37 N. E. 759; Koch v. Endriss, 97 Mich. 444, 56 N. W. 847; Van Dyke v. Seelye, 49 Minn. 557, 52 N. W. 215 ; Davis V. Richardson, 45 Miss. 499, 7 Am. Rep. 732; Meadowcraft v. Walsh, 15 Mont. 544, 39 Pac. 914; Columbus State Bank v. Dole, 56 Nebr. 508, 76 N. W. 1054; Dow v. Moore, 47 N. H. 419; Rumsey v. Briggs, 139 N. Y. 323, 34 N. E. 929; Hardin v. Dolge, 46 App. Div. 416, 61 N. Y. S. 753; G. H. Haulenbeck Advertising Agency v. November, 27 Misc. 836, 60 N. Y. S. 573; Bate v. McDowell, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 106; Galway v. Nordlinger, 51 Hun 639, 4 N. Y. S. 649, 21 N. Y. St. 197; Mc- Gregor v. Ellis, 2 Disn. (Ohio) 286, 13 Ohio Dec. 175; McNaughten v. Partridge, 11 Ohio 223, 38 Am. Dec. 731 ; Enterprise Oil &c. Co. v. Na- tional Transit Co., 172 Pa. St. 421, 33 Atl. 687, 51 Am. St. 746; Miller v. Royal Flint Glass Works, 172 Pa. St. 70, 33 Atl. 350; Murray v. Ayer, 16 R. I. 665, 19 Atl. 241 ; Salinas v. Ben- nett, 33 S. Car. 285, 11 S. E. 968; Hatton V. Stewart, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 233; Metcalf v. Denson, 4 Baxt. (Tenn.) 565; Spencer v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 47 S. W. 665; Gutheil v. Gilmer, 23 Utah 84, 63 Pac. 817; Lynch v. Flint, 56 Vt. 46; Richards v. Jefferson, 20 Wash. 166, 54 Pac. 1123; Rock v. Collins, 99 Wis. 630, 75 N. W. 426, 67 Am. St. 885. ' ** Sibley v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 97 Ga. 126, 25 S. E. 470; Sar- gent V. Henderson, , 79 Ga. 268, S S. E. 122; Holmes v. Kortlander, 64 Mich. 591, 31 N. W. 532; Gutheil v. Gilmer, 23 Utah 84, 63 Pac. 817. « Morris v. Brown, 177' Ala. 389, 58 So. 910; Sparks v. Flannery, 104 Ga. 323, 30 S. E. 823; Clark v. Hyman, 55 Iowa 14, 7 N. W. 386, 39 Am. Rep. 160 ; Corbett v. Cannon, 57 Kans. 127, 45 Pac. 80; Clippinger v. Starr, 130 Mich. 463, 90 N. W. 280; Co- lumbus State Bank v. Dole, 56 Nebr. 508, 76 N. W. 1054; Rock v. Collins, 99 Wis. 630, 75 N. W. 426, 67 Am. St. 885 ; Wipperman v. Stacy, 80 Wis. 345, 50 N. W. 336. *^ Columbus State Bank v. Dole, 56 Nebr. 508, 76 N. W. 1054; Rock v. Collins, 99 Wis. 630, 75 N. W. 426, 67 Am. St. 885. 587 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 472 as required, and used the light, heat, power and water furnished and supplied by the "lessor," and that the latter opened an ac- count on its books for the rent to be paid under the lease, and gave directions to its bookkeeper to make out bills therefor and to collect and receive the same from the "leasing" firm.*^ So, also, it is undoubtedly true that ratification may be evinced by an express parol adoption of the act,*^ and even a deed may be ratified by parol/" But it has been held that a partner does not become liable on single bills executed in the firm's name by his copartner who has acted without authority, by acknowl- edging his liability on the open account which the bills purported to secure.^" However, where a partnership sues upon a sealed instrument executed by one of the partners in the firm name, it thereby ratifies the contract. ^^ And an offer to recognize as valid an unauthorized act, upon condition, is not a ratification, unless the condition is performed.^^ § 472. Ratification by receipt of benefits. — Likewise rati- fication may in general be implied as from a receipt, with full knowledge, of the benefits of the transaction.^^ The receipt *7 Golding V. Brennan, 183 Mass. 39 C. C. A. 294 ; Markell v. Matthews, 286, 61 N. E. 239. See also Porter 3 Colo. App. 49, 32 Pac. 176; Tyler V. Curry, SO 111. 319, 99 Am. Dec. 520; v. Waddingham, 58 Conn. 375, 20 Atl. Holbrook v. Chamberlin, 116 Mass. 335, 8 L. R. A. 657; Porter v. Curry, 155, 17 Am. Rep. 146; Burkhardt v. SO 111. 319, 99 Am. Dec. 520; Porter Yates, 161 Mass. 591, 37 N. E. 759. v. Wilson, 113 Ind. 350, IS N. E. 676; *8 Gunter v. Williams, 40 Ala. 561 ; Fordsville Banking Co. v. Thompson, Tischler v. Kurtz, 35 Fla. 323, 17 So. 26 Ky. L. 534, 82 S. W. 251; Arick's 661; Harper v. Devene, 10 La. Ann. Succession, 22 La. Ann. 501; Weld 724; Batty v. Adams, 16 Nebr. 44, 20 v. Peters, 1 La. Ann. 432; Golding y. N. W. IS; Smith v. Kerr, 3 N. Y. Brennan, 183 Mass. 286, 67 N. E. 239; 144. Holbrook v. Chamberlin, 116 Mass. *9 National Citizens' Bank of Man- 155, 17 Am. Rep. 146 ; Davis v. Ber- kato V. McKinley, 152 N. W. 879. ger, 54 Mich. 652, 20 N. W. 629; 50 Sibley v. Young, 26 S. Car. 415, Doll v. Hennessy Mercantile Co., 33 2 S. E. 314. Mont. 80, 81 Pac. 625 ; Levy v. Ab. 51 Dodge V. McKay, 4 Ala. 346. ramsohn, 39 Misc. 781, 81 N. Y. S. 52 Hurt V. Clarke, 56 Ala. 19, 28 344 ; Person v. Carter, 7 N. Car. 321 ; Am. Rep. 7S1 ; Koch v. Endriss, 97 Kramer v. Dinsmore, 152 Pa. St. 264, Mich. 444, 56 N. W. 847. 25 Atl. 789; In re Appeal of Levick, 63 Smith V. Packard, 98 Fed. 793, 1 Sad. (Pa,) 365, 2 Atl. 532; Stro- § 472 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 588 of a part of the ourchase-price of the real estate belonging to a partnership which has been sold by one of the partners may op- erate as a ratification of such sale.°* The same principle would probably apply when money is received on a promissory note executed by one of the partners in the name of the firm/° and is used in the partnership business.^" Even though fraud on the vendor accompanies the procurioig of goods by a partner for the use of his firm, the receipt and participation in the use of such goods by the other partners may establish the liability of the firm for the act of the partner who obtained the prop- erty.^^ So, too, where a partner who purports to act for his firm enters into a contract with one of the judgment debtors of the partnership, which provides that the debtor shall discontinue proceedings to open his judgment and shall consent to a sale of his land on execution, the same to be conveyed to his wife if purchased by the partnership, the latter will ratify the agree- ment by issuing execution after the discontinuance has been entered and by purchasing the property at the subsequent sale.^^ Again a partner ratifies the sale of property of which he subse- quently asserts that he was individually possessed, by con- senting to its resale by the purchaser and by leasing to the lat- ter's transferee the realty on which the property was located man v. Varn, 19 S. Car. 307; Allen =* Thomas v. Scott, 3 Rob. (La.) V. Meyer (Tex. Civ. App.), 65 S. W. 256; Weld v. Peters, 1 La. Ann. 432. 645; Guthiel v. Gilmer, 27 Utah 496, 65 O'Connor v. Sherley, 107 Ky. 70, 76 Pac. 628; Lynch v. Flint, 56 Vt. 52 S. W. 1056, 21 Ky. L. 735. See 46; McDougallv. McDonald (Wash.), also American Exch. Nat. Bank v. 150 Pac. 628. See also Richardson v. Georgia Const. &c. Co., 87 Ga. 651, Ames, 79 Wis. 237, 48 N. W. 423. "If 13 S. E. 505. the sale [of all the goods of a mer- 58 Buettner v. Steinbrecher, 91 Iowa cantile partnership] was made subject 588, 60 N. W. 177. See also Bald- to the condition that the other part- win's Bank v. Morris, 144 N. Y. 637, ner should assent to it, his assent or 39 N. E. 493. subsequent ratification must be =7 Levy v. Abramsohn, 39 Misc. 781, shown; but such assent or ratifica- 81 N. Y. S. 344. See also Tate v. tion may be either express or implied, Clements, 16 Fla. 339, 26 Am. Rep. and is a question for the jury, to be 709; Drumright v. Philpot, 16 Ga. 424, determined by a consideration of all 60 Am. Dec. 738. the circumstances in evidence." El- ^s Kramer v. Dinsmore, 152 Pa. St. lis V. Allen, 80 Ala. 515, 2 So. 676. 264, 25 Atl. 789. 589 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 473 for the purpose of conducting thereon the same business as had the partnership, and this notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the sale he registered the objection that the property was mortgaged to a third person."* ' § 473. Ratification by failure to repudiate. — If one partner fails to repudiate an unauthorized act of the other within a reasonable time after he has acquired knowledge thereof, he will ordinarily be held to have ratified the same.^" While a partner does not necessarily ratify by failing to repudiate within eight days,"^ repudiation, postponed for the period of one year"^ or for four years after full knowledge of the facts is' acquired, has been held not to have been made within a reasonable time.*^ As opposed to this view of the matter, it has been held that a part- ner is not required by law to deny his liability until it is sought to be enforced and, therefore, that mere silence or omission to repudiate upon knowledge of the facts will not per se be equiv- alent to ratification.®* But mere knowledge and failure to deny liability where a partner gave a firm note for a debt in part his, individually, has been held not a ratification of the entire debt.*° 59 Morris v. Brown, 177 Ala. 389, ston v. Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 2 Grant 58 So. 910. See also Gutheil v. Gil- Gas. (Pa.) 219. mer, 23 Utah 84, 63 Pac. 817 (affd. " Johnson v. McClary, 131 Ind. 105, 27 Utah 496, Id Pac. 628). 30 N. E. 888. 60 Murphy v. Whitlow, 1 Ariz. 340, e^ Clippinger v. Starr, 130 Mich. 25 Pac. 532 ; Sparks v. Flannery, 104 463, 90 N. W. 280. That repudiation Ga. 323, 30 S. E. 823; Parsons v. does not ipso facto impose liabiKty Ponting, 46 111. App. 101 ; Johnson v. upon the partner refusing to ratify, McClary, 131 Ind. 105, 30 N. E. 888; see Jamison v. Cullom, 110 La. 781, Thompson v. Gosserand, 131 La. 1056 34 So. 775. (held estopped to deny liability) ; In ^3 Marine Co. of Chicago v. Car- re Succession of Arick, 22 La. Ann. ver, 42 111. (£. 501; Swan v. Stedman, 4 Mete. 6*Van Dyke v. Seelye, 49 Minn. (Mass.) 548; Clippinger v. Starr, 130 557, 52 N. W. 215. See also Barnard Mich. 463, 90 N. W. 280; Van Dyke v. Lapeer &c. Plank Road Co., 6 V. Seelye, 49 Minn. 537, 52 N. W. 215 ; Mich. 274 ; and Tyree v. Lyon, 61 Ala. Standard Oil Co. v. Hoese, 57 Nebr. 1 ; Reubin v. Cohen, 48 Gal. 545 ; 665, 78 N. W. 292 ; Hodenpyl v. Hines, Ferguson v. Shepherd, 33 Tenn. 254. 160 Pa. St. 466, 28 Atl. 825 ; Living- "s Brown v. First Nat. Bank, 35 Okla. 726, 130 Pac. 140. § 474 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 590 Again, ratification will not have been effected where the part- ner by whom the same is alleged to have been made has not had full knowledge of all material facts®* or at least, a knowledge of such facts as would have ixit him on inquiry.®^ Actual knowl- edge of the accommodation character of an indorsement in the firm name, and of the circumstances attendant thereupon is not required in order for the ratification of the nonacting partner to be binding. If the latter ratify the act of his copartner in incurring the liability and assume to personally discharge the same upon notice of such facts only as would serve to put a rea- sonably prudent man upon inquiry, he becomes charged with all the facts discoverable had he made duly diligent inquiry. This being the case, it will be proper in an action on the note to refuse a charge which, by making the binding force of the ratification dependent upon actual knowledge, excludes from consideration the effect of the constructive knowledge which might have been obtained by inquiry."^ Moreover, failure to understand ' the legal effects of the contract will not avoid a ratification otherwise valid.®" § 474. Ratification by retiring partner. — Further, in con- nection with this subject it seems that retiring partners may ratify the acts of the one or ones continuing.'"' But "Evidence 66 Love V. Payne, 73 Ind. 80, 38 Am. also Atkinson v. Howlett, 11 Ky. L. Rep. Ill; Wheeler v. Timpson, 59 (abstract) 364; Woodward v. Win- Hun 625, 13 N. Y. S. 640, 37 N. Y. ship, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 430; Miller v. St. 210; Hull V. Young, 30 S. Car. Royal Flint Glass Works, 172 Pa. St. 121, 8 S. E. 695, 3 L. R. A. 521 ; 70, 33 Atl. 350. And compare Tootle Biggs V. Hubert, 14 S. Car. 620. And v. Rice, 53 Kans.'576, 36 Pac. 990; compare Meyer v. Hegler, 121 Cal. Hayes v. Baxter, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 682, 54 Pac. 271; Rumsey v. Briggs, 181. 139 N. Y. 323, 34 N. E. 929. 69 Miller v. Royal Flint Glass " Sargent v. Henderson, 79 Ga. 268, Works, 172 Pa. St. 70, 33 Atl. 350. 5 S. E. 122. See Casey v. Carver, 42 ■"> Van Valkenburg v. Bradley, 14 111. 225 ; Sweetser v. French, 2 Cush. Iowa 108, overruling Kemp v. Coffin, (Mass.) 309, 48 Am. Dec. 666; Pe- 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 190. See also terson v. Armstrong, 24 Utah 96, 66 Brown v. Bamberger, 110 Ala. 342, 20 Pac. 767. So. 114; Sanborn v. Stark, 31 Fed. 68 Sibley v. American Exch. Nat. 18; Silas v. Adams, 92 Ga. 350, 17 S. Bank, 97 Ga. 126, 25 S. E. 470. See E. 280; Roberts v. Barrow, S3 Ga. 591 POWER 6f partner to contract § 475 that members of a partnership, after beginning the transaction of the partnership business, ratified certain unauthorized acts done in its behalf, and in anticipation of its formation, by one who has become a member of such pai^tnership, is not proof of the ratification of another unauthorized act so done by such per- son at a time when he had no power to act in its behalf ."^^ More- over, "ratification" of an assignment by one partner of the firm property will not validate the same as to creditors who have acquired rights by attachment or garnishment before the con- tract is "ratified."^^ Again, it is hdd that neither a "ratifica- tion" by the contracting partner alone'^^ nor by a single one of the several remaining partners is binding upon the firm/* § 475. Estoppel. — There remains still another method by which a partner may impose upon himself partnership obliga- .tions, and that is by estoppel. This occurs when one holds him- self out, or knowingly permits himself to be held out, as a part- ner in a particular firm. He is thereby rendered liable upon con- tracts made by his copartners for the firm to third persons who knew of and acted in reliance upon such representation, or hold- ing out.''" Thus it seems that a partnership may be liable on con- 314; Chamberlain v. Stone, 24 Ga. ^4 North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. 310; Carter v. Pameroy, 30 Ind. 438; Stebbins, 2 S. Dak. 74, 48 N. W. 833. Conklin^v. Ogborn, 7 Ind. 553; Eaton " Steele v. Michigan Buggy Co., 50 V. TayloV, 10 Mass. 54 ; Fowle v. Har- Ind. App. 635, 95 N. E. 435, quotes rington, 1 Cush. (Mass.), 146; Wil- Farmers' Bank v. Orr, 25 Ind. son V. Forder, 20 Ohio St. 89, 5 Am. App. 71, 55 N. E. 35, as follows : Rep. 627; Murray v. Ayer, 16 R. I. "To constitute an estoppel in pais, the 665, 19 Atl. 241 ; Hatton v. Stewart, 2 following elements must be present : Lea (Tenn.) 233; McElroy v. Melear, (1) A representation or concealment 7 Coid. (Tenn.) 140. of material facts ; (2) the representa- ^1 Cody V. First Nat. Bank, 103 Ga. tion must have been made with knowl- 789, 30 S. E. 281 (syllabus by the edge of the facts; (3) the party to court). whom the representation was made ■^z Coleman v. Rosenfeld, 66 Wis. must have be^n ignorant of the truth 155, 28 N. W. 367, 57 Am. Rep. 253. of the matter ; (4) the representations See also Kittrell v. Blum, 77 Tex. must have been made with the inten- 336, 14 S. W. 69 ; and Mayer v. Bern- tion that the other party should act stein, 69 Miss. 17, 12 So. 257. upon it; and (5) the other party must '3 Blake v. Third Nat. Bank, 219 have been induced thereby to act." Mo. 644, 118 S. W. 641. See further Kuriger v. Joest, 22 § 475 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 592 tracts entered into by one who has been permitted to act as a mem- ber of the firm/* And a partner who for years has remained silent as to the character of business done by the firm, is held estopped to deny that an act, of which he had known for a long time with- out repudiating it, was without the scope of his copartner's au- thority.''^ And any partner is estopped to deny his liability for a copartner's conduct, where a third person has changed his po- sition for the worse, because of the acts of such copartner within the apparent scope of his authority, or with the other partner's consent.'^ And a partner who has permitted a copartner to be Ind. App. 633, 52 N. E. 764, 54 N. E. 414; Roberts v. Abbott, 127 Ind. 83, 26 N. E. 565; Waugh V. Carver, 2 H. Bl. 235; De Berkom v. Smith, 1 Esp. 29; Mor- ris V. Brown, 177 Ala. 389, 58 So. 910 ; Nicholson v. Moog, 65 Ala. 471; Deputy V. Harris, 1 Marv. (Del.) 100, 40 Atl. 714, 1 Hardesty 92 ; Mitchell V. Craig, 11 Ga. App. 79, 74 S. E. 716; Bartlett v. Powell, 90 111. 331 ; Eggle- ston V. Mason, 84 Iowa 630, 51 N. W. 1; Rider v. Hammell, 63 Kans. 733, 66 Pac. 1026; Fennell v. Myers, 25 Ky. L. 589, 76 S. W. 136; Johnson V. Levy, 109 La. 1036, 34 So. 68;, Lighthiser v. Allison, 100 Md. 103, 59 Atl. 182; Fletcher v. Pullen, 70 Md. 205,, 16 Atl. 887, 14 Am. St. 355; Kritzer v. Sweet, 57 Mich. 617, 24 N. W. 764; Coleman v. Pearce, 26 Minn. 123, 1 N. W. 846 ; Rittenhouse v. Leigh, 57 Miss. 697; Seabury v. Bolles, 51 N. J. L. 103, 16 Atl. 54, 11 L. R. A. 136; Stettheimer v. Tone, 114 N. Y. 501, 21 N. E. 1018; Cassidy v. Hall, 97 N. Y. 159; Campbell v. Huffines, 151 N. Car. 262, 65 S. E. 1000, 134 Am. St. 987 ; Penfield v. Mason, 9 Ohio C. D. 611, 17 Ohio Cir. Ct. 165; En- terprise Oil &c. Co. V. National Transit Co., 172 Pa. St. 421, 33 Atl. 687, 51 Am. St. 746; In re Scull's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 141, 7 Atl. 588; Salinas v. Bennett, 33 S. Car. 285, 11 S. E. 968 ; Nugent v. Allen, 95 Tenn. 97, 32 S. W. 9; Hamner v. Barker (Tex. Civ. App.), 144 S. W. 1180; Kelton v. Leonard, 54 Vt. 230; Matthies v. Herth, 31 Wash. 665, 72 Pac. 480; Benjamin v. Covert, 47 Wis. 375, 2 N. W. 625, note in 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 988; Smith v. Ure, 2 Knapp 188. One who, by his acts or conduct, authorizes a stranger to believe that he is a partner, is, as to such stran- ger, a partner. Letson v. Hall, 1 Ala. App. 619, 55 So. 944. ^^ Chicago Trust & Savings Bank v. Kinnare, 174 111. 358, 51 N. E. 607; Peninsular Sav. Bank v. Currie, 123 Mich. 666, 82 N. W. 511; Tyler v. Omeis, 76 Minn. 537, 79 N. W. 528. ^' Thompson v. Gosserand, 131 La. 1056, 60 So. 682. 78 Elliott V. Holbrook, 33 Ala. 659; Jones V. Hendrix (Ark.), 127 S. W. 720; Burritt v. Dickson, 8 Cal. 113; Merchants' & Farmers' Bank v. John- ston, 130 Ga. 661, 61 S. E. 543, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 969n; Davies v. Atkin- son, 25 111. App. 260 (affd. 124 111. 474, 16 N. E. 899, 7 Am. St. 373) ; Thompson v. Gosserand, 131 La. 1056, 60 So. 682; Heffron v. Hanaford, 40 Mich. 305; Hoeffler v. Westcott, 15 593 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 475 placed in a situation such that he can apparently transfer good title to firm property, is estopped to question such title.''' So, also, property used by an ostensible partner in conducting the busi- ness may undoubtedly, in equity, be regarded as the joint prop- erty of the firm and creditors be permitted to subject the same to the payment of their debts.®" Before one will be estopped to deny his liability as a partner, it is essential in general that he be guilty of some wrongful act or omission. One who is not a partner and has no knowledge of the fact that he has been held out as a partner, and one who has been neither negligent nor at fault in the matter can not be held liable.*^ Thus the declarations of a person that another is associated with him in the partner- ship relation where there is no partnership in fact do not or- dinarily bind the alleged partner when such declarations are not made in his presence or with his knowledge or consent.®^ Under such circumstances, neither partnership nor agency being ac- tually existent, the declarant's statements will not, as a general rule, be admissible in evidence against the one referred to in the declarations,®* the latter, in the absence of other evidence, bind- Hun (N. Y.) 243 ; Campbell v. Huf- lin v. Henderson, 119 Iowa 720, 94 fines, 151 N. Car. 262, 65 S. E. 1000, N. W. 247, 61 L. R. A. 756, 97 Am. 134 Am. St. 987; Tarns v. Hitner, 9 St. 335, in which a debtor was not Pa. St. 441. permitted to set off a claim he held f» Paxson V. Brown, 61 Fed. 874, against one of the partners when he 10 C. C. A. 135; Cross v. Weare had dealt with such partner in his Commission Co., 153 111. 499, 38 N. individual capacity and without E. 1038, 46 Am. St. 902 ; Locke v. knowledge that he was acting for a Lewis, 124 Mass. 1, 26 Am. Rep. 631 ; partnership. See further Nofsinger Moran v. Palmer, 13 Mich. 367; Pat- v. Goldman, 122 Cal. 609, 55 Pac. 425; ton V. Barnett, 12 Wash. 576, 41 Pac. Munton v. Rutherford, 121 Mich. 418, 901- Spencer v. Jones (Tex. Civ. 80 N. W. 112; Seabury v. Bolles, 52 App.), 47 S. W. 665. N. J. L. 413, 21 Atl. 952, 11 L. R. A. 80 Thayer v. Humphrey, 91 Wis. 276, 136. See also note in 18 L. R. A. (N. 64 N. W. 1007, 30 L. R. A. 549, 51 S.) 992. Am. St. 887. ®^ See Vanderhurst v. De Witt, 95 81 It has been said that one who de- Cal. 57, 30 Pac. 94, 20 L. R. A. 595 ; nies that he is a partner is estopped Frisbie v. Felton, 65 Vt. 138, 26 Atl. to prove partnership as against the 110; Commercial Bank v. Miller, 96 rights of intervening third persons. Va. 357, 31 S. E. 812. Willard v. BuUen, 41 Ore. 25, 67 Pac. 83 Thompson v. Mallory, 108 Ga. 924, 68 Pac. 422. See however, Hoag- 797, 33 S. E. 986; Keim &c. Hardw. 38— Row. ON Paetn.— Vol. 1 § 475 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 594 ing no one but the party making them.** Moreover, a person Vvrho without knowledge of the fact on his part is falsely repre- sented as being a partner need not exercise diligence in ascer- taining and contradicting the report that he is such.*^ Thus, in the absence of proof of the defendant's authorization of, or as- sent to the article, estoppel can not be predicated of the failure of one, attempted to be held as a partner, to publish a denial of an article, appearing in a trade paper, which informed the public as item of news, that he and his alleged partner had entered into a partnership and would transact business under a designated firm name/^ Even, "where one inserts in a newspaper an ad- vertisement of a partnership between himself and other persons, which does not in fact then exist, the latter are not affected by such advertisement, in the absence of evidence showing that they knew of and acquiesced in it."^^ But where the name of a cer- tain person is at the latter's instance used in the name of a firm, such person can not deny his liability on contracts executed by the firm.** Even where no firm ever existed by the name of "Hill & Co." and Hill and Harrington were never partners, if the for- mer consents to the use of his name by the latter, merely en- joining him not to use it in a manner that will injure him, he will be liable on a promissory note signed "Hill & Co. by Har- rington."*' There is no estoppel of a partner because of repre- Co. V. Williams, 154 Mo. App. 716, S12. See also Butler v. Hinckley, 17 136 S.' W. 1; Wolle v. Brown, 4 Colo. 523, 30 Pac. 250. Whart. (Pa.)-36S. See also Salinas s^ Munton v. Rutherford, 121 Mich. City Bank v. DeWitt, 97. Cal. 78, 31 418, 80 N. W. 112. Pac. 744; Brotherton v. Gilchrist, 144 s? First Nat. Bank v. Cody, 93 Ga. "Mich. 274, 107 N. W. 890, llS Am. 127, 19 S. E. 831 (syllabus by the St. 2ff7. court). But see Williams v. Rogers, s^Dodds V. Everett-Ridley-Ragan 14 Bush (Ky.) 776. Co., 110 Ga. 303, 54 S. E. 1004; Mc- ss Speer v. Bishop, 5 Ohio Dec. 128, Cann v. McDonald, 7 Nebr. 305 ; 3 Am. L. Rec. 91 (affd. 24 Ohio St. Whitney v. Ferris, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 598). 66. 89 Smith v. Hill, 45 Vt. 90, 12 Am. 85 Campbell v. Hastings. 29 Ark. Repi 189. 595 POWER OF PARTNER TO CONTRACT § 476 sentations made by a copartner as to the title to property of which the other partner is ignorant and for which he is not responsible."" § 476. Estoppel — Reliance o£ third party. — Further on this subject, the wrongful act or omission that is relied upon to create an estoppel must, it seems, have been acte,d on in good faith by the party in whose favor the same is sought to be in- voked.®^ Should the latter have no knowledge, at the time the contract is entered into, that the person against whom he subse- quently seeks to enforce liability was being held out as a partner, an estoppel does not exist in his favor,®^ any more than it does when he knew of the holding out, but also knew that the parties were in reality not partners."^ Thus it will be proper to refuse an instruction requiring the jury to find the defendant liable if he has held himself out to the general public or to the plaintiff as a member of the firm whose name is signed to the note in suit, it being possible to construe such instruction to mean that the defendant is liable if he has held himself out to the public as a partner, notwithstanding the plaintiff has had no knowl- edge of such fact.** But reliance by a subscriber upon infor- mation transmitted to him by a mercantile agency which in turn has received it from the defendant himself, to the effect that the latter is a full partner in a certain firm, estops such defendant 90 Andrews v., Clark, S Nebr. Ohio St. 13S, 38 Am; Rep. S68; Deni- (Unof.) 361, 98 N. W. 6SS. thorne v. Hook, 112 Pa. St. 240, 3 91 Nof singer v. Goldman, 122 Cal. Atl. W ; Hicks v. Cram, 17 Vt. 449. 609, 55 Pac. 425 ; Seabury v. BoUes, 9g Nightingale v. Milwaukee Furni- 52 N. J. L. 413, 21 Atl. 952, 11 L. R. ture Co., 71 Fed. 234; Krans v. Luthy, A. 136. 56 111. App. 506; Booe v. Caldwell, 12 92 Thompson V. First Nat. Bank, 111 Ind. 12; Pratt v. Langdon, 97 Mass. U. S. 529, 28 L. ed. 507, 4 Sup. Ct. 97, 93 Am. Dec. 61 ; Beudel v. Het- 689; Nof singer v. Goldman, 122 Cal. trick, 45 How. Pr. 198, 3 Jones & 609, 55 Pac. 425 ; Webster v. Clark, 34 S. (N. Y.) 405 ; Alderson v. Pope, 1 Fla. 637, 16 So. 601, 27 L. R. A. 126, Camp. 404n. And compare Brown v. 4i3 Am. St. 217; Wood v. Penneli, 51 Leonard, 2 Chit. 120; Stearns v. Ha- Maine 52; Parchen v. Anderson, S ven, 14 Vt. 540. Mont. 438, 5 Pac. 588, 51 Am. Rep. »* Sheldon v. Bigelow, 118 Iowa 65; Carey v. Marshall, 6? N. J. L. 586, 92 N. W. 701. 236, 51 Atl. 698; Cook v. Slate Co., 36 § 476 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 596 from denying his liability as a member of the partnership.®" On the other hand when a private corporation can not enter into the partnership relation with another, one with whom such corpora- tion deals is bound to know this fact and can not impute liability to it on the contract of the person which it has held out as its partner.®" Again, evidence that the owner of the building wit^ nessed the partnership agreement of the contractor and another, and subsequently accepted receipts for money paid by him on the contract which were signed by both the individuals, does not conclusively establish the fact that he dealt with the partners as such.®^ So', too, a verdict should be directed for R, defendant in a suit on a note signed by another, "R. & Co." where the evi- dence shows that R permitted the use of his name only to make possible the obtaining of a license to carry on the business in the course of which the note is given, and that the plaintiff's drum- mer when he sold the goods whose price is evidenced by the in- strument in suit was informed of R's connection with the busi- ness, and this, notwithstanding such instrument was given to a second agent of the plaintiff."^ as Ellison V. Stuart, 2 Pennew. App.), 61 S. W. 508. See also Spaul- (Del.) 179, 43 Atl. 836. See also ding v. Nathan, 21 Ind. App. 122, 51 Iowa Leather & Saddlery Co. v. Hath- N. E. 742. away (Iowa), 78 N. W. 193. And »? Lapenta v. Lettieri, 72 Conn. 377, compare Sohn v. Freiberg, 6 Ohio 44 Atl. 730, 11 Am. St. 315. Dec. 1175, 11 Am. L. Rec. 1Z(>, 9 as Willis v. Rector, 50 Fed. 684, 1 Wkly. L. Bui. 290. C. C. A. 611. But see In re Krueger, 08 Murray Ginning System Co. v. 2 Lowell (U. S.) (A, Fed. Cas. No. Exchange Nat Bank (Tex. Civ. 7941. CHAPTER XVI LIABILITY OF PARTNERS TO THIRD PERSONS SECTION SECTION 485. In general — Scope of chapter. 500. Liability of dormant partner. 486. Contracts binding upon part- 501. Right of creditor to recover on nership. firm negotiable paper. 487. Apparent scope of partner's 502. Actions and other legal meas- authority. ures against partnerships. 488. Nature of liability of partner 503. Liability in tort— rin general. in contract. 504. Liability for torts of agents 489. Joint contracts and several and servants. contracts distinguished. 505. Liability of joint tort-feasors — 490. Liability of joint obligors. Generally. 491. Release of one joint debtor re- 506. Nature of partnership liability leases all. in tort. 492. Effect of death of joint con- 507. Judgment against one partner tractor. or release of one partner re- 493. Actions on joint and joint and leases all. several contracts. 508. Fraudulent misrepresentations. 494. Statutory modifications. 509. Negligence. 495. Liability of partners on firm 510. Trespass. contract. 511. Conversion. 496. Further of partnership liability 512. Wilful and malicious torts. — Modifications of rule. 513. Libel and slander. 497. Extent of partnership liability 514. Torts in collection of debts. in contract. 515. Acts against positive law. 498. Commencement and termina- 516. Property wrongfully obtained tion of partnership liability. or held. 499. Judgment against or settlement 517. Misapplication of trust funds. with one partner as releasing 518. Liability of partners under all. criminal laws. § 485. In general — Scope of chapter.— It is perhaps safe to say that a partnership is liable for all the acts of its members within the scope of their authority and of the firm business, or for any legal acts authorized or ratified properly, as has been seen in the preceding chapters. The question then arises as to the liability of each individual partner to the firm creditors. As 597 § 486 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 598 to contracts this chapter is concerned only with the general lia- biHty of the firm and its members in contracts and with the na- ture and extent of such liabiHty. In the preceding chapter the powers of one partner to bind the firm by contracts were consid- ered, and reference must be made to that chapter as to the lia- bilit)' of the firm and partners on a contract of any particular kind entered into by one partner on behalf of the firm. As to torts, the chapter will contain not only a discussion of the gen- eral nature and extent of partnership liability, but also a more particular discussion of the classes of torts for which a partner- ship or partner is liable. There are many other rights of third persons and creditors, such as the rights to proceed against part- ners for firm debts, or against the firm to secure the interest of a debtor partner, to an accounting, to proceed against the debtor firm to secure its assets, of its rights after dissolution or under bankruptcy laws, which might be discussed in this cha:pter, but such rights will be considered hereafter under the chapters which take up such Hghts in detail, and in order to avoid repetition will not be treated at this time. § 486. Contracts binding upon partnership. — Without ref- erence to any other questions that may enter in, the general rule is that all contracts made by a partner, within the scope of his actual or apparent authority, in the firm name, are binding on the partnership'^ and all of its members. Neither dormant, si- lA partner has "full power to dis- Fed. Cas. No. 4719; National Bank pose of the firm property and assets v. Dickinson, 107 Ala. 26S, 18 So. in the course of the business of the 144; Rolston v. Click, 1 Stew. (Ala.) firm." Blake v. Third Nat. Bank, 219 S26; Alabama Fertilizer Co. v. Reyn- Mo. 644, 118 S. W. 641. See further olds, 79 Ala. 497; Roberts v. Totten, Reid V. Hollinshead; 4 B. & C. 867; 13 Ark. 609; Dammon v. Beecher, 97 Winship V. Bank of United States, 5 Cal. 530, 32 Pac. 573 ; Rocky Moun- Pet. (U. S.) S29, 8 L. ed. 216; Le tain Nat. Bank v. McCaskill, 16 Colo. Roy V. Johnson, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 186, 408, 26 Pac. 821 ; Tyler v. Wadding- 7 L. ed. 391 ; In re Warren, 2 Ware ham, 58 Conn. 375, 20 Atl. 335, 8 L. R. (U. S.) 322, Fed. Cas. No. 17191; A. 657; Ellison v. Stuart, 2 Penn. Van Reimsdyk v. Kane, 1 Gall. (U. (Del.) 179, 43 Atl. 836 ; Shaw v. Jones, S.) 630, Fed. Cas. No. 16872; Felichy 133 Ga. 446, 66 S. E. 240; Sargent v. V. Hamilton, 1 Wash. (U. S.) 491, Henderson, 79 Ga. 268, S S. E. 122; ^99 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 486 lent, nominal nor secret members of the partnership will, on account of their peculiar connection with the firm, be exempt Brewster V. Hardeman, Dudley (Ga.) Harvey v. McAdams, 32 Mich. 472; 138; Cherry Lake Turpentine Co. v. Moran v. Palmer, 13 Mich. ?,(,! ; Bur- Lanier Armstrong Co., 10 Ga. App. gan v. Lyell, 2 Mich. 102, SS Am. 339, 73 S. E. 610; Dreyfus v. Union Dec. IZ; Graham v. Thornton Nat. Bank, 164 111. 83, 4S N. E. 408; (Miss.), 9 So. 292; Prince v. Craw- Raymond V. Vaughn, 128 111. 256, 21 ford, SO Miss. 344; Davis v. Richard- N. E. 566, 4 L. R. A. 440, 15 Am. son, 45 Miss. 499, -7 Am. Rep. 732; St. 112; Kitner v. Whitlock, 88 111. Faler v. Jordan, 44 Miss. 283; Eau 513 ; Weirick v. Graves, 73 111. App. Claire 'St. Louis Lumber Co. v. Gray, 266; Wiley v. Stewart, 23 111. App. 81 Mo. App. ZZ7 ; Habig v. Layne, 33 236; Iddings v. Pierson, 100 Ind. 4^8; Nebr. 743, 57 N. W. 539; Roney v. Hoffman v; Toll, 2 Ind. App. 287, 28 Buckland, 4 Nev. 45; National State N. E. 557; Seeberger v. Wyman, 108 Capital Bank v. Noyes, 62 N. H. 35 Iowa 527, 79 N. W. 290; Carson v. Tucker v. Peaslee, 36 N. H. 167 Byers, 67 Iowa 606, 25 N. W. 826; Gould v. Gould, 36 N. J. Eq. 380. Beebe v. Rogers, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) Burchell v. Voght, 164 N. Y. 602, 58 319; Pitkin v. Benfer, 50 Kans. 108, N. E. 1085; Union Nat. Bank v. 31 Pac. 695, 34 Am. St. 1.10; Deitz Underbill, 102 N. Y. 336, 7 N. E. V. Regnier, 27 Kans. 94; Scruggs v. 293; Chester v. Dickerson, 54 N. Y. Russell, McCahon (Kans.) 39, 1 1, 13 Am. Rep. 550; Crocker v. Col- Kans. (Dass. ed.) 478; Holderman v. well, 46 N. Y. 212; Paul v. Stevens, Tedford, 7 Kans. App. 657, 53 Pac. 57 Hun 171, 32 N. Y. St. 851, 10 N. 887; Patterson v. Swickard, 19 Ky. Y. S. 442; Onondaga County Bank L. 661, 41 S. W. 435; Ferguson v. v. De Puy, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 47; Sims, 3 Ky. L. (abstract) 684; Davis Springs v. McCoy, 122 N. Car. 628, V. Wiley, 3 Ky. L. 315 ; Rochester v. 29 S. E. 903 ; French v. Griffin, 104 Trotter, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 54; N. Car. 141, 10 S. E. 166; Abpt v. Shreveport V. Mandel Bros., 128 La. Miller, 5 Jones L. (N. Car.) 32; 314, 54 So. 831; Stockwell v. Dilling- Penfield v. Mason, 9 Ohio C. D. 611, ham, 50 Maine 442, 79 Am. Dec. 621 ; 17 Ohio C. C. 165 ; Rice v. Jackson, Willard V. Wright, 203 Mass. 406, 89 171 Pa. St. 89, 32 Atl. 1036; Real N. E. 559; Ashley v. Dowling, 203 Estate Investment Co. v. Smith, 162 Mass. 311, 89 N. E. 434, 133 Am. St. Pa. St. 441, 29 Atl. 855; Potts v. 296; Locke v. Lewis, 124 Mass. 1, 26 Taylor, 140 Pa. St. 601, 21 Atl. 443 Am. Rep. 631 ; Boardman v. Gore, 15 Edwards v. Tracy, 62 Pa. St. 374 Mass. 331 ; Manufacturers' & Mechan- Yeager v. Wallace, 57 Pa. St. 365 ics' Bank v. Gore, IS Mass. 75, 8 Am. Loudon Sav. Fund Soc. v. Hagers- Dec. 83 ; Hayward v. French, 12 Gray town Sav. Bank, 36 Pa. St. 498, 78 (Mass.) 453; Kennebec Co. v. Au- Am. Dec. 390; Mitchell v. Beatty, 1 gusta Ins. &c. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) Phila. (Pa.) 133; Grollman v. Lip- 204; Stevens V. McLachlan, 120 Mich, sitz, 43 S. Car. 329, 21 S. E. 272; 285, 79 N. W. 627; Rolfe v. Dudley, Munroe v. Williams, 35 S. Car. 572, 58 Mich. 208, 24 N. W. 657; Gates IS S. E. 279; Venable v. Levick, 2 V. Fisk, 45 Mich. 522, 8 N. W. 558; Head (Terjn.) 351; Pooley v. Whit- § 486 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 600 from liability.^ This rule, ' of course, obtains only where the other parties have had no notice of any limitation upon the ac- tual authority of such partner to contract. "It is, undoubtedly, a generally accepted doctrine that 'whatever, as between the partners themselves, may be the limits set to each other's au- thority, every person not acquainted with those limits is entitled to assume that each partner is empowered to do for the firm whatever is necessary for the transaction of its business, in the way in which that business is ordinarily carried on by other peo- ple.' * * * It is equally well settled that where a party dealing with a partner has notice of the limitations upon the more, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 629, 27 Am. G. H. Haulenbeck Adv. Agency v. Rep. 733; Richardson v. Cato, 10 November, 27 Misc. 836, 60 N. Y. S. Humph. (Tenn.) 138; Randall v. 573; Wallace v. Reed, 54 Tex. Civ. Meredith, 76 Tex. 669, 13 S. W. 576; App. 457, 117 S. W. 1019. Burnley v. Rice, 18 Tex. 481 ; Crozier ^ Willey v. Crocker-Woolworth V. Kirker, 4 Tex. 252, 51 Am. Dec. Nat. Bank, 141 Cal. 508, 75 Pac. 106; 724; Caraway v. Citizens' Nat. Bank In re Munn, 3 Biss. (U. S.) 442, (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 506; Fed. Cas. No. 9925; Bank of Alex- Anderson V. Clayton, 39 Utah 343, andria v. Mandeville, 1 Cranch (U. 117 Pac. 41; Davis v. Evans, 39 Vt. S.) 575, Fed. Cas. No. 851; Oppen- 182; Miner v. Downer, 19 Vt. 14; heimer v. Clemmons, 18 Fed. 886; Brooke v. Washington, 8 Grat. (Va.) McDonald v. Clough, 10 Colo. 59, 14 248, 56 Am. Dec. 142; Gilchrist v. Pac. 121; Everitt v. Chapman, 6 Brande, 58 Wis. 184, 15 N. W. 817; Conn. 347; Griffin v. Orman, 9 Fla. Rogers v. Brightman, 10 Wis. 55. The 22; Lindsey v. Edmiston, 25 111. 359; facts of the case may render it proper Gilmore v. Merritt, 62 Ind. 525 ; Ken- for the jury to fix the character of nedy v. Bdhannon, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) the transaction, as either within or 118; Cochran v. Anderson' County without -the scope of the partnership Nat. Bank, 83 Ky. 36, 6 Ky. L. 168 business. Stoakes v. Larson, 108 Boudreaux v. Martinez, 25 La. Ann, Minn. 234, 121 N. W. 1112. See also 167; Butts v. Tiffany, 21 Pick Crosswell v. Lehman, Durr & Co., 54 (Mass.) 95; Lea v. Guice, 13 Smed, Ala. 363, 25 Am. Rep. 684; Dowling & M. (Miss.) 656; Richardson v, V. National Exch. Bank, 145 U. S. Farmer, 36 Mo. 35, 88 Am. Dec. 129 512, 36 L. ed. 795, 12 Sup. Ct. 928; Elliot v. Stevens, 38 N. H. 311; Cam Tate V. Clements, 16 Fla. 339, 26 Am. mack v. Johnson, 2 N. J. Eq. 163 Rep. 709; Todd v. Jackson, 75 Ind. Poillon v. Secor, 61 N. Y. 456; Tour- 272; Custard v. Hodges, 155 Mich, nade v. Hagedorn, 5 Thomp. & C. 361, 119 N. W. 583 ; Hoffmaster Sons' (N. Y.) 288; Hill v. Voorhies, 22 Co. V. Hodges, 154 Mich. 641, 118 N. Pa- St. 68; Green v. People's Ware- W. 484 ; Prince v. Crawford, 50 Miss, house Co., 85 S. Car. 40, 67 S. E. 344; CargiU v. Corby, 15 Mo. 425; 14, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1015; Nichols 601 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 486 partner's authority the partnership is not bound."* In case the partnership occupies the position of an undisclosed principal the V. Cheairs, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 229; Bradshaw v. Apperson, 36 Tex. ,133. 3 Slayden &c. Co. v. Lance, 151 N. Car. 492, 66 S. E. 449. See further Cox V. Hickman, 8 H. L. Cas. 268; Irwin V. Williar, 110 U. S. 499, 28 L. ed. 225, 4 Sup. Ct 160; Winship V. Bank of United States, S Pet. (U. S.) 529, 8 L. ed. 216; United States Bank v. Binney, S Mason (U. S.) 176, Fed. Cas. No. 16791; National Exch. Bank v. White, 30 Fed. 412; Brad- ley Fertilizer Co. v. Pollock, 104 Ala. 402, 16 So. 138; Higgins v. Arm- strong, 9 Colo. 38, 10 Pac. 232; Leavitt v. Peck, 3 Conn. 124, 8 Am. Dec. 157; Bishop v. People's Bank, 7 Ga. App. 432, 67 S. E. 119; Crane Co. V. Tierney, 175 111. 79, 51 N. E. 715; Straus V. Kohn, 83 111. App. 497; Hoffman v. Toll, 2 Ind. App. 287, 28 N. E. 557; Baxter v. Rollins, 90 Iowa 217, 57 N. W. 838, 48 Am. St. 432; Devin v. Harris, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 186; Deitz v. Regnier, 27 Kans. 94; Barker v. Mann, 5 Bush (Ky.) 672, 96 Am. Dec. 373; Brooks- Waterfield Co. V. Carpenter, 21 Ky. L. 851, 53 S. W. 40; Gruner v. Stucken, 39 La. Ann. 1076, 3 So. 338; Waldo Bank v. Lumbert, 16 Maine 416; Porter v. White, 39 Md. 613 ; Maltby v. North- western Virginia R. Co., 16 Md. 422; Stimson v. Whitney, 130 Mass. 591; Bailey v. Clark, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 372; Hotchin v. Kent, 8 Mich.' 526; Wil- son V. Richards, 28 Minn. 337, 9 N. W. 872; King v. Levy (Miss.), 13 So. 282; Bloom v. Helm, S3 Miss. 21; Hayes v. Blaker, 138 Mo. App. 24, 119 S. W. 1004; Bates v. Forcht, 89 Mo. 121, 1 S. W. 120; Deardorf v. Thacher, 78 Mo. 128, 47 Am. Rep. 95; Bromley v. Elliot, 38 N. H. 287, 75 Am. Dec. 182; People v. Devlin, 63 Misc. 363, 118 N. Y. S. 478; Campbell v. Huffines, 151 N. Car. 262, 65 S. E. 1000, 134 Am. St. 987; Powell V. Flowers, 151 N. Car, 140, 65 S. E. 817; Yeager v. Wallace, 57 Pa. St. 365; Ex parte Wilson, 84 S. Car. 444, 66 S. E. 675; Chapman v. Devereux, 32 Vt. 616. See also Corn- ing V. Abbott, 54 N. H. 469; Frost v. Hanford, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 540; Johnson v. Mon Lee, 30 N. Y. .St. 392, 10 N. Y. S. 9; Osgood v. Glover, 7 Daly (N. Y.) 367; Ben- ninger v. Hess, 41 Ohio St. 64; Rice V. Jackson, 171 Pa. St. 89, 32 Atl. 1036; Nichols v. Cheairs, 4 Sneed. (Tenn.) 229; Stout v. Ennis Nat. Bank, 69 Tex. 384, 8 S. W. 808; Ty- ler V. Scott, 45 Vt. 261. But "a mem- ber of a mining partnership has not the power to bind his associates by engagements with third persons to the extent that a member of a trading or commercial firm may do. For in- stance, the law does not imply any authority to a member of a mining partnership to borrow money, to em- ploy counsel, to execute a promis- sory note, or to draw or accept bills of exchange, no matter how pressing the necessity for the use of the money. The reason assigned for the distinction and for limiting the pow- ers of members of a mining partner- ship, is that such a partnership is not founded on the delectus personae, whereas other partnerships are. For these reasons, it is held that the pow- ers of members or managers of min- ing partnerships are limited to the performance of such acts in the name of the partnership as may be neces- sary for the transaction of its busi- § 486 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 602 other party has the right to proceed against either the agent or against the firm as principal.* All of this comes about by reason of the dependency of the law of partnership upon that of agency, — persons associated together in the partnership relation being antecedently principals, subsequently partners.^ Consequently, unless there is another limit upon the actual authority of the individual members of an ordinary partnership® by an express ness, or which are usual in like con- cerns. But a partner can bind the firm by acts in the name of the part- nership in such matters as may be necessary to the transaction of the business, or which are usual in like, concerns, unless there is an express agreement to the contrary known to the party contracting with the firm." Bentley v. Brossard, 33 Utah 396, 94 Pac. 736. * Snead v. Barringer, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 134; Morse v. Richmond, 91 111. 303; Bisel V. Hobbs, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 479; Seekell v. Fletcher, S3 Iowa 330, S N. W. 200; Schmidt v. Ittman, 46 La. Ann. 888, 15 So. 310; Clement v. British-American Assur. Co., 141 Mass. 298, S N. E. 847; Bracken v. March, 4 Mo. 74; Tucker v. Peaslee, 36 N. H. 167; Howell v. Adams, 68 N. Y. 314; Galway v. Nordlinger, SI Hun 639, 4 N. Y. S. 649, 21 N. Y. St. 197 (aflfd. 121 N. Y. 699, 24 N. E. 1100) ; Poole v. Lewis, 11 N. Car. 417; Kearney v. Snodgrass, 12 Ore. 311, 7 Pac. 309; Given v. Albert, 5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 333; Griffith v. Bufifum, 22 Vt. 181, S4 Am. Dec' 64; McNair v. Rewey, 62 Wis. 167, 22 N. W. 339. B Cotton Plant Oil Mill Co. v. Buck- eye Cotton Oil Co., 92 Ark. 271, 122 S. W. 658; Shaw v. Jones, 133 Ga. 446, 66 S. E. 240; Blake v. Third Nat. Bank, 219 Mo. 644, 118 S. W. 641; State V. Brown, 38 Mont. 309, 99 Pac. 9S4; Schlicher v. Whyte, 74 N. J. Eq. 839, 71 Atl. 337; Elmira Iron &c Co. V. Harris, 124 N. Y. 280, 26 N. E. 541 ; Bienenstok v. Ammidown, 11 Misc Id, 29 N. Y. S. 593, 31 Abb. N. Cas. 400, 59 N. Y. St. 471; Peo- ple V. Devlin, 63 Misc 363, 118 N. Y. S. 478; Powell v. Flowers, 151 N. Car. 140, 65 S. E. 817; McGhee v. Montgomery, 85 S. Car. 207, 65 S. E.' 721, 67 S. E. 246; Progressive Lum- ber Co. V. Rogers (Tex. Civ. App.), 120 S. W. 260; Brooke v. Washing- ton, 8 Grat. (Va.) 248, 56 Am. Dec 142; Lellman v. Mills, 15 Wyo. 149, 87 Pac 985. « "Partners of a nontrading firm have no implied power to bind each other, and a creditor seeking to hold one of the partners on commercial paper issued in the firm name must show previous authorization or sub- sequent ratification of the act by the partner sought to be charged." Amer- ican Bonding Co. of Baltimore v. Fults, 157 Mo. App. 553, 138 S. W. 689. See also Cotton Plant Oil Mill Co. V. Buckeye Cotton Oil Qo., 92 Ark. 271, 122 S. W. 658; Teed v. Parsons, 202 111. 455, 66 N. E. 1044; Scheie v. Wagner, 163 Ind. 20, 71 N. E. 127; Worster v. Forbush, 171 Mass. 423, SO N. E. 936; Third Nat. Bank v. Fults, 115 Mo. App. 42, 90 S. W. 755 ; Hayes v. B. F. Blaker & Co., 138 Mo. App. 24, 119 S. W. 1004; Wallace v. Reed, 54 Tex. Civ. 603 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS , § 486 agreement,'' this fact carries with it the presumption that the power of each partner to bind the firm is coextensive with all acts ordinarily made necessary or proper by the nature of the business.^ Further it seems that where a single partner has en- App. 457, 117 S. W. 1019; Hatchett Dec. 567; Rouse v. Hughes, 1 Ky. V. Sunset Brick &c Co. ^Tex. Civ. L. (abstract) 320; White v. Kearney, App.), 99 S. W. 174; Smith v. Sloan, 2 La. Ann. 639; Stockwell v. Dilling- 37 Wis. 285, 19 Am. Rep. 757. ham, 50 Maine 442, 79 Am. Dec. 621 ; ^McCraryv. Slaughter, 58 Ala. 230; Knowlton v. Reed, 38 Maine 246; Morse v. Richmond, 6 111. App. 166, Harris v. Baltimore, 73 Md. 22, 17 (affd. 97 111. 303) ; Wintermute v. Atl. 1046, 20 Atl. Ill, 985, 8 L. R. A. Torrent, 83 Mich. 555, 47 N. W. 358; 677, 25 Am. St. 565; Porter v. White, King V. Levy (Miss.), 13 So. 282; 39 Md. 613; Durrell v. Staples, 169 Cargill V. Corby, IS Mo. 425; Corn- Mass. 49, 47. N. E. 441; Warren v. ing V. Abbott, 54 N. H. 469; Kramer French, 6 Allen (Mass.) 317; Mc- V. Dinsmore, 152 Pa. St 264, 25 Atl. Pherson v.- Bristol, 122 Mich. 354, 81 789; Richie v. Levy, 69 Tex. 133, 6 N. W. 254; Lynch v. HiUstrom, 64 S. W. 685. Minn. 521, 67 N. W. 636; Lowenberg 8 Roberts v. Eberhardt, 1 Kay 148, v. Lewis-Herman Co., 94 Miss. 916, 23 L. J. Ch. 201; Irwin v. Williar, 48 So. 517; Schmidlapp v. S. D. Cur- ■110 U. S. 499, 28 L. ed. 225, 4 Sup. rie & Co., 55 Miss. 597, 30 Am. Rep. Ct. 160; Winship v. Bank of United 530; Vaiden v. Hawkins (Miss.), 6 States, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 529, 8 L. ed. So. 227; Flanagan v. Alexander, 50 216; Woodruff v. Scaife, 83 Ala. 152, Mo. 50; Hayes v. B. F. Blaker & 3 So. 311 ; Sanborn v. Cunningham, Co., . 138 Mo. App. 24, 119 S. W. 99 Cal. xix, 33 Pac. 894; Wasem v. 1004; Creath v. Kolb, 70 Mo. App. Gray, 43 Colo. 140, 95 Pac. 557; 296; Winn V. HiUyer, 43 Mo. App. Stillman v. Harvey, 47 Conn. 26; El- 139; Mace v. Heath, 30 Nebr. 620, lison V. Stuart, 2 Penn. (Del.) 179, 46 N. W. 918; Wills v. Cutler, 61 N. 43 Atl. 836; Chandler v. Sherman, 16 H. 405; Rumsey v. Briggs, 139 N. Y. Fla. 99; Hahn v. Allen, 93 Ga. 612, 323, 34 N. E. 929; Johnston v. Trask, 20 S. E. 74; Selman v. Brown, 78 116 N. Y. 136, 22 N. E. 377, 5 L. R. Ga. 332; Crane Co. v. Tierney, 175 A. 630, IS Am. St. 394; People v. 111. 79, 51 N. E. 715; Kemp v. Miller, Devlin, 63 Misc. 363,, 118 N. Y. S. 46 111. App. 213; Porter v. Wilson, 478; Powell v. Flowers, 151 N. Car.. 113 Ind. 350, 15 N. E. 676; Todd 140, 65 S. E. 817; Canfield v. John- v. Jackson, 75 Ind. 272; Chappie v. son, 144 Pa. St. 61, 22 Atl. 974; Hos- Davis, 10 Ind. App. 404, 38 N. E. 355 ; kinson v. Eliot, 62 Pa. St. 393 ; Sweet Fornes v. Wright, 91 Iowa 392, 59 v. Wood, 18 R. I. 386, 28 Atl. 335; N. W. 51 ; Van Brunt v. Mather, 48 Congdon v. Morgan, 13 S. Car. 190 ; Iowa 503; Boardman v. Adams, 5 Pooley v. Whitmore, 10 Heisk. Iowa 224; Lemon v. Fox, 21 Kans. "(Tenn.) 629, 27 Am. Rep. 733; Nunn 1S2; Forbes v. Morehead, 22 Ky. L. v. Lackey, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. 853, 58 S. W. 982; Warder v. Newdi- Ct. App. (Tex.), § 1331; Progressive gate, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 174, 52 Am. Lumber Co. v. Rogers (Tex. Civ. §. 486 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 604 tered into a contract as a principal,^ without the scope of his au- thority, either express or implied/" he can not impose Hability therefor upon the firm of which he is a member by establishing the mere fact of its having received the benefit of the transac- tion." App.), 120 S. W. 260; Burnley v. 67 Miss. 60, 6 So. 615; Redenbaugh Rice, 18 Tex. 481; Cavanaugh v. Sal- v. Kelton, 130 Mo. 558, 32 S. W. 67; isbury, 22 Utah 465, 63 Pac. 39; Boice v. Conover, 54 N. J. Eq. 531, Brooke v. Washington, 8 Grat. (Va.) 35 Atl. 402 ; Brownlee v. Lobenstein 248, 56 Am. Dec. 142; Morse v. (Tenn.), 42 S. W. 467. Hagenah, 68 Wis. 603, 32 N. W. 634; w See ante §§ 412-414. Seaman v. Ascherman, 57 Wis. 547, ii-Hawtayne v. Bourne, 7 M. & W. 15 N. W. 788; Manitoba Mortg. Co. 595; Smith v. Craven, 1 Cromp. & J. V. Montreal Bank, 17 Can. Sup. Ct. 500; Emly v. Lye, 15 East 7; Bevan 692; 2 Code Ga. 1911, § 3172. And v. Lewis, 1 Sim. 376; Beckham v. compare Smith v. Hill, 13 Ark. 173; Drake, 9 M. & W. 79; Ex parte Ap- Stokes V. Stevens, 40 Cal. 391 ; Da- sey, 3 Bro. C. C. 265 ; Patriotic Bank vis V. Wiley, 3 Ky. L. 315. v. Coote, 3 Cranch (U. S.) 169, Fed. 9Guice v. Thornton, 76 Ala. 466; Cas. No. 10807; In re Lamon, 171 Fisher v. Hume, 6 Mackey (D. C.) Fed. 516; Guice v. Thornton, 76 Ala. 9; Goodenow v. Jones, 75 111. 48; 466; Floyd v. Wallace, 31 Ga. 688; Hayden v. Cretcher, 75 Ind. 108; Lill v. Egan, 89 III. 609; Funk v. Hubenthal v. Kennedy, 76 Iowa 707, Babbitt, 55 111. App. 124 (aflfd. 156 39 N. W. 694; Mousseau v. Thebens, 111. 408, 41 N. E. 166) ; Bays v. Con- 19 La. Ann. 516; Metzner v. Baldwin, ner, 105 Ind. 415, 5 N. E. 18; Brooks- 11 Minn. 150 (Gil. 92) ; Ferson v. Waterfield Co. v. Carpenter, 21 Ky. Monroe, 21 N. H. 462; Wild v. Dav- L. 851, 53 S. W. 40; Green v. Tanner, enport, 48 N. J. L. 129, 7 Atl. 295, 8 Met. (Mass.) 411 ; Vetsch v. Neiss, 57 Am. Rep. 552; Bannister v. Mil- 66 Minn. 459, 69 N. W. 315; Gates ler, 54 N. J. Eq. 121, 32 Atl. 1066, v. Watson, 54 Mo. 585; Ferson v. (affd. 54 N. J. Eq. 701, 37 Atl. 1117) ; Monroe, 21 N. H. 462; Union Nat. Willis V. Hill, 19 N. Car. 231, 31 Bank v. Underbill, 21 Hun (N. Y.) Am. Dec. 412 ; Ah Lep v. Gong Choy, 178; National Bank v. Thomas, 47 13 Ore. 205, 9 Pac. 483; Johnson v. N. Y. 15; National Bank v. Ingra- Rankin (Tenn.), 59 S. W. 638; ham, 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 290; Willis v. Holmes v. Burton, 9 Vt. 252, 31 Am. Hill, -19 N. Car. 231, 31 Am. Dec. Dec. 621; National Bank v. Cringan, 412; Norwalk Nat. Bank v. Sawyer, 91 Va. 347, 21 S. E. 820; McLinden 38 Ohio St. 339; Donnally v. Ryan, V. Wentworth, 51 Wis. 170, 8 N. W. 41 Pa. St. 306; Johnson v. Rankin 118, 192. And compare Usher v. (Tenn.), 59 S. W. 638; Holmes v. Waddingham, 62 Conn. 412, 26 Atl. Burton, 9 Vt. 252, 31 Am. Dec. 621 ; 538; In re Herrick, 13 Nat. Bankr. National Bank v. Cringan, 91 Va. Reg. 312, Fed. Cas. No. 6420; Ault- 347, 21 S. E. 820; Willis v. Bremner, man v. Shelton, 90 Iowa 288, 57 N. 60 Wis. 622, 19 N. W. 403; McLin- W. 857; Eyrichv. Capital State Bank, den v. Wentworth, SI Wis. 170, 8 605 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 487 § 487. Apparent scope oi partner's authority. — As has been suggested/^ the firm will ordinarily be bound, speaking in general terms, whenever one of its members shall have con- summated a transaction within the apparent scope of his partner- ship authority. In this connection, however, it is not difficult to understand that a partner will not have acted "apparently within the scope of his authority" who performs in a capacity widely separated from those matters duly connected with the firm's business. But "the question whether a given act can or can not be necessary to the transaction of the business in the way in which it is usually carried on, must e*vidently be determined by the nature of the business, and by the practice of persons en- gaged in it. Evidence on both of these points is necessarily ad- missible, and as readily may be conceived, an act which is neces- sary for the prosecution of one kind of business may be wholly unnecessary for the carrying on of another in the ordinary way. Consequently no answer of any value can be given to the abstract question : Can one partner bind his firm by such an act ? Unless having regard to what is usual in business, it can be predicated of the act in question, either that it is one without which no business can be carried on, or that it is one which is not neces- sary for carrying on any business whatever. There are obvi- ously very few acts of which such an affirmation can be truly made. The great majority of acts which give rise to doubt are those which are necessary in one business, and not in another."" N. W. 118, 192. And compare Black- nor from the absence of actual burn Benefit Building Society v. Cun- knowledge or assent of the other lifife, 22 Ch. Div. 61; Wenlock v. members of the partnership, but River Dee Co., L. R. 36 Ch. Div. from the bad faith of such partner 675 note; Morris v. First Nat. Bank, by the perversion of his power for 162 Ala. 301, SO So. 137; Hamilton his 'several advantage' and from the V. Summers, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 11, knowledge of him with whom he 54 Am. Dec. 509; Siegel v. Chidsey, deals of such bad faith." Powell v. 28 Pa. St. 279, 70 Am. Dec. 124. Flowers, 151 N. Car. 140, 65 S. E. 12 See ante §§ 412-414, 486. 817. See further Niemann v. Nie- ls Pooley V. Whitmore, 10 Heisk. mann, 43 Ch. Div. 198 ; United States (Tenn.) 629, 27 Am. Rep. 733. "The Bank v. Binney, 5 Mason (U. S.) invalidity of an act of one partner 176, Fed. Cas. No. 16791; Kling v. does not arise from a want of power Tunstall, 109 Ala. 608, 19 So. 907 ; § 487 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 606 It is self-evident, however, that this rule loses its force and effect both when the performing partner did actually possess the requisite authority,^* and again when his act is afterward recog'- nized as its own by the firm of which he is a member.^® It must be remembered, however, that "when one deals with a member of a partnership, and the latter apparently exceeds his authority to bind his firm, the one dealing with him is put on inquiry, and should ascertain at his risk whether or not the member is acting Hendrie v. Berkowitz, Z7 Cal. 113, 99 Am. Dec. 251 ; New York Firemen Ins. Co. V. Bennett, S Conn. 574, 13 Am. Dec. 109; Chandler v. Sherman, 16 Fla. 99; Sparks v. Flannery, 104 Ga. 323, 30 S. E. 823 ; Wittram v. Van Wormer, 44 III. 525; McDonald v. Western Tube Co., 64 111. App. 458; Moffitt V. Roche, 92 Ind. 96; See- berger v. Wyman, 108 Iowa 527, 79 N. W. 290; Brooks- Waterfield Co. v. Jackson, 21 Ky. L. 851, S3 S. W. 40; Gruner v. Stucken, 39 La. Ann. 1076, 3 So. 338; Cadwallader v. Kroesen, 22 Md. 200; Brickett v. Downs, 163 Mass. 70, 39 N. E. 776; Holmes v. Kortlander, 64 Mich. 591, 31 N. W. 532; Maurin v. Lyon, 69 Minn. 257, 72 N. W. 72, 65 Am. St. 568; Vaiden V. Hawkins (Miss.), 6 So. 227; Fer- guson V. Thacher, 79 Mo. 511 ; Hayes V. B. F. Blaker & Co., 138 Mo. App. 24, .119" S. W. 1004; Kneisley Lum- ber 'Co. V. Edward B. Stoddard Co., 131 Mo. App. 15, 109 S. W. 840; Williams v. Gilchrist, 11 N. H. 535; Union Nat. Bank v. Underbill, 102 N. Y. 336, 7 N. E. 293; Freeman v. Abramson, 30 Misc. 101, 67 N. Y. S. 839; Palliser v. Erhardt, 46 App. Div. 222, 61 N. Y. S. 191; McAulay v. Palmer, SZ Hun 635, 6 N. Y. S. 402, 25 N. Y. St. 969, 3 Silvernail 245; Long V. Carter, 25 N. Car. 238 ; Conn V. Conn, 22 Ore. 452, 30 Pac. 230; McKinney v. Brights, 16 Pa. St. 399, 55 Am. Dec. 512; Green v. People's Warehouse Co., 85 S. Car. 40, 67 S. E. 14, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1015; Venable v. Levick, 2 Head (Tenn.) 351 ; Scott V. Bandy, 2 Head (Tenn.) 197;. Oliphant v. Markham, 79 Tex. 543, 15 S. W. 569, 23 Am. St. 363; Faires v. Ross (Tex.), 18 S. W. 418; Fore V. Hittson, 70 Tex. 517, 8 S. W. 292; Slayden v. Palmo, Si Tex. Civ. App. 227, 117 S. W. 1054; Gut- heil V. Gilmer, 23 Utah 84, 63 Pac. 817; Greene v. Burton, 59 Vt. 423, 10 Atl. 575; Wood v. Shepherd, 2 Pat. & H. (Va.) 442; Beardsley v. Tuttle, 11 Wis. 74; Holgate v. Dow- ner, 8 Wyo. 334, 57 Pac. 918. "Kendal v. Wood, L'. R. 6 Exch. 243; Woodruff v. Scaife, 83 Ala. 152, 3 So. 311 ; Chandler v. Sherman, 16 Fla. 99; Seeberger v. Wyman, 108 Iowa 527, 79 N. W. 290; Warder v. Newdigate, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 174, 52 Am. Dec. 567; Rollins v. Stevens, 31 Maine 454; Conely v. Wood, 73 Mich. 203, 41 N. W. 259; Long v. Carter, 25 N. Car. 238. And com- pare Butler v. Stocking, 8 N. Y. 408, Seld. Notes 123, . " See ante §§ 471-474. 607 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 489 for himself, or for the partnership, with the sanction or authority of his partners."^" § 488. Nature of liability of partner in contract. — In order to consider fully the nature of a partner's liability on firm contracts, a few sections will be devoted to the general subject of joint and joint and several liability in contracts. In all of the remaining chapters and in many of those preceding there are matters which can not be clear without a thorough general under- standing of such liability. § 489. . Joint contracts and several contracts distinguished. — Contracts may be joint, or several, or they may be joint and several. A "joint contract" is one by which two or more promis- ors are jointly bound to fulfil its obligations arid either of whom may be charged with the entire liability arising under the con- tract or by which two or more obligors are given a joint right.^^ "Several contract" is the antonym of "joint obligation." In the former the liability of each promisor is individual and separate, and is coextensive only with that fraction of the entire obliga- tion assumed by him," or 'it may be that each severally under- takes the entire liability and remains separately responsible with- out reference to the liability of his copromisors.^* A joint and several contract combines the, elements found in the two groups just mentioned. When the contract is joint and several its ob- 18 Victoria tumber Co. v. Mont- proportion of the debt * * * gomery, 130 La. 120, 57 So. 650 (syl- whilst solidary obligation, on the labus by the court). contrary, binds each of the obligors 1^ Mason v. Eldred, 6 Wall. (U. for the whole debt." Groves v. Sen- S.) 231, 18 L. ed. 783; Black's L. Diet, tell, 153 U. S. 465, 38 L. ed. 785, 14 In Louisiana a different nomencla- Sup. Ct. 898. ture is used. In that jurisdiction the ^^ Evans v. Sanders, 10 B. Mon. term "solidary obligation" is synon- (Ky.) 291. See also Landwerlen v. ymous with the common-law term Wheeler, 106 Ind. 523, 5 N. E. 888. "joint contracts," and "joint obli- See also Bouv. L. Diet, gation" with the common-law "sev- i° Lurton v. Gilliam, 1 Scam. (III.) eral contracts." Thus "A joint obli- 577, 33 Am. Dec. 430; Payne v. Jel- gation under the law of Louisiana leff, 67 Wis. 246, 30 N. W. 526. binds the parties thereto only for their § 490 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 608 ligations are imposed upon each promisor individually and upon all the promisors jointly, and the. promisee may elect to sue the parties liable separately on their several engagements or together on their joint undertaking.^" § 490. Liability of joint obligors, — Where two or more make a joint promise each is liable to the promisee for the whole debt or liability. Each obligor who is bound at all is legally liable in solido for the whole undertaking.^"^ It is incident to every joint contract that all are bound to its performance. Each and every one of the contractors stipulates .that the contract shall be performed by all. If two persons hire a carriage without a driver, and it be broken by the negligence of one who attempts to drive it, both would be liable, although the other was passive and free from blame. So where several persons jointly hire a carriage, horses and driver, and it is a part of the contract that the carriage should be driven by the driver alone, then to permit a stranger to drive it or to drive it themselves would be a viola- tion of the contract, and for any damage arising out of the breach of the joint contract all are liable. ^^ Each party to a joint con- tract is severally liable in one sense, that is, if when sued sev- erally, he does not plead in abatement, he is liable to pay the en- tire debt, but he is not severally liable in the same sense as he is on a joint and several bond, which instrument, although on one piece of parchment or paper, in effect comprises the joint bond of all and the several bonds oi each of the obligors.^^ 2" Mason v. Eldred, 6 Wall. (U. 984. "Where several persons are S.) 231, 18 L. ed. 783. See also jointly indebted, and one of them Beecham v. Smith, El. B. & E. 442; pays his specific share of the debt, Schilling V. Black, 49 Kans. SS2, 31 and it is received and receipted for Pac. 143. by the creditor as such, such pay- ^oaAUin V. Shadburne's Exr., 1 ment will not exonerate the party Dana (Ky.) 68, 25 Am. Dec. 121 ; paying from his liability for the resi- Perkins County v. Miller, 55 Nebr. due of the debt." Ripley v. Crook- 141, 75 N. W. 577; Field v. Runk, 22 er, 47 Maine 370, 74 Am. Dec. 491. N. J. L. 525; Clark v. Rawson, 2 =1 O'Brien v. Bound, 2 Speers (S. Denio (N. Y.) 135; Slocum v. Fair- Car.) 495, 42 Am. Dec. 384. child, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 292; Baum v. 22 King v. Hoare, 13 M. & W. 494. McAfee (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 609 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS 491 § 491. Release of one joint debtor releases all. — It is well settled under the common-law rule that the release of one or more joint, or joint and several obligors, operates as a release of all those jointly or jointly and severally liable.^^ The debt is en- tire and when once satisfied or released can no longer be enforced against any party to it.^* But under the strict common-law rule, the release, in order to operate as a discharge of the other prom- isors from their liability on the contract, must be a technical 23Nabors v. Camp, 14 Ala. 460; Carroll v. Corbitt, 57 Ala. 579 ; John- son V. Collins, 20 Ala. 435 ; Vandever V. Clark, 16 Ark. 331 ; Heckman v. Manning, 4 Colo. 543; Merrick v. Giddings, 1 Mackey (12 D. C.) 394, (affd. 115 U. S. 300, 29 L. ed. 403, 6 Sup. Ct. 65) ; Chamblee v. Davie, 88 Ga. 205, 14 S. E. 195 ; Clark v. Mal- lory, 83 111. App. 488 ; Walls v. Baird, 91 Ind. 429; Kirby v. Cannon, 9 Ind. 371 ; Haney & Campbell Mfg. Co. v. Adaza Co-operative Creamery Co., 108 Iowa 313, 79 N. W. 79; Drake v. Hill, S3 Ibwa Zl, 3 N. W. 811, 5 N. W. 74S; Gardner v. Baker, 25 Iowa 343; Baldwin v. Gray, 4 Mart. (La.) (N. S.) 192, 16 Am. Dec. 169; Mer- ritt V. Bucknam, 90 Maine 146, 37 Atl. 885; Booth v. Campbell, 15 Md. 569; Whitaker v. Salisbury, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 534; Winsor v. Savage, 9 Met (Mass.) 346; Collier v. Field, 2 Mont. 205; Neligh v. Bradford, 1 Nebr. 451; Young v. Currier, 63 N. H. 419; Saxton v. Dodge, 46 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 467; Harbeck v. Pulin, 145 N. Y. 70, 39 N. E. 722; Dudley V. Bland, 83 N. Car. 220 ; Woolsey v. Seely, Wright (Ohio) 360; Crawford V. Roberts, 8 Ore. 324; Mortland v. Himes, 8 Pa. St. 265; Brown v. Marsh, 7 Vt 320 ; Brodeck v. Farnum, 11 Wash. 565, 40 Pac. 189; Ruther- ford V. Rutherford, 55 W. Va. 56, 47 S. E. 240 ; Maslin's Exrs. v. Hiett, 39 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 37 W. Va. 15, 16 S. E. 437. A con- tract may contain covenants that are both joint and several, in which case a release of one of the obligors re- leases all as to the joint obligations ~but does not discharge the several covenants. Krbel v. Krbel, 84 Nebr. 160, 120 N. W. 935. The reason for this rule is that if it were otherwise an injustice would be worked against the co-obligors not so released. They would be required to pay more of the joint indebtedness- than they had by their contract agreed to pay. See cases cited ante this note. The reason and extent of this rule is well illustrated by cases involving the relation of principal and surety. The release of the principal operates as a discharge of the surety, but the release of the surety does not discharge the prin- cipal, for the reason that the prin- cipal is not damaged thereby, for his burden is in no way increased and he can not enforce contributions from the surety. Blackburn v. Beall, 21 Md. 208. But where one of the joint promisors is an infant, recovery may be had against the others. Cole v. Manners, 76 Nebr. 454, 107 N. W. m. 2* Stanley v. Leahy, 87 111. App. 465; Wiggin v. Tudor, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 434; Goodnow v. Smith, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 414, 29 Am. Dec. 600. § 491 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 610 release under seal.°° The necessity for and effect of a seal upon an instrument which purports to be a release depends largely upon whether the distinctions between pealed and unsealed instruments have been abolished by statute. ^° Quite frequently an instru- ment is given one of the joint obligors by which the obligee re- leases one or more of the promisors and reserves his right against the others by appropriate words, such as "reserving my rights against all others," or "but this shall not operate to discharge the others."^'^ An instrument of this character, it is said, is in fact not a release, but on the contrary shows that it was not intended by the parties to operate as a release.^' It operates, according to this View, as a release only to the extent of the amount actually paid by the joint obligor to whom release is given.^° Consequently when several persons are jointly indebted, and one of them pays his specific share of the debt, and it is re- ceived and receipted for by the creditor as such, such payment will not exonerate the party paying from his liability for the 25 Shaw V. Pratt, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 305; Ludlow v. McCrea, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 228; Harrison v. Close, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 448, 3 Am. Dec. 444; Row- ley V. Stoddard, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 207; De Zeng v. Bailey, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 336; Morgan v. Smith, 70 N. Y. S37; Clifton v. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.), 20 S. W. 1005. See however Nicholson v. Revill, 4 Ad. & El. 675 ; Seligman v. Pinet, 78 Mich. 50, 43 N. W. 1091, holding that "under our laws to-day I think a discharge or acquittance of a debt is just as good without a seal as with it." Milliken v. Brown, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 391, hold- ing that an instrument not under seal which purports to be a release of one of several joint debtors can not be modified by showing that something else was intended. 26 See Evans v. Pigg, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 395. 27 Northern Ins. Co. v. Potter, 63 Cal. 157; Bradford v. Prescott, 85 Maine 482, 27 Atl. 461 ; McAllester v. Sprague, 34 Maine 296 ; Yates y. Don- aldson, 5 Md. 389, 61 Am. Dec. 283; Kenworthy v. Sawyer, 125 Mass. 28; Berry v. Gillis, 17 N. H. 9, 43 Am. Dec. 584; Rogers v. Hosack's Exrs., 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 319; Honegger v. Wettstein, 47, N. Y. Super. Ct. 125; Harbeck v. Pupin, 23 Abb. N. Cas. 190, 7 N. Y. S. 168 (affd. 55 Hun 335, 8 N. Y. S. 695, 29 N. Y. St. 258) ; Goldbeck v. Kensington Nat. Bank, 147 Pa. 267, 23 Atl. 565 (aflfg. 10 Pa. County Ct. 97). 28 Northern Ins. Co. v. Potter, 63 Cal. 157; Bradford v. Prescott, 85 Maine 482, 27 Atl. 461 ; McAllester v. Sprague, 34 Maine 296. See also Clark v. Mallory, 83 111. App. 488. (affd. 185 111. 227, 56 N. E. 1099). 28 Howard v. Yost, 6 Kans. App. 374, 50 Pac. 1098 ; Ripley v. Crooker, 47 Maine 370, 74 Am. Dec. 491. 611 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 491 residue of the debt. Notwithstanding such receipt, the parties to the contract will remain jointly bound, to the extent of what is unpaid, in the same manner as if no such specific payment had been made.^" It has been held that the satisfaction of a judgment against one of several tort-feasors bars an action against the others notwithstanding there is inserted in the satis- faction a stipulation that it was not intended to relinquish the judgment against those not expressly released.^^ But the rule that the release of a co-obligor will operate tO' discharge all the obligors hfis been held to have no application where the release is made by the consent of all the parties tO' the instrument.^^ Thus, where a promise releases a joint promisor at the request of the other joint promisors, the latter are not released.^^ An agree- ment whereby the obligee releases one or more of the joint obligors and reserves his right against the others has been com- pared to a covenant not tO' sue, which is not regarded as a re- lease and when given to one of several joint debtors is not con- strued as a release to the others.^* 30 Eldred v. Peterson, 80 Iowa 264, 45 N. W. 755, 20 Am. St. 416 (part payment) ; Ripley v. Crooker, 47 Maine 370, 74 Am. Dec. 491. Suit can not be maintained against one of three joint promisors on allegations that the other two have paid their share of the amount due. Eller v. Lacy, 137 Ind. 436, 36 N. E. 1088. A receipt for money received from one obligor does not operate as a re- lease when part payment is made and a partial receipt given (Rogers v. Hemsted, Kirby (Conn.) 44; Clifton V. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.), 20 S. W. lOOS), or where on part payment a- receipt in full is given. Pettigrew Mach. Co. v. Harmon, 45 Ark. 290; Armstrong v. Hayward, 6 Cal. 183 ; Moore v. Gatewood, 5 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 777; Rowley v. Stoddard, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 207; Buckingham v. Oliver, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 129. It may be otherwise, however, where the receipt is under seal. Hale v. S'paulding, 145 Mass. 482, 14 N. E. 534, 1 Am. St. 475. 31 Dncey v. Patterson, 37 Colo. 216, 86 Pac. 109, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1066, 119 Am. St. 284. 32 Marks v. Deposit Bank, 21 Ky. L. 117, 50 S. W. 1103; Campbell v. Booth,- 8 Md. 107. See also Wande- lohr V. Logan, 21 Ky. L. 1773, 56 S. W. 412. 33 An agreement with other joint obligors to sue the defendant alone in the first instance does not amount to a release of those not sued, and consequently does not release the de- fendant. Carter v. Long, 125 Ala. 280, 28 So. 74. 3* Bradford v. Prescott, 85 Maine 482, 27 Atl. 461. § 492 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 612 § 492. Effect of death of joint contractor. — It is the settled rule of the common law that the death of a joint promisor dis- charges his estate and leaves the survivor liable for the entire amount of the debt.^^* Upon the death of one of the makers of a joint note his representatives are, at law, discharged, and the survivor alone can be sued.^*'' But in case of a several contract, or of a contract joint and several, the executor or administrator of one of the parties deceased could be sued in a separate action, but not jointly with the survivors, because he was to be charged de bonis testatoris and they de bonis propriis.^*" A joint contract is an entirety and if one of the joint obligees dies the whole in- terest vests in the survivor or survivors.^^*^ But while, at law, the death of a joint contractor terminates his liability, and the sur- viving joint contractors alone remain liable, the doctrine of equity is different. In equity, upon the death of one joint con- tractor, the liability does not rest solely upon the survivors, but may be enforced against the estate of the decedent if an inabihty to collect from the survivors is shown.^*^ This equitable doc- 3*a Godson V. Good, 6 Taunt. 587; fit." Babcock v. Farwell, 245 111. 14, Seaman v. Slater, 18 Fed. 485 ; Haw- 91 N. E. 6831 137 Am. St. 284. kins V. Ball, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 816, 'sA Towers v. Moor, 2 Vern. 98; 68 Am. Dec. 7S5n ; New Haven &c. Simpson v. Vaughan, 2 Atk. 31 ; Co. V. Hayden, 119 Mass. 361; Foster Stevens v. Catlin, 44 111. App. 114; V. Hooper, 2 Mass. 572 ; Bradley v. Richter v. Poppenhausen, 42 N. Y. Burwell, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 61; John- 37Z; Boykin v. Watson, 1 Const. Tr. son V. Harvey, 84 N. Y. 363, 38 Am. (S. Car.) 157, 3 Brev. 260. Rep. SIS; Potts v. Baldwin, 173 N. Y. s^cMattison v. Childs, S Colo. 78; 3ZS, 66 N. E. 4; Burgoyne v. Ohio Seaman v. Slater, 18 Fed. 485; New Life Ins. & Trust Co., 5 Ohio St. Haven &c. Co. v. Hayden, 119 Mass. 586; Hogan v. Sullivan, 79 Vt. 36, 361. 64 Atl. 234. In Lane v. Doty, 4 Barb. s^d Brower v. Nellis, 6 Ind. App. 323, (N. Y.) S30, Judge Paige remarks: 33 N. E. 672 (holding that Indiana "In case of a joint contract, if one code has not changed the rule) ; In- of the parties died, his executor or diana B. & W. R. Co. v. Adamson, administrator is at law discharged 114 Ind. 282, 15 N. E. 5; Semper v. from liability, and the survivor alone Coates, 93 Minn. 76, 100 N. W. 662. can be sued." "The general rule is, In case of the death of one of two that upon the death of one of several joint obligees who are partners the joint contractors before complete per- right to sue vests in the survivor, formance of the contract, the surviv- Mcintosh v. Zaring, ISO Ind. 301, 49 ors are bound by the obligations of N. E. 164. the contract and entitled to its bene- 34e Simpson v. Vaughan, 2 Atk. 31 ; 613 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 493 trine has been incorporated into the statutes of several of th^ states. In some states, the statute provides that if one of sev- eral joint contractors dies, his estate may be charged, as if the contract had been joint and several, that is, by an action against the personal representative alone.^*^ And in a number of states there are statutes expressly authorizing an action to be brought against the survivors and the personal representatives of the de- ceased joint contractor.^*^ § 493. Actions on joint and joint and several contracts. — The common-law rule is that all the obligors to a joint contract Ex parte Kendall, 17 Ves. 514; Hunt V. Rousmanier's Admrs., 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 174, 5 L. ed. 589; Potts v. Bounce, 173 N. Y. 335, 66 N. E. 4; Pope V. Cole, 55 N. Y. 124, 14 Am. Rep. 198; Voorhis v. Childs, 17 N. Y. 354. The theory upon which the es- tate of a joint debtor is held bound in equity, is that the obligation is joint and several in equity, although joint in form and only joint in law. In cases where there is an obligation to pay the debt, irrespective of the joint obligation, equity will con- clusively presume that the parties in- tended that the contract should have been and was intended to be made joint and several, but was joint in form, by mistake. Hunt v. Rous- manier, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 1, 7 L. ed. 27; United States v. Price, 9 How. (U. S.) 83, 13 L. ed. 56. In Pick- ersgill v. Lahens, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 140, 21 L. ed. 119, the court says: "The court will not vary the legal effect of the instrument by making it several as well as joint, unless it can see either by independent testi- mony or from the nature of the transaction itself, that the parties concerned intended to create a sep- arate as well as a joint liability. If, through fraud, ignorance or mistake, the joint obligation does not express the meaning of the parties, it will be reformed so as to conform to it. This has been done where there is a previous equity which gives the obligee the right to a several indem- nity from each of the obligors, as in the case of money loaned to both of them. There a court of equity will enforce the obligation against the representative of a deceased obligor, although the bond be joint and not several, on the ground that the lend- ing to both creates a moral obliga- tion in both to pay, and that the rea- sonable presumption is the parties in- tended their contract to be joint and several, but through fraud, ignorance, mistake or want of skill failed to ac- complish their object." 3*f Curtis V. Mansfield, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 152; Sampson v. Shaw, 101 Mass. 145, 3 Am. Rep. 327; Thomp- son V. Johnson, 40 N. J. L. 220; Potts V. Bounce, 173 N. Y. 335, 66 N. E. 4 (holding that while the stat- ute changes the rule of law it does not affect the procedure). Sis McClaskey v. Barr, 79 Fed. 408 § 493 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 614 must be sued jointly as parties defendant unless they waive the right by not interposing a plea in abatement cr provided neither has been discharged by operation of a bankrupt or insolvent law, or is not liable on the ground of infancy.^^'* Where an obligation is made to several persons jointly all the obligees rnust join in an action to enforce it in the absence of any statute changing the rule.*° The doctrine at common law is that a judgment against one or more of several joint debtors absolutely discharges the others from all liability on the joint contract and bars a (construing Ohio statutes-). Some statutes provide that upon the death of a joint promisor a joint contract is to be treated as a joint and several contract. Philadelphia & R. Coal &c. Co. V. Butler, 181 Mass. 468, 63 N. E. 949. Raney, C. J., in Burgoyne v. Ohio Life Ins. &c. Co., S Ohio St. 586, referring to the Ohio statute, said : "This statute affected an entire abrogation of the common-law prin- ciple to which allusion has been made, and left the estate of the deceased joint debtor liable to every legal rem- edy, as fully as though the contract had been joint and several." See also Weil V. Guerin, 42 Ohio St 299. In Indiana, it has been held that the code of procedure, by abolishing the distinctions between legal and equita- ble actions, and introducing the equitable doctrines concerning par- ties, and providing for the severance of the judgment has, without any special provision on this subject, in- troduced this equitable rule into the law. Daily v. Robinson, 86 Ind. 382 ; Corbaley v. State, 81 Ind. 62 ; Eaton V. Burns, 31 Ind. 390; Braxton v. State, 25 Ind. 82. 3*!i Anderson v. Martindale, 1 East 497; Eccleston v. Clipsham, 1 Wm. Saund. 153, note 1 ; Hopkinson v. Lee, 6 Ad. & El. (N. S.) 964; Foley V. Addenbrooke, 4 Ad. & El. (N. S.) 197; Brower v. Nellis, 6 Ind. App. 323, 33 N. E.'672; Post v. Shafer, 63 Mich. 85, 29 N. W. 519; Robertson V. Smith, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 459, 9 Am. Dec. 227; Clements v. Miller, 13 N. Dak. 176, 100 N. W. 239. See .also McMaster v. City Nat. Bank, 23 Okla. 550, 101 Pac. 1103, 138 Am. St. 831. Where the fcontract is not several, nor joint and several, but joint merely, the action on it, if there be two obligors, and both of them living at the time of action brought, must necessarily be a joint action against both. Newman v. Graham, 3 Munf. (Va.) 187. Where a suit is brought against three joint contract- ors, and the writ is served on two only, the two, by pleading the general issue, waive their right to object to the want of service on the thirdl Bartlett v. Robbins, 5 Met. (Mass.) 184. Where one of two joint obligors is an infant, a recovery may be had against the other and a discharge as to the infant. Cole v. Manners, 76 Nebr. 454, 107 N. W. 777. 35 Mcintosh V. Zaring, 150 Ind. 301, 49 N. E. 164; Henry v. Mt. Pleasant, 70 Mo. 500; Dewey v. Carey, 60 Mo. 224; Clark v. Cable, 21 Mo. 223; Ohnsorg v. Turner, 33 Mo. App. 486. Nothing is better settled than the 615 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS 493 subsequent action against them.^® Where all the defendants are brought into court, judgment rendered by agreement against one is tantamount to a dismissal as to the others.^^ When the contract is joint, and not joint and several, the entire cause of action is merged in the judgment. The joint liability of the parties not sued with those against whom judgment is recovered being extinguished, their entire liability is gone. They can not be sued separately, for they have incurred no separate obligation ; they can not be sued jointly with others, because judgment has already been recovered against the latter, who would otherwise be subjected to two suits for the same cause.^^ Contracts which rule that, on an undertaking to sue, both must join in an action on it; otherwise there is no cause of action. It is a part of the contract that both shall sue. Rainey v. Smizer, 28 Mo. 310. Compare with Curry v. Kansas & C. P. R. Co., 58 Kans. 6, 48 Pac. 579, in which it is said: "The com- pensation to be paid for their joint act was to be paid to them separately, and none of them had an interest in the compensation to be paid to the others. 'Where, in a contract, two of the three contracting parties agree to perform certain services for the third, and each of the two is to re- ceive therefor a separate and distinct compensation, it is not necessary that both of them join in a suit for such compensation, but either may main- tain a separate action for the amount due him.'" (Quoting from Richey v. Branson, 33 Mo. App. 418.) S6 Martin v. Baugh, 1 Ind. App. 20, 27 N. E. 110; Cowley v. Patch, 120 Mass. 137; Candee v. Smith, 93 N. Y. 349; Sloo v. Lea, 18 Ohio 279; McMaster v. City Nat. Bank, 23 Okla. 550, 101 Pac. 1103, 138 Am. St. 831; Smith v. Black, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 142, 11 Am. Dec. 686; Wooters v. Smith, 56 Texas. 198. See generally article by G. C. H. Corliss on "Joint Debtors," 36 Albany Law J. 245. 37 Henry v. Gibson, 55 Mo. 570. Verdict for a defendant who pleads payment in a suit against him and another on their joint note dis- charges both. Lenoir v. Moore, 61 Miss. 400. The promisee can not dis- miss as to some of the joint obli- gors and have judgment against the others. Van Leyen v. Wreford, 81 Mich. 606, 45 N. W. 1116. 38 King v. Hoare, 13 Mees. & W. 494; Mason v. Eldred, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 231, 18 L. ed. 783, overruling Sheehy v. Mandeville, 6 Cranch (U. S.) 253, 3 L. ed. 215 ; Ward v. John- son, 13 Mass. 148; McMaster v. City Nat. Bank, 23 Okla. SSO, 101 Pac. 1103, 138 Am. St. 831 ; Lauer v. Ban- dow, 48 Wis. 638, 4 N. W. 774; Bowen v. Hastings, 47 Wis. 232, 2 N. W. 301. The decision in the case of Sheehy v. Mandeville, 6 Cranch. (U. S.) 253, 3 L. ed. 215, to the con- trary has been distinctly overruled in this country and in England. In Wann v. McNulty, 2 Gilm. (111.) 355, 43 Am. Dec. 58, the Supreme Court of Illinois commented upon the case and declined to follow it as authority. Ferrall v. Bradford, 2 494 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 616 are joint and several may be regarded as furnishing two dis- tinct remedies, one by a joint action against all the obligors and the other by a several action against each.^* The only differ- ence between a contract merely joint and one joint and several, as respects the right of the holder of the one or the other in pursuing his remedy, is, that on the first he is obliged to sue all the living promisors, whereas on the latter he has the right to elect between one and all of them. Having made his election, the contract becomes, so far as the rules of law applicable to his remedy are concerned, purely several or purely joint; and he is no longer at liberty to consider it other than what he has made it by his own determination.^" § 494, Statutory modifications. — Joint contracts^ or con- tracts which would be joint by the common law, are in many Fla. 508, SO Am. Dec. 293. "It is the right of persons jointly liable to pay a debt to insist on being sued to- gether. If then there are three per- sons so liable, and the creditor sues two of them, and those two make no objection, the creditor may re- cover judgment against those two. But should he afterward bring a farther action against the third, that third may justly contend that the three should be sued together." By recovering judgment against two in the same cause of action, the cred- itor has disabled himself from suing the third in the way in which the third has a right to be sued. Kendall v. Hamilton, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 504. The rule here laid down does not apply where the parties are severally as well as jointly bound, and the recovery of a judg- ment against one is no bar to an ac- tion against the other, until the judg- ment has been satisfied. Bermond- sey Vestry v. Ramsey, L. R. 6 C. P. 247. 39 People V. Harrison, 82 111. 84; Cummings v. People, SO 111. 132; Melick V. Foster, 64 N. J. L. 394, 45 Atl. 911; Minor v. Mechanics' Bank, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 46, 7 L. ed. 47. In a joint and several contract, the con- tract is that of each contractor in- dividually, and that of all jointly, and different remedies may be pursued against each. Mason v. Eldred, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 231, 18 L. ed. 783. *" Gibbons v. Surber, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 155. On a joint and several bond, suit may be brought against one of the sureties without joining another with him (Poullain v. Brown, 80 Ga. 27, 5 S. E. 107), and a suit may be brought against a surety without joining the principal. People v. Butler, 74 Mich. 643, 42 N. W. 273. Thfe law appears to be well settled, that if two or more are bound jointly and severally, the obligee may elect to sue them jointly or severally. United States v. Ar- cher, 1 Wall. Jr. (U. S.) 173, Fed. Cas. No. 14464. The creditor is bound 617 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 494 states declared to be construed as joint and several/^ Thus it may be provided by statute that, where the parties unite in a promise and receive a benefit from the consideration, their prom- ise is presumed to be joint and several/^ The statutes of some jurisdictions provide that where all the parties who unite in a promise receive some benefit from the consideration, whether past or present, their promise is presumed to be joint and sev- eral.*^ The rules of the common law, as it prevails in this coun- try and in England, except as the same have been modified by statute, are very strict in requiring service of process upon all the defendants in an action on a demand against joint obligors or partners. If any of the joint defendants were beyond seas, or could not be found, so that it was impossible to reach them by the process of the court, the proper mode thereon was to insti- tute proceedings of outlawry against them, and after a judgment of outlawry had been rendered, the plaintiff could then obtain a by his election in treating a joint and several contract either as joint or several. Winslow v. Herrick, 9 Mich. 380; United States v. Ames, 99 U. S. 35, 2S L. ed. 295 ; Benson v. Paine, 9 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 28, 2 Hilt. 552, 17 How. Pr. 407; Downey v. Farmers' &c. Bank, 13 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 288. *iCole V. Harvey, 142 Iowa 574, 120 N. W. 97; Rose v. Williams, 5 Kans. 483; Morgan v. Brach, 104 Minn. 247, 116 N. W. 490; Knapp v. Hanley, 153 Mo. App. 169, 132 S. W. 747; McMaster v. City Nat. Bank, 23 Okla. 550, 101 Pac. 1103, 138 Am. St. 831; Belleville Savings Bank v. Winslow, 30 Fed. 488 (under the Mis- souri statute providing that "all con- tracts which, by common law, are joint only, shall be construed to be joint and several") ; Wiley v. Holmes, 28 Mo. 286, 75 Am. Dec. 126. Sections of a statute which provided that one action may be brought against any or all of the parties to a joint or several contract, that, for the pur- poses of suit, every contract entered into by two or more persons shall be considered as joint and several, and that on. the death of one of the parties his personal representatives shall be bound to the same extent and in the same manner as if the contract were expressed to be joint and several, have been held to re- late only to proceedings, and not to change a joint contract to a several obligation. White v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 34 App. (D. C.) 460. ^2 Bell v. Adams, 150 Cal. 772, 90 Pac. 118 (contract by mine owners to employ one to operate the mines, agreeing to pay him the reasonable value of his services whenever they sold the mines). Cal. Civ. Code, § 1659. «Gummer v. Mairs, 140 Cal. 535, 74 Pac. 26; McKee v. Cunningham, 2 Cal. App. 684, 84 Pac. 260. § 494 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 618 separate judgment against the defendants before the court.^* Statutes have been passed in most of the states, and in all in which the code system of pleading prevails, which provide that when action is commenced against two or more defendants, jointly of- severally liable on a contract, and the summons is served on one or more of the defendants, but not on all, the plaintiff may proceed against the defendants served in the same manner as if they were the only defendants-*^ And a recovery may be had against one defendant alone, in a proper case, not- withstanding another of the debtors has been released by the plaintiff upon a compromise.** In most of the states acts called "joint debtor acts" provide that judgment may be given "for or against one or more of several plaintiffs, and for or against one or more of several defendants," and usually contain a pro- vision that "in an action against several defendants the court may, in its discretion, render judgment against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others, whenever a several judgment is proper."*^ Under these statutes, if a plain- tiff commences an action against two or more defendants upon a joint obligation, he is no longer compelled to establish a joint cause of action against all, but a judgment may be taken against the party or parties shown to be liable, when the others are not liable/^ ** Edwards v. Carter, 1 Stra. 473; *» Richardson v. Jones, 58 Ind. 240. Hall V. Lanning, 91 U. S. 160, 23 L. Various effects and consequences are ed. 271. attributed to such judgments in the *5Bell V. Adams, ISO Cal. 772, 90 states in which they are rendered. Pac. 118; Wood v. Watkinson, 17 Longstreet & Sedgwick v. Rea & Co., Conn. SCO, 44 Am. Dec. S62n. 52 Ala. 195; Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. *6 Moss V. Jerome, 10 Bosw. (N. S. 160, 23 L. ed. 271 ; Stafford v. Nutt, Y.) 220. 51 Ind. 535; Hubbell v. Woolf, 15 ^T California Code of Civil Pro- Ind. 204; Eyre v. Cook, 9 Iowa 185; cedure (1899), §§ 578, 579; Arkansas Blodget v. Morris, 14^ N. Y. 4?2; Code (1904), §§ 6229-6230; Iowa Code Lampkin v. Chisom, 10 Ohio St. 450; (1897), § 3773; Wagner Missouri Ah Lep v. Gong Choy, 13 Ore. 205, Stat., p. 1019, § 32; New York Code 9 Pac. 483. A judgment may be en- of Civil Procedure (1896), § 1932; tered against any one or more of sev- Ohio General Code (1910), §§ 11583- eral defendants wherever a several 4; Wisconsin Code (1898), § 2883; suit might have been brought, or a 1 Black on Judgments, § 208. several judgment on the facts of the 619 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 495 § 495. Liability of partners on firm contracts. — According to the early law, the liability of a partner for firm debts is joint, and not joint and several. As stated by Mr. Justice Lindley: "An agent who contracts for a known principal is not liable to be himself sued on the contract into which he has avowedly en- tered only as agent, consequently, a partner who enters into a contract on behalf of his firm is not liable on that contract except- as one of the firm; in other words, the contract is not binding on him separately, but only on him and his copartners jointly." There might be such acts or representations by one partner as to make him liable severally, either by express contract or by estoppel, but the general rule was as stated above. The same author also laid down the principle that "there is no difference in this respect between law and equity, except that which arises from the equitable jurisdiction to rectify inistakes and from the principles adopted by courts of equity in administering the estates of deceased partners," and the statement is verified by case would be proper. Van Ness v. Corkins, 12 Wis. 186; Bonesteel v. Todd, 9 Mich. 371, 80 Am. Dec. 90. Action was brought against two par- ties, one of whom was alone served with process. He produced the record of a judgment recovered against him- self and his codefendant under the joint debtor act of New York, process in that state having been served upon his codefendant alone. The court said: "We can not, therefore, re- gard the liability as extinguished. And inasmuch as the new action must be based upon the original claim, while, as in the case of for- eign judgment at common law, it may be of no great importance whether the action may be brought in form upon the judgment or on the primary debt, it is certainly inore in harmony with our practice to re- sort to the form of action appropri- ate to the real demand in contro- versy." Oakley v. Aspinwall, 4 N. Y. 513. Where the Court of Ap- peals of New York considered the effect of a judgment recovered under the joint debtor act of that state upon the original deriiand, Bronson, J., said: "It is said that the original demand was merged in and extinguished by the judg- ment, and, consequently, that the plaintiff must sue upon the judgment, if he sues at all. That would un- doubtedly be so if both the defend- ants had been before the court in the origmal action. But the joint debtor act creates an anomaly in the law. And for the purpose of giving effect to the statute, and at the same time preserving the rights of all parr ties, the plaintiff must be allowed to sue on the original demand." § 496 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 620 judicial authority.*' The learned Justice further amplifies this statement, as follows i^" "It has often been said that in equity partnership debts are separate as well as joint; but this proposi- tion is inaccurate and misleading. It is true that a creditor of a partnership can obtain payment of his debt out of the estate of a deceased partner, but the judgment which such a creditor, obtains is quite different from that which a separate creditor is entitled to, and it is a mistake to say that the joint creditor of the firm is also in equity a separate creditor of the deceased partner." It should not be understood that the above rule abridges the liability of a partner individually for firm debts or denied the same,' or refused the right to apply in proper cases the partner's individual property to the firm creditors, but implied that where the partner's individual property was held it was simply on account of his interest in the partnership, and his re- sulting liability for the debts thereof, and not by reason of any several judgment. The question is not so important as regards a partner's liability, which, as shown above, is absolute in proper cases, even for the whole amount of the indebtedness, but as to the manner of enforcing this liability. § 496. Further of partnership liability — Modification of rule. — The importance of the distinction may not always therefore be clearly recognized, but is clearly shown, together with later modifications of the old rule, in a Rhode Island case,^^ the court saying : "It is doubtless true that, independently of any stat- ute, the liability of a partnership for the debts thereof is a joint and indivisible liability, and hence that all of the partners must be joined in a suit for the recovery of such debts.®^ At common law, when one of several joint defendants was out of the jurisdiction of the court, so that it was impossible to obtain service upon him, *" Kendall v. Hamilton, 4 App. Cas. p. 285, rule 56 ; Bates Partnership, 504, 3 C. P. Div. 403. § 1049 ; Bell v. Donohoe, 17 Fed. 710, soLindley Partnership, p. 193. 8 Sawy. 435; Page v. Brandt, 18 111. siNathanson v. Spitz, 19 R. I. 70, 37; Kent v. Holliday, 17 Md. 387; 31 Atl. 690 (1895). Pearce v. Cooke, 13 R. I. 184. ^- Dicey, Parties (Truman's Notes), 621 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 496 the plaintiff might institute proceedings of outlawry against such nonresident defendant; and after judgment of outlawry had been obtained against him, the plaintiff could proceed to recover a separate judgment against the defendants served with proces's.^^ * * * The proceeding of outlawry in civil cases, however, is unknown in the United States; and, if there are any cases of outlawry in criminal cases even, they are very rare." The court then quotes from the opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley in a United States case :^* "In most of our states legislative acts have been passed, called 'Joint Debtor Acts,' which, as a substitute for out- lawry, provide that if process be issued against several joint debtors or partners, and served on .one or more of them, and if the others can not be found, the plaintiff may proceed against those served, and, if successful, have judgment against all. Va- rious effects and consequences are attributed to such judgments in the states in which they are rendered. They are generally held to bind the common property of the joint debtors, as well as the separate property of those served with process, when such property is situated in the state, but not the separate property of those not served ; and, while they are, binding personally on the former, they are regarded as either not personally binding at all or only prima facie binding on the latter." In the case of Mason V. Eldred,°° a United States case decided in 1867, one Mason sued three partners in Wisconsin, securing service on only one. Upon the trial of the case, the defendant offered in evidence the record of a judgment in a Michigan court, showing that Mason had already brought suit in the Michigan court on the note sued upon in Wisconsin, against the partnership, in which Michigan case only one of the partners (who was not the defendant served in the Wisconsin suit) was served and appeared, and judgment had passed against all the defendants for the full amount due upon the note. The court held this to be no defense, in view of the 53 2 Cooky's Bl. Comm., Bk. 3, pp. == Mason v. Eldred, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 281-282. 231, 18 L. ed. 783. =* Hall V. Lanning, 91 U. S. 160, 23 L. ed. 271. § 496 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 622 Michigan Joint Debtors Act, but further held that under the common law, or in the absence of such statutes the defense would have availed, as the note would have been merged in the judg- ment. In this opinion Mr. Justice Field made the following clear statement of the rules, which has been quoted in practically every text since written : "It is true that each copartner is bound for the entire amount due on copartnership contracts; and that this obligation is so far several that if he is sued alone, and does not plead the nonjoinder of his copartners, a recovery may be had against him for the whole amount due upon the contract, and a joint judgment against the copartners may be enforced against the property of each. But this is a different thing from the liability which arises from a joint and several contract. There the contract contains distinct engagements; that of each contractor individually, and that of all jointly, and different remedies may be pursued upon each. The contractors may be sued separately on their several engagements or together on their joint undertaking. But in copartnerships there is no such several liability of the copartners. The copartnerships are formed for joint purposes. The memibers undertake joint enterprises, they assume joint risks, and they incur in all cases joint liabilities. In all copartnership transactions this common risk and liability exist. Therefore, it is that in suits upon these transactions all the copartners must be brought in, except when there is some ground of personal release from liability, as infancy or a dis- charge in bankruptcy; and if not brought in, the omission may be pleaded in abatement. The plea in abatement avers that the alleged promises, upon which the action is brought, were made jointly with another, and not with the defendant alone, a plea . which would be without meaning if the copartnership contract was the several contract of each copartner. The general doc- trine maintained in England and the United States may be briefly stated. A judgment against one upon a joint contract of sev- eral persons, bars an action against the others, though the lat- ter were dormant partners of the defendant in the original action, and this fact was unknown to the plaintiff when that action was 623 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 496 commenced. When the contract is joint, and not joint 'and sev- eral, the entire cause of action is merged in the judgment. The joint liabiHty of the parties not sued with those against whom the judgment is recovered, being extinguished, their entire liabihty is gone. They can not be sued separately, for they have incurred no several obligation; they can not be sued jointly with the others, because judgment has been already recovered against the latter, who wotdd otherwise be subjected to two suits for the same cause." In a later New York case^^ it is said : "The prom- ise of a copartnership is joint as to all the members and several as to each. * * * Creditors * * * nia,y select apy partner and collect their claims wholly from the property of that partner." From the above quotations it is apparent that the courts are not entirely in harmony as to the nature of partnership liability, and still less in harmony as to the name to be applied to such liability, and that law and equity are not altogther as one concerning the nature of the liability of the firm upon its con- tracts. Ordinarily the law apparently regards it as joint, and not as joint and several." Although there are many cases which 56 People V. Knapp, 206 N. Y. 373, Colo. 449, 96 Pac. 249 ; Currey v. War- 99 N. E. 841, Ann. Cas. 1914 B, 243ii. rington, 5 Harr. (Del.) 147; Sandusky But compare Seligman v. Fried- v. Sidwell, 173 111. 493, 50 N. E. 1003 ; lander, 199 IST. Y. 373, 92 N. E. 1047, Hyde v. Casey-Grimshaw Marble in which it was held that payment Co., 82 111. App. 83 ; Crosby v. Jerolo- could not be exacted from individual man,, 37 Ind. 264 ; Capital Food Co. property until joint property was ex- v. Globe Coal Co., 142 Iowa 134, 120 hausted. N. W. 704; Scott v. Colmesnil, 7 J. s7"At common law the liability of J. Marsh. (Ky.) 416; Bank of Mon- members of a partnership was joint, roe v. E. C. Drew Inv. Co., 126 La. and not several." Anderson v. Wil- 1028, 53 So. 129, 32 L. R. A. (N. son, 142 Iowa 158, 120 N. W. 677. S.) 2SSn; Faneuil Hall Nat. Bank See further Kendall v. Hamilton, L. v. Meloon, 183 Mass. 66, 66 N. E. R. 4 App. Cas. 504 ; Mason v. Eldred, 410, 97 Am. St. 416 ; Brown v. Fitch, 6 Wall. (U. S.)- 231, 18 L. ed. 783; 33 N. J. L. 418; Bowen v. Crow, 16 McLain v. Carson's Exr., 4 Ark. 164, Nebr. 556, 20 N. W. 850; Batavia 37 Am. Dec. 777 ; Harrison v. McCor- First Nat. Bank v. Tarbox, 38 Hun mick, 69 Cal. 616, 11 Pac. 456; North- (N. Y.) 57; Huse v. Guyot, 3 Thomp. ern Ins. Co. v. Potter, 63 Cal. 157; & C. (N, Y.) 790; Harris v. Schultz, Stover V. Stevens, 21 Cal. App. 261, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 315; Tracy v. Suy- 131 Pac. 332; Erskine v. Russell, 43 dam, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 110; Leake & 496 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 624 held a contrary doctrine, and in some states the later decisions seem to have modified the earlier ones holding such obligations joint.^' In some states it is provided by legislative enactment that all contracts joint at common law shall be regarded as joint and several. Such statutes have frequently^* but hot invariably Watts Orphan House v. Lawrence, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 80 (affd.2 Denio 577) ; Dob V. Halsey, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 34, 8 Am. Dec. 293 ; Le Page v. Mc- Crea, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 164, 19 Am. Dec. 469; Haines v. Hollister, 64 N. Y. 1; Meier v. First Nat. Bank, 55 Ohio St. 446, 45 N. E. 907; Gaines v. Therman, 8 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 521 ; Cox V. Gille Hardware &c. Co., 8 Okla. 483, 58 Pac. 645; Ryckman v. Manerud, 68 Ore. 350, 136 Pac. 826, Ann. Cas. 1915 C, 522; North Pa- cific Lumber Co. v. Spore, 44 Ore. 462, 75 Pac. 890; Nichols v. English, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 260; Pope Mfg. Co. V. Charleston Cycle Co., 55 S. Car. 528, 33 S. E. 787; Slutts v. Chafee, 48 Wis. 617, 4 N. W. 763. See Brown- lee V. Lobenstein (Tenn.), 42 S. W. 467; Byers v. Dobey, 1 H. Bl. 236; Drouin v. Gauthier, 12 Quebec K. B. 442. ■ ^8 "It is the law that the members of a copartnership are personally, jointly, and severally liable for all the indebtedness of the firm." Swing v. Hill, 44 Ind. App. 140, 88 N. E. 721. "It is the certain doctrine of law in this state that every partnership debt and liability is joint and several." Webb V. Gregory, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 282, 108 S. W. 478; Faulk v. Hobbie Grocery Co., 178 Ala. 254, 59 So. 450; Wood V. Carter, 67 Nebr. 133, 93 N. W. 158. See also Dodson v. Alphin, 88 Ark. 482, 115 S. W. 371; In re Coe, 169 Fed. 1002; De Soto Nat. Bank v. Arcadia Elec. Light &c. Co., 57 Fla. 391, 48 So. 745; Anderson v. Stewart, 108 Md. 340, 70 AtU 228; Wood V. Carter, (P Nebr. 133, 93 N. W. 158. And compare Hooks v. Gila Valley Bank &c. Co., 12 Ariz. 315, 100 Pac. 806; Gray v. Rollo, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 629, 21 L. ed. 927; Tucker v. Ox- , ley, 5 Cranch (U. S.) 34, 3 L. ed. 29; Orman v. Potter, 46 Colo. 54, 102 Pac. 893; Metzger v. Manlove, 241 III 113, 89 N. E. 249; Fennell v. Myers, 25 Ky. L. 589, 16 S. W. 136; McCulloh V. Dashiell, 1 Har. & G. (Md.) 96, 18 Am. Dec. 271; Ashley V. Dowling, 203 Mass. 311, 89 N. E. 434, 133 Am. St. 296; McGhee v. Montgomery, 85 S. Car. 207, 65 S. E. 721, 67 S. E. 246; Brownlee v. Loben- stein (Tenn.), 42 S. W. 467; Empire State Surety Co. v. Ballou, 66 Wash. 76, 118 Pac. 923. ^9 Ratchford v. Covington County Stock Co., 172 Ala. 461, 55 So. 806; Williams v. Muthersbaugh, 29 Kans. 730; Putnam v. Ross, 55 Mo. 116; Davis v. Sanderlin, 119 N. Car. 84, 25- S. E. 815; Mahoney-Jones Co. v. Sams Bros., 128 Tenn. 207, 159 S. W. 1094; Wiggins v. Blackshear, 86 Tex. 665, 26 S. W. 939. See also Sher- burne V. Hyde, 185 111. 580, 57 N. E. 776; Wilson v. Home, 37 Miss. 477. See Alabama Code 1907, § 2506 ; Marr V. Southwick, 2 Porter (Ala.) 351; Kirby's Arkansas Stats. 1904, §1 4420, 4422; Bradford v. Toney, 30 Ark. 763 ; Connecticut Gen, Stats. 1902, § 655; Rice v. McMartin, 39 Conn. 573 ; Code District of Columbia, § 1205; White v. Com. Gen. L. Ins. Co., 34 App. (D. C.) 460; Georgia 625 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 496 been held to apply to partnership contracts.'" Equity, however, Code 1895, §§ 5014, 5015; Garrard v. 62 Atl. 993; New Mexico Compiled Dawson, 49 Ga. 434; Hawaii Revised Laws 1897, §§2894,2895,2943; United Laws 1905, §§ 1741, 2658; Re Tai States v. Gumm, 9 N. Mex. 611, 58 Wo Chau Co., 9 Hawaii 507; Idaho Pac. 398; North CaroHna Revisal Revised Codes, §§ 4112, 4860; Ind. 1908, §§ 413, 415; Hansteen v. John- Burns Stats. 1914, § 2830; Newman son, 112 N. Car. 254, 17 S. E. 155; V. Gates, 165 Ind. 171, 72 N. E. 638; Ohio Gen. Code 1910, § 10733; Weil Iowa Code 1897, §§ 3465, 3468; v. Guerin, 42 Ohio St. 299; Penn- Streichen v. Fehleisen, 112 Iowa 612, sylvania Laws 536, Act April 11, 1848, 84 N. W. 715 ; Kans. Gen. Stats. 1909, § 4; Act Mar. 22, 1861 (now fol- § 1641; Kentucky Civ. Code 1906, lowing Uniform Partnership Act), § 27; Hunt v. Semonin, 79 Ky. 270; Acts 1915, ch. 15, p. 18; Blair v. Louisiana Code, Act 1870, No. 103, Wood, 108 Pa. St. 278; Rhode Island § 2; Saunders Louisiana Rev. Civ. Gen. Laws 1909, ch. 283, §§ 17, 18, Code, § 2085; Drew v. Bank ch. 185; Providence Sav. Bank v. of Monroe, 125 La. 612,, 51 Vadnais, 25 R. I. 295, 55 Atl. 754; So. 683; Maine Rev. Stat. 1903, Tennessee Code 1896, § 4486; Sully ch. 84, § 41; Duly v. Hogan, v. Campbell, 99 Tenn. 434, 42 S. W. 60 Maine 351; Massachusetts Rev. IS; Sayles Tex. Stats., art. 2071; Laws 1902, ch. 141, § 8; Samp- Gant v. Reed, 24 Tex. 46; Utah son V. Shaw, 101 Mass. 145, 3 Am. Pub. Stats. 1906, §§ 1525, 1527, 1528, Dec. 327; Maryland Pub. Gen. Laws, 1533; People's Nat. Bank v. Hall, art. 50, §§ 1, 10; Rhodes v. Williams Id Vt. 280, 56 Atl. 1012; Virginia &c. Co., Zl Md. 345; Michigan Com- Code 1904, §§ 2855, 2856, 3396; Lee piled Laws, 1897, arts. 9385-10064; v. Hassett, 41 W. Va. 368, 23 S. E. Manning v. Williams, 2 Mich. 105; 559. Also see following statutes per- Mason v. Eldred, 6 Wall. (U. S.) mitting judgment against one part- 231; Minnesota Rev. Laws 1905, ner in action against all. Arizona §§ 4482, 4283; Sundberg v. Good, 92 Rev. Stats. 1906, §§ 1348, 1436; Cali- Minn. 143, 99 N. W. 638; Mississippi fornia Civ. Proc. Code, §§ 414, 989; Code 1906, § 2683 ; Scharfif v. Noble, California Civ. Code, § 1543 ; Florida 67 Miss. 143, 6 So. 843; Missouri Rev. Gen. Stats. 1906, § 1404; New York Stats. 1909, §§ 2769, 2772; Willis v. Code Civ. Proc, §§ 1932-1941; North Barron, 143 Mo. 450, 45 S. W. 289, Dakota Code Civ. Proc. 1905, § 6847; 65 Am. St. 673; Montana Rev. Code South Carolina Code Civ. Proc, §§ 1907, §§ 4896, 5048, 5489, which are 157, 2841; Utah Comp. Laws 1907, §§ conflicting; Carlson v. Baker, 36 2920, 2954, 320; Wisconsin Stats. Mont. 486, 91 Pac. 646; Oklahoma 1898, §§ 2884, 4204; (now following Compiled Laws 1909, §§ 5008, 5619, Uniform Partnership Act), Acts 1915, 5620, 5962; McMasters v. City Nat. ch. 358, p. 375. Bank of Lawton, 23 Okla. 550,' 101 eo Thompson v. White, 25 Colo. Pac. 1103; New Jersey Gen. Stats., 226, 54 Pac. 718; Currey v. War- Vol. 2, p. 2336, §§ 2, 3; Harker v. rington, 5 Harr. (Del.) 147; San- Brinker, 24 N. J. L. ZZZ ; United dusky v. Sidwell, 173 III. 493, 50 N. States V. Grief en, 11 N. J. L. 195, E. 1003; Cox v. Gille Hardware &c. 4(1— Row. ON Partn. — ^VoL. 1 § 496 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 626 has from time to time taken an opposite view of the matter, choosing to make the liability several as well as joint.*^ By the Uniform Partnership Act partners are jointly and severally lia- ble for wrongful acts or breaches of trust chargeable to the part- nership and, "jointly for all other debts and obligations of the partnership; but any partner may enter into a separate obliga- tion to perform a partnership contract."'^ Again, as regards this particular phase of the subject, liability may attach separately to the individual partner when he has thus fixed the same by the terms of the contract,^' or where he has held himself out to the creditor as the one solitary member of the firm."* And members of a firm may bind themselves severally as well as jointly by an agreement to that effect.*" Thus, where a lease is executed by a firm composed of several members, it has been held that the covenants thereto are several as well as joint, and each individual member of the firm is liable thereon.** In this connection it seems that in an action by a partner on a note given to him indi- Co., 8 Okla. 483, 58 Pac. 645; Pope Mfg. Co. V. Charleston Cycle Co., 55 S. Car. 528, 33 S. E. 787. «i "It is settled that the liability of the firm and of the individuals com- posing it was joint and several." United States v. Hughes, 161 Fed. 1021. See further Ladd v. Griswold, 4 Gilm. (111.) 25, 46 Am. Dec. 443; Tennessee Valley Bank v. Avery, 9 Ala. App. 363, 63 So. 813; Camp v. Grant, 21 Conn. 41, 54 Am. Dec. 321 ; Silverman v. Chase, 90 III. 2>J ; In re Perkins Estate, 166 Mo. App. 170, 148 S. W. 969; Simpson v. Schulte, 21 Mo. App. 639; Edison Elec. Ilium. Co. v. De Mott, 51 N. J. Eq. 16, 25 Atl. 952; Hamersley v. Lambert, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 508; Belknap v. Cram, 11 Ohio 411; Danforth v. Levin (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 569; Devaynes V. Noble, 1 Meriv. 529. And compare Exchange Bank v. Ford, 7 Colo. 314, 3 Pac. 449. 82 Uniform Partnership Act, § 15. «3Ex parte Harding, L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 557; Konheim v. Meryash, 115 N. Y. S. 96. And compare Harrison V. McCormick, 69 Cal. 616, 11 Pac. 456; Goddard v. Pratt, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 412; In re Gray's Estate, 111 N. Y. 404, 18 N. E. 719; Haslett's Exrs. v. Wotherspoon, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 395. «*Bonfield v. Smith, 12 M. & W. 405. And compare Scarf v. Jardine, 7 App. Cas. 345; Crosby v. Jerolo- man, Zl Ind. 264. ssForst V. Leonard, 112 Ala. 296, 20 So. 587; Mclntyer v. Houseman, 98 111. App. 16; Crosby v. Jeroloman, 37 Ind. 264; Amend v. Becker, 37 Misc. 496, 75 N. Y. S. 1095; Perman v. Tunno, Riley Eq. (S. Car.) 181; Denton v. Rodie, 3 Campb. 493. «8 Dunn V. Jaffray, 36 Kans. 408, 13 Pac. 781. 627 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 496 vidually there can not be a set-off of a partnership debt.*^ And where one partner gives a note to another for the use of the firm, it has been determined that, in an action by the payee, a partnership account against him is not available as a set-ofif.°* So, also, where a person purchased, after maturity, a firm note indorsed to one of the partners, the purchaser having no knowl- edge or notice of the relationship of the indorsee to the firm, it was held in an action by such purchaser that an account between the firm and the partner to whom the note was indorsed was not available as a set-off, it having been declared that though it is a rule that a purchaser after maturity takes a note subject to the defenses and equities existing between the parties to the note, the rule has reference to defenses and equities connected with the instrument/" There are two rules as to when the estate of a deceased partner becomes liable in equity on partnership ob- ligations, one holding that it can not be proceeded against unless it appears that the surviving partners are insolvent or the legal remedies against them have been exhausted.'" The English rule, and that followed by most American courts, is that the creditors of the partnership may proceed in equity immediately against a deceased partner's estate, without resorting to legal remedies against the survivors." , , • 67 Mitchell V. Sellman, 5 Md. 376. 127, 12 L. ed. 81; United States v. See also Mynderse v. Snook, 1 Lans. Hughes, 161 Fed. 1021 ; Travis v. (N. Y.) 488. 'Tartt, 8 Ala. 574; McLain v. Carson, 68 Anderson v. Robertson, 32 Miss. 4 Ark. 164, 37 Am. Dec. 777; Camp 241; Willis v. Barron, 143 Mo. 450, v. Grant, 21 Conn. 41, 54 Am. Dec. 45 S. W. 289, 65 Am. St. 673. 321; Fillyau v. Laverty, 3 Fla. 72; 69 Young V. Shriner, 80 Pa. St. 463. Doggett v. Dill, 108 III. 560, 48 Am. Compare Davis v.' Briggs, 39 Maine Rep. 565 ; Newman v. Gates,' 165 Ind. 304. 171, 72 N. E. 638; Freeman v. Stevir- '"> Pullen V. Whitfield, 55 Ga. 174 ; art, 41 Miss. 138 ; Bowker v. Smith, Pope v. Cole, 55 N. Y. 124, 14 Am. 48 N. H. Ill, 2 Am. Rep. 189; Rep. 198; Voorhis v. Childs, 17 N. Wisham v. Lippincott, 9 N. J. Eq. Y. 354; Sherman v. Kreul, 42 Wis. 353; Saunders v. Wilder, 2 Head 33. (Tenn.) 577; Gaut v. Reed, 24 Tex. ^iDevaynes v. Noble, 1 Mer. 396; 46, 76 Am. Dec. 94; Washburn v. Wilkinson v. Henderson, 1 M. & K. Bank of Bellows Falls, 19 Vt. 278. 582; Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. (U. S.) § 497 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 628 § 497. Extent of partnership liability in contract. — Al- though a partnership obligation is joint, each partner is liable for the entire amount of the obligation of the firm. That is, he can not as to creditors be released by paying a proportion of the debt. A creditor may recover the entire debt from one partner, for each partner individually is liable for all the partnership debts/^ This is true whatever his share or interest in the part- nership, and whether he is an active or a dormant partner, or whether the other partners are or are not solvent and responsible for the debt. The individual property of each partner is as much liable for firm debts as is the firm property. Execution on a judgment against a firm may be levied entirely on the prop- erty of one partner, or of some of the partners, disregarding firm assets, and equally disregarding any rights of the partners as between themselves that their property shall be taken in ratable proportion to their interest.''^ "As between the partners them- selves the assets are marshaled in equity so that joint assets are first used in the payment of joint debts, and several assets in the payment of several debts. This rule, however, does not bind creditors who may select any partner, and collect their claims wholly from the property of that partner."^* An agreement be- tween the partners restricting the liability of one to a certain amount is of no effect as to creditors and they may satisfy all firm debts from his property.''^ It has been held, though, that the individual property of an innocent partner can not be at- tached for a firm debt fraudulently made by another partner.^" Generally speaking, individual property of a partner who has not been served with process can not be taken, as, usually, no valid 72 Christian v. Illinois Malleable " Clayton v. May, 68 Ga. 27 ; Stout Iron Co., 92 111. App. 320; Hallowell v. Baker, 32 Kans. 113, 4 Pac. 141; V. Blackstone Nat. Bank, 154 Mass. Randolph v. Daly, 16 N. J. Eq. 313. 359, 28 N. E. 281, 13 L. R. A. 315 ; ^4 People v. Knapp, 206 N. Y. 373, Benchley v. Chapin, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 99 N. E. 841, Ann. Cas. 1914 B, 243n. 173 ; Nebraska R. Co. v. Lett, 8 Nebr. ^5 Dean v. Phillips, 17 Ind. 406 ; 251 ; People v. Knapp, 206 N. Y. 373, Magilton v. Stevenson, 173 Pa. St. 99 N. E. 841, Ann. Cas. 1914 B, 560, 34 Atl. 235. 243n ; Allen v. Owens, 2 Speers (S. '■'= Jaffray v. Jennings, 101 Mich. 515, Car.) 170. 60 N. W. 52, 25 L. R. A. 645. 629 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 498 judgment can be rendered against him. If a partner is com- pelled to pay the whole of a firm debt or more than his share, he may require contribution from the other parties, and generally seeks his remedy by accounting in equity/'^ The rule at law as to joint contracts was that on the death of a partner the debts of the partnership became the debts of the survivors and the survivors had in equity the right to say that the copartners could not withdraw the deceased partner's share of property until the firm debts were paid. From this there was a transition to allow- ing creditors to proceed in a court of equity directly against a deceased partner's estate for firm debts, thus permitting them to assert the equity which the surviving partner's could have asserted. It thus appears that even in equity there is no several liability on a partnership contract until dissolution of a partner- ship by death.'^^ § 498. Commencement and termination of partnership liability. — Generally, there is no partnership liability until the relation has been established, since the power of each partner to bind the other does not arise before that time, and there is no partnership liability on contracts made individually by one part- ner before the relationship arose, although the money or goods obtained by such contracts became such partner's'® contribution to firm capital. An incoming partner entering an established firm is as a rule not liable for debts of the firm prior to his ad- mission unless he assumes such liability by agreement or places himself so that it arises by estoppel.^" The date of the termina- '^ See ante § 364, on contribution 787 ; Bracken v. Dillon, 64 Ga. 243, and eh. 20. ^"J Am. Rep. 70; Bank of Commerce '8 Kendall v. Hamilton, L. R. 4 v. Ada County Abstract Co., 11 Idaho App. Cas. S04. 756, 85 Pac. 919; Mellor v. Lawyer, TSKirby v. McDonald, 70 Fed. 139, 55 111. App. 679; Love v. Payne, 73 17 C. C. A. 26; Brooke v. Evans, 5 Ind. 80, 38 Am. Rep. Ill; Hughes v. Watts (Pa.) 196; National Bank of Gross, 166 Mass. 61, 43 N. E. 1031, Virginia v. Cringan, 91 Va. 347, 21 32 L. R. A. 620, SS Am. St. ' 375 ; S. E. 820; Heap v. Dobson, 15 C. B. Strickler v. Gitchel, 14 Okla. 523, 78 (N. S.) 460. Pac. 94; Wilson v. Tummon, 6 Man. 80 Hatchett v. Blanton, 72 Ala. 423 ; & G. 236. Ringo V. Wing, 49 Ark. 457, 5 S. W. § 499 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 630 tion of a retiring partner's liability is governed by the rules of dissolution and will be considered later, but generally, he is liable for acts done until he has in fact withdrawn from the firm and given due notice of withdrawal." By the Uniform Partnership Act a change is made in the ordinary statement of the rule as to the liability of an incoming partner, for it provides that an in- coming partner shall be liable for all the partnership obligations arising before his admission as though he had been a partner when such obligations were made, except that this liability shall be satisfied only out of partnership property. °^ This in effect is merely making the firm property liable for debts contracted before the change in the firm. § 499, Judgment against or settlement with one partner as releasing all. — As a partnership obligation is a joint ob- ligation, it is the rule that a judgment against one partner on a partnership liability is a bar to a' subsequent suit against the re- maining members on the same cause of action.*^ But where partnership liability on contract is held to be joint and several, a judgment against one partner on a firm obligation is not a bar to an action on the same cause against other partners, so long as it remains unsatisfied.^* In the absence of statute it is the rule at common law that an absolute release of one partner from a 81 See ch. 19 infra. Manerud, 68 Ore. 350, 136 Pac. 826, 82 Uniform Partnership Act, § 17. Ann. Cas. 1915 C, 522; Smith v. saWoodworth v. Spafford, 2 Mc- Black, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 142, 11 Am. Lean (U. S.) 168, Fed. Cas. No. Dec. 686; Ex parte Higgins, 3 De G. 18020; Fleming v. Ross, 225 111. 149, & J. 33; Kendall v. Hamilton, L. R. 80 N. E. 92, 8 Ann. Cas 314; Thomp- 4 App. Cas. 504. Contra: Stoddart son V. Emmert, IS 111. 415; Wann v. Van Dyke, 12 Cal. 437; Jansen v. V. McNulty, 2 Gil. (111.) 355, 43 Am. Grimshaw, 125 111. 468, 17 N. E. 850; Dec. 58 ; Crosby v. Jeroloman, Zl Ind. Union Bank of Georgia v. Hodges, 11 264; Nicklaus v. Roach, 3 Ind. 78; Rich. L. (S. Car.) 480. See gen- North V. Mudge, 13 Iowa 496, 81 Am. erally note 43 L. R. A., pp. 161-184. Dec. 441 ; Ward v. Johnson, 13 Mass. ** Ratchford v. Covington County 148; Davison v. Harmon, 65 Minn. Stock Co., 172 Ala. 461, 55 So. 806; 402, 67 N. W. 1015 ; Coles v. Mc- McLelland v. Ridgeway, 12 Ala. 482 ; Kenna, 80 N. J. L. 48, 76 Atl. 344 ; Daniel v. Bethell, 167 N. Car. 218, 83 Robertson v. Smith, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) S. E. 307. See also Gushing v. Poll, 459, 9 Am. Dec. 227 ; Ryckman v. 151 111. App. I. 631 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 499 firm debt discharges his copartners,*^ unless the right is reserved to proceed against the copartners** and the common-law rule' has •been modified by statute in many jurisdictions. The general rule is that where the obligation of one partner, such as a bill or note, is accepted with an agreement to discharge the other part- es Blodgett V. Inglis, 63 Wash. 513, lis Pac. 1043, Ann. Cas. 1912 D, 622n; Joy v. Wurtz, 2 Wash. C. C. 266, Fed. Cas. No. 7555 ; Willings v. Consequa, Pet. • (C. C.) 301, Fed. Cas. No. 17767; Elliott v. Holbrook, 33 Ala. 659; Gray v. Brown, 22 Ala. 262; Hogan v. Reynolds, 21 Ala. 56, 56 Am. Dec. 236; Bartlett v. McRae, 4 Ala. 688; Drake v. Hill, 53 Iowa 37, 3 N. W. 811, 5 N. W. 745 ; Seymour v. Butler, 8 Iowa 304; Williamson v. McGinnis, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 74, 52 Am. Dec. 561; Finch v. Simon, 61 App. Div. 139, 70 N. Y. S. 361, 32 Civ. Proc. R. 56; Le Page v. McCrea, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 164, 19 Am. Dec. 469; Booth v. Farmers' &c. Nat. Bank, 74 N. Y. 228; Hinton v. Odenheimer, 57 N. Car. 406 ; Sprague v. Ainsworth, 40 Vt 47; Dages v. Lee, 20 W. Va. 584; Robinson v. Wilkinson, 3 Price 538. See also McCrillis v. Hawes, 38 Maine 566; Evans v. Carey, 29 .Ala. 99; Kendrick v. O'Neil, 48 Ga. 631; Berry v. Gillis, 17 N. H. 9, 43 Am. Dec. 584; Leggat v. Leggat, 79 App. Div. 141, 80 N. Y. S. 327 (affd. 176 N. Y. 590, 68 N. E. 1119) ; Hutton v. Eyre, 6 Taunt. 289, 1 E. C. L. 618; Ontario Bank v. O'Reilly, 12 Ont. L. 420. 88 Paret v. Bryson, 2 West Jur. 351, Fed. Cas. No. 10710; Browning v. Grady, 10 Ala. 999; Pettigrew_ Ma- chine Co. V. Harmon, 45 Ark". 290; Northern Ins. Co. v. Potter, 63 Cal. 157; Parmelee v. Lawrence, 44 111. 405 ; Gardner v. Baker, 25 Iowa 343 ; Seymour v. Butler, 8 Iowa 304; Greenwald v. Kaster, 86 Pa. St. 45, 5 Wkly. Notes Cas. 140. Compare Greenwald v. Kaster, 3 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 327; Williams v. Hitch- ings, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 326; Bates v. Wills Point Bank, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 73, 32 S. W. 339; Ex parte Good, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 46; Solly v. Forbes, 2 Brod. & B. 38, 6 E. C. L. 27. Compare Rice v. Webster, 18 111. 331; Parmelee v. Lawrence, 44 111. 405; Carter v. Connell, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 392; Northern Ins. Co. v. Pot- ter, 63 Cal. 157; Rice v. McMartin, 39 Conn. 573; Davies v. Jones, 61 Kans. 602, 60 Pac. 314; Holdridge v. Farmers' &c. Bank, 16 Mich. 66; Grant v. Holmes, 75 Mo. 109; Har- beck V. Pupin, 123 N. Y. 115, 25 N. E. 311; Hunter v. Hunter, 67 App. Div. 470; 73 N. Y. S. 886; Siefke v. Minden, 40 Misc. 631, 83 N. Y. S. 71; Saxton v. Dodge, 46 How. Pr. (U. S.) 467; Bennett v. Buchan, 53 Barb. 578, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 412 (revd. 61 N. Y. 222); Commercial Nat. Bank v. Taylor, 64 Hun 499, 19 N. Y. S. 533. See also Beam v. Bar- num, 21 Conn. 200; Hatzel v. -Moore, 120 Fed. 1015; Finch v. Simon, 61 App. Div. 139, 70 N. Y. S. 361, 32 Civ. Proc. R. 56; Barber V. Davidson, 62 Misc. 552, 115 N. Y. S. 819 (affd. 134 App. Div. 962, 119 N. Y. S. 113) ; Sprague v. Childs, 16 Ohio St. 107; Greenwald v. Kaster, 86 Pa. St. 45, 5 Wkly. Notes Cas. 140; Abendroth v. Van Dolsen, 131 U. S. 66, 9 S. Ct. 619, 33 L. ed. 57. 499 Law of partnership 632 ners from liability, they are in fact discharged,** unless there is a condition that the debt is not discharged until paid." But in the absence of agreement the acceptance of the obligation of one partner for a firm debt does not, it is generally held, dis- charge the other partners,"" although in some states such ac- ssGrubbe v. Pierce, 156 Wis. 29, 145 N. W. 207, Ann. Cas. 1915 C, 1199; Sheeley v. Mandeville, 6 Cranch (U. S.) 253, 3 L. ed. 215; Harris v. Lindsay, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 271, Fed. Cas. No. 6124; In re Parker, 11 Fed. 397, 6 Sawy. 248; Usher v. Waddingham, 62 Conn. 412, 26 Atl. 538; Ander- son V. Henshaw, 2 ' Day (Conn.) 272; Parker v. Canfield, 2,1 Conn. 250, 9 Am. Rep. 317; Lingenfelser v. Si- mon, 49 Ind. 82 ; Maxwell v. Day, 45 Ind. 509; Tyner v. Stoops, 11 Ind. 22, 71 Am. Dec. 341 ; Medberry v. Soper, 17 Kans. 369; Macklin v. Crutcher, 6 Bush (Ky.) 401, 99 Am. Dec. 680; Folk v. Wilson, 21 Md. 538, 83 Am. Dec. 599; Keerl v. Bridgers, 10 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 612; Leabo v. Goode, 67 Mo. 126; Thomp- son V. Briggs, 28 N. H. 40; Luding- ton V. Bell, 11 N. Y. 138, Zi Am. Rep. 601; Gandolfo v. Appleton, 40 N. Y. 533; Waydell v. Luer, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 410; Cole v. Sackeltt, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 516; Arnold v. Camp, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 409, 7 Am. Dec. 328; Bank V. Green, 40 Ohio St. 431; Chase v. Brundage, 58 Ohio St. 517, 51 N. E. 31 ; White v. Rech, 171 Pa. St. 82, 32 Atl. 1130; In re Davis, 5 Whart. (Pa.) S30, 34 Am. Dec. 574; Town- send V. Stephenson, 4 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 59; Dages v. Lee, 20 W. Va. 584; Bowyer v. Knapp, 15 W. Va. 277; Reed v. White, S Esp. 122; Thompson v. Percival, 5 B. & Ad. 925 ; Ex parte Hodgkinson, 19 Ves. Jr. 291. 89 Norton v. Paragon Oil Can Co., 98 Ga. 468, 25 S. E. 501; Sneed v. Wiester, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 277; Fry V. Patterson, 49 N. J. L. 612, 10 Atl. 390; Claflin v. Ostrom, 54 N. Y. 581; Vernam v. Harris, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 451 ; Herring v. Sanger, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 71 ; Smith v. Rogers, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 340. , 90Dellapiazza v. Foley, 112 Cal. 380, 44 Pac. 727; Tootle v. Cook, 4 Colo. App. Ill, 35 Pac. 193; Fairchild v. Holly, 10 Conn. 474; Dougal v. Cowles, 5 Day (Conn.) 511; Ander- son V. Henshaw, 2 Day (Conn.) 272; Norton V. Paragon Oil Can ,Co., 98 Ga. 468, 25 S. E. 501; Rayburn v. Day, 27 111. 46; Tyner v. Stoops, 11 Ind. 22, 71 Am. Dec. 341; Craswell V. Pure Bred Cattle Commission Co., 148 Iowa 9, 126 N. W. 908; Sneed v. Wiester, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 277; Smith V. Turner, 9 Bush (Ky.) 417; Reyburn v. Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365, 16 S. W. 592, 27 Am. St. 350; Titus v. Todd, 25 N. J. Eq. 458; Fry v. Pat- terson, 49 N. J. L. 612, 10 Atl. 390; Claflin V. Ostrom, 54 N. Y. 581 ; Van Eps V. DiUaye, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 244; Muldon V. Whitlock, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 290, 13 Am. Dec. 533; Murray v. Governeur, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 438, 1 Am. Dec. 177; Dobson v. Cham- bers, 79 'N. Car. 142; Leach v. Church, 15 Ohio St. 169; Walker v. Tapper, 152 Pa. St. 1, 25 Atl. 172; Maffet v. Leuckel, 93 Pa. St. 468; Schollen- berger v. Seldonridge, 49 Pa. St. 83; Bowers v. Still, 49 Pa. St. 65 ; Jones V. Johnson, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 276, 633 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS I 500 ceptance raises a prima facie presumption of discharge.®^ § 500. Liability of dormant partner. — A dormant partner as heretofore stated, is one who, while a member of the firm, is not known to the world as such, and takes no active part in the management of the firm business. As a rule, he is liable to the firm creditors to the same extent as if he were known to the creditor at the time the credit was obtained, under the doctrine that an undisclosed principal is liable for the acts of his agent. The rule is exactly similar where one partner buys goods for tlie firm, or otherwise creates a liability for a benefit to it but does not disclose that the act is not his individual act, and the rights of creditors against a dormant partner, or the undisclosed mem- bers of a partnership are the same as if they were known.^^ Where there is an undisclosed partnership, with but one osten- sible partner, the funds of the visible partner and those belonging 38 Am. Dec. 760; Nightingale v. Chafee, 11 R. I. 609, 23 Am. Rep. 531 ; White V. Boone, 71 Tex. 712, 12 S. W. 51 ; Seward v. L'Estrange, 36 Tex. 295 ; Burdett v. Greer, 63 W. Va. 515, 60 S. E. 497, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1019, 129 Am. St. 1014, 15 Ann. Cas. 1087; Hoeflinger v. Wells, 47 Wis. 628, 3 N. W. 589; Bottomley v. Nut- tall, 5 C. B. (N. S.) 122; Bedford v. Deakon, 2 B. & Aid. 210; Port Dar- lington Harbour Co. v. Squair, 18 U. C. Q. B. 533; Carruthers v. Ardagh, 20 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 579. 91 Springer v. Shirley, 11 Maine 204; Kingman v. Soule, 132 Mass. 285; Chapman v. Durant, 10 Mass. 47; Fowler v. Richardson, 3 Sneed. (Tenn.) 508; Rosseau v. Cull, 14 Vt. 83. See also Maneely v. McGee, 6 Mass. 143, 4 Am. Dec. 105 ; Connecti- cut Trust &c. Co. V. Mellendy, 119 Mass. 449; Melledge v. Boston Iron Co., 5 Cush. (Mass.) 158, 51 Am. Dec. 59; Torrey v. Baxter, 13 Vt. 452. Compare Pateshall v. Apthorp, Quincy (Mass.) 179, 1 Am. Dec. 3; Paine v. Dwinel, 53 Maine 52, 87 Am. Dec. 533; Ricker v. Adams, 59 Vt. 154, 8 Atl. 278 ; Spaulding v. Ludlow Woolen Mills, 36 Vt. 150;. Stephens v. Thomp- son, 28 Vt. 77; Robinson v. Hurlburt, 34 Va. 115; Isler v. Baker, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 85. 92 McDonald v. Clough, 10 Colo. 59, 14 Pac. 121; Everitt v. Chapman, 6 Conn. 347; Lindsey v. Edmiston, 25 111. 359; Gilmore v. Merritt, 62 Ind. 525; Tomlinson v. Collett, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 436; Schmidt v. Ittman, 46 La. Ann. 888, 15 So. 310; Boudreaux V. Martinez, 25 La. Ann. 167; Eth- eridge v. Binney, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 272 ; Wood V. CuUen, 13 Minn. 394 (Gil. 365); Bracken v. March, 4 Mo. 74; Arnold v. Morris, 7 Daly (N. Y.) 498; Reynolds v. Cleveland, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 282, 15 Am. Dec. 369; Poole V. Lewis, 75 N. Car. 417 ; Franklin v. Hardie, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 1219; Cocke V. Upshaw, 6 Munf. (Va.) 464. § 500 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 634 to the partnership purporting to be his are, as to innocent cred- itors, regarded as his sole property and their rights are superior to those of the dormant partner."^ In a case** decided in 1817, the question arose over a dormant partnership in the manage- ment of the ship. Lord Eldon, when the dorrnant partner, one Wilkinson, was unknown to the creditor, Robinson, at the time the debt was contracted, and in fact did not so become known to Robinson until after Robinson had takfen a bill drawn by a third person for the debt, which bill proved worthless. There- after, upon discovery of the dormant partner, the creditor sued him, and was met iby the defense of the payment by the bill as aforesaid. Richards, B., in his opinion, which was concurred in by his associates on the bench, thus expressed himself upon this point: "The question is whether this defendant is discharged by anything that has taken place. Whatever effect any or all of these transactions might have had if Wilkinson had been known to be a partner of Cay, is entirely put out of this case, because the plaintiff certainly dealt entirely with Cay (the ostensible member of the firm), and knew nothing of Wilkinson, who was nevertheless clearly prima facie liable. It is clear law that a dormant partner can not discharge himself from liability to pay the debts of a creditor through the medium of his ostensible partner by any acts of his during the concealment of the unknown partner. If it were otherwise and this action be not maintain- able, a door is widely opened to defraud creditors by means of dormant partnerships." The same rule that a creditor of an un- disclosed partnership does not waive or merge his claim against the firm or the undisclosed partners by taking, in ignorance of the existence of the partnership, a negotiable instrument from the ostensible debtor, holds in this country.®^ But some cases 93Will^ V. Crocker-Woolworth v. Robinson, 96 Pa. St. 454; Colburn Nat. Bank, 141 Cal. 508, 75 Pac. 106; v. Mathews, 1 Strob. (S. Car.) 232. Dupuy V. Leavenworth, 17 Cal. 262 ; ^* Robinson v. Wilkinson, 3 Price White V. Farnham, 99 Maine 100, 58 538. Atl. 425, 105 Am. St. 261; Lord v. ss Mohawk Nat. Bank v. Van Baldwin, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 348; Gum- Slyck, 29 Hun (N. Y.) 188 (1883); bel V. Koon, 59 Miss. 264; Callander Winship v. Bank of United States, 5 635 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 501 have denied the liability of the dormant partner on a note given by an ostensible partner individually for goods used by the firm, if the creditor did not know of the relation,^* and that a silent partner in the business of contracting for carrying the mail, a nontrading partnership, whose members have no implied power to bind each other, is not liable on the contracts made by active partners, unless he authorized or ratified them.®^ In one case®^ it is held that the creditor can not hold the dormant partner, if he withdrew from the firm before the obligation was incurred, even though the dormant partner gave no notice of withdrawal, provided, of course, that the creditor had no previous knowledge of the connection of the dormant partner with the firm. The rights of the partnership creditor against a dormant partner may be briefly summarized as follows: If the dormant partner be completely so, and not known as such to the firm creditor, he will be liable to the firm creditor for indebtedness incurred by the firm to the creditor during the dormant partner's connection with the firm, and notice of his withdrawal from the firm is not neces- sary. § 501. Right of creditor to recover on firm negotiable paper.^-The questions connected with the rights of creditors to recover on firm negotiable paper were covered very largely in the preceding chapter on the powers of partners to make ne- Pet (U. S.) 529, 8L. ed. 216; Farns- sepalmer v. Elliott, 1 Cliff. (U. worth V. Union Trust & Deposit Co., S.) 63, Fed. Cas. No. 10690; 211 Fed. 912, 128 C. C. A. 290; Tyler Johnson v. Weller, 54 Pa. Super. V. Waddingham, SB Conn. 375, 20 Atl. Ct. 481 ; De Temple v. Rohr- 335, 8 L. R. A. 657; Beach v. State bach, 52 Pa. Super. Ct. 455; Bank, 2 Ind. 488 ; Scott v. Colmesnil, George Bohon Co. v. Moren, 151 Ky. 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 416; George Bo- 811, 152 S. W. 944; Moore v. Will- hon Co. V. Moren, 151 Ky. 811, 152 iams, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 142, 62 S. S. W. 944 ; Davidson v. Kelly, 1 Md. W. 977. 492; Graeff v. Hitchman, 5 Watts 97 American Bonding Co. of Balti- (Pa.) 454; Watson v. Owens, 1 Rich, more v. Fults, 157, Mo. App. 553, 138 L. (S. Car.) Ill; Bradshaw v. Ap- S. W. 689. person, 36 Tex. 133; Pacific Drug "^Elmira Iron &c. Co. v. Harris, Co. V. Hamilton, 71 Wash. 469, 128 124 N. Y. 280, 26 N. E. S41, 3 Silver- Pac. 1069. nail Ct. App. 351. § 501 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 636 gotiable paper, and also the rights of holders in due course were discussed. However, the matter was there treated from the partner's viewpoint, and a brief discussion is here given from the creditor's viewpoint- It is well established that a creditor, holding the negotiable paper of a partnership, although it was issued by one member of the firm, and without the consent of the others, can hold the firm therefor, provided, of course, that the giving of the note or check is within the ostensible scope of the partner's rights under the circumstances, and provided further that the creditor is a bona-fide holder of the paper. The scope of the partnership power is determined by various questions, such as Vi^hether the firm is a trading or a nontrading partner- ship, or the note was given in the usual course of business.'* The same rule applies where negotiable paper is accepted as where it is drawn, being clearly settled as early as 1797, when Lord Kenyon^ said: "The law of merchants is part of the law of the land; and in mercantile transactions, in drawing and ac- cepting bills of exchange, it never was doubted but that one might bind the rest." There has been no occasion for any change in the above rule since, nor has there been any such change. Likewise does the same principle apply where a partner indorses a negotiable instrument for the firm. "Trading firms have the power to borrow money, and it is one of the incidents of the business, and allied to this is the power to make, draw, accept, and indorse mercantile paper in the usual routine of business, and one member of such firm can ordinarily so bind the firm. Each member of the firm is m law deemed the agent of the firm to issue negotiable commercial paper."^ It is true that in^ many instances the rights of creditors and powers of partners appear the same, as in practically every case, where no contrary equities exist the third party can enforce negotiable paper of a firm if the partner giving it had the right to execute it, nevertheless, it 33 Pease v. Cole, S3 Conn. 53, 22 2 Phillips v. Stanzell (Tex. Civ. Atl. 681, SS Am. Rep. 53 (188S). App.), 28 S. W. 900 (1895). ^ Harrison v. Jackson, 7 D. & E. 207. 637 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 502 is also true that there are very many cases where the creditor can collect, even though there was no right or power existing in the partner as between himself and the other partners to issue the paper, and it is with this latter phas'e of the question that the present discussion deals. It must be remembered that the rule of enforcement of negotiable paper issued by a partner- ship is subject to thfe same rules of negotiability as other nego- tiable paper, so that the creditor under the conditions discussed under this heading, must be a bona-fide holder in order to avail himself of the above mentioned rights, and if he knew of the unauthorized issue, and still took the paper, he took it subject to the equities of the other partners. § 502. Actions and other legal measures against partner- ships. — Suits may, in many of our states, by statute, be com- menced against the firm by its firm name. When not so pro- vided by statute, the individual partners must be sued. This subject will be discussed at length in a later chapter. There are also other legal matters which might be' properly discussed under the rights of creditors, but which, owing to a later dis- cussion thereof, will be here omitted, with the statement that creditors do have, with certain restrictions, the rights to secure judgment, to proceed against the firm property or that of the individual partners, to attach property liable, and, in general, to protect his interests against the firm to as full an extent as against individuals and their sureties.® As we have heretofore seen, out- lawry could formerly, in England, be resorted to by creditors to secure their rights against a firm ; but this is not practiced in the United States, and, at the present time, has been abolished in England by statute.* § 503. Liability in tort — In general. — A principal is re- sponsible for the torts of his agent when such agent is acting within the scope of his authority, hence, each partner being, as to third parties, the agent of his partners while acting within the s See ch. 14. * See ante § 496 ; Nathanson v. Spite, 19 R. I. 70, 31 Atl. 690. § -^02 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 638 scope of his authority, each partner is therefore responsible to third persons for the torts of his copartner when acting within the ordinary course of the firm's business or with such partner's authority.^ As said in a United States case :® "That as a gen- eral rule partners are all liable to make indemnity for the tort of one of their number, committed by him in the course of the partnership business, is familiar doctrine. It rests upon the the- ory that the contract of partnership constitutes all its members agents for each other, and that when a loss must fall upon one of two innocent parties, he must bear it who has been the oc- casion of the loss or has enabled a third person to cause it. In other words, the tortious act of the agent is the act of his principals, if done in the cottrse of agency, though not directly authorized. And this is emphatically true where the principals * * * have received and appropriated the benefit of the act." But as to other torts committed by a partner, neither the firm nor the copartners are liable,'^ unless they have assented to or sShapard v; Hynes, 104 Fed. 449, 45 C. C. A. 271, 52 L. R. A. 675; United States v. Baxter, 46 Fed. 350; Clark V. Ball, 34 Colo. 223, 82 Pac. 529, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 100, 114 Am. St. 154; Hobbs v. Chicago Packing &c. Co., 98 Ga. 576, 25 S. E. 584, 58 Am. St. 320 ; Tenney, v. Foote, 95 111. 99; Haase v. Morton, 138 Iowa 205, 115 N. W. 921, 16 Ann. Cas. 350; Haley v. Case, 142 Mass. 316, 7 N. E. 877; Brown v. Foster, 137 Mich. 35, 100 N. W. 167; Pundmann v. Schoe- neich, 144 Mo. 149, 45 S. W. 1112; Kavanaugh v. Mclntyre, 210 N. Y. 175, 104 N. E. 135; Lockwood v. Bart- lett, 130 N. y. 340, 29 N. E. 257; Bostwick V. Oiampion, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 571; Towers v. Errington, 78 Misc. 297, 138 N. Y. S. .119; Mc- Carragher v. Gaskell, 42 Hun 451, 6 N. Y. St. 87; Hall v. Younts, 87 N. Car. 285 ; Boston Foundry Co. v. Whiteman, 31 R. I. 88, 76 Atl. 757, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 1334n; McEwen V. Shannon, 64 Vt. 583, 25 Atl. 661; Grissom V. Hofius, 39 Wash. 51, 80 Pac. 1002; Hamlyn v. Houston (1903), 1 K. B. 81; Rhodes v. Moules (1895), 1 Ch. 236; Eager v. Barnes, 31 Beav. 579 ; Mellor v. Shaw, 1 B. & S. 437. See generally note 51 L. R. A., pp. 463-496. sStockwell V. United States, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 531, 20 L. ed. 491. ^Kilgore V. Shannon, 6 Ala. App. 537, 60 So. 520; Corbett v. Connor, 11 Ga. App. 385, 75 S. E. 492; Frizzell V. Woodman Pub. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 130 S. W. 659; Wheless v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.), 122 S. W. 929. See also Williams v. Hendricks, 115 Ala. 227, 22 So. 439, 41 L. R. A. 650, 67 Am. St. 32 ; Wolfley v. Brown, 7 Ariz. 157, 62 Pac. 691; Hendricks V. W. G. Middlebrooks Co., 118 Ga. 131, 44 S. E. 835; Durant v. Rogers, 71 111. 121, 87 111. 508; Sitter v. Kar- 639 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 504> ratified his act.® Under the Uniform Partnership Act : "Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the' business of the partnership, or with the' authority of his copartners, loss or injury is caused to any per- son, not being a partner in the partnership, or any' penalty is incurred, the partnership is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or committing to act."® § 504. Liability for torts of agents and servants. — Fur- ther, partnerships and partners are bound and liable for the tortious acts of their agents or servants acting within the scope of their agency or employment as well as for the acts of each partner acting within the scope of the firm's business,^" and it is usually held that the members of the firm are individually or jointly and severally liable for such torts of agents and serv- ants, in, the same degree as for torts of partners,^^ although some cases hold the partners jointly liable,^^ while some hold the firm only, and not the partners individually,^^ and it is held where an agent of a firm representing himself as the agent of a part- ner individually, committed a tort, the firm is liable for the tort.^* In one case it was held that persons who held themselves out as partners so as to warrant the inference that an employe by whom a customer was injured was the employe of a partner- raher, 100 III. App. 669; Gwynn v. Lccke v. Stearns, 1 Mete. (Mass.) Duffield, 66 Iowa 708, 24 N. W. 523, 560, 35 Am. Dec. 382; Brent v. Da- 55 Am. Rep. 286; Bounce v. Parsons, vis, 9 Md. 217; McKnight v. Ratcliff, 45 N. Y. 180; Tendring Hundred' 44 Pa. St. 156; Autrey v. Linn (Tex. Water Works Co. v. Jones (1903), 2 Civ. App.), 138 S. W. 197. Ch. 615; Harman v. Johnson, 3 C. & "-Barnett v. State, 54 Ala. 579; K. 272. Rogers v. Ponet, 21 Cal. App. 577, 132 8 United States v. Baxter, 46 Fed. Pac. 851; Stockton v. Frey, 4 Gill 350; Durant v. Rogers, 71 111. 121; (Md.) 406, 45 Am. Dec. 138. Com- Polykranas v. Krausz, 73 App. Div. pare Linton v. Hurley, 14 Gray 583, 77 N. Y. S. 46; Randall v. Kne- (Mass.) 191. vals, 27 App. Div. 146, 50 N. Y. S. 12 Cobb v. Abbott, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 748; Cleather v. Twisdere, 28 Ch. D. 289. 340; Petrie v. Lamont, C. & M. 93. "Johnston v. Brown, 18 La. Ann. 9 Uniform Partnership Act, § 13. 330. "Roberts v. Totten, 13 Ark. 609; "Marvin v. Wilber, 52 N. Y. 270. § SOS LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 640 ship, there is joint and several llabiHty of those in control of the premises, without regard to the existence of a partnership."^ § 505. Liability of joint tort-feasors— Generally.— When considering the subject of partnership liability on contract, some time was spent on the general law relating to liability on joint obligations. For a similar reason a quotation is here made from a great text on torts. on the general liability of joint wrong- doers, and its difiference from the liability of joint contractors.^^ "Where several persons unite in an act which constitutes a wrong to another, intending at the time to commit it, or doing it under circumstances which fairly charge them with intending the con- sequences which follow, it is a very reasonable and just rule of law which compels each to assume and bear the responsibility of the misconduct of all. To require the party injured to as- certain and point out how much of the injury was done by one person and how much by another, or what share of responsi- bility is fairly attributable to each as between themselves, and to leave this to be apportioned among them by the jury accord- ing to the mischief found to have been done by each, would, in many cases, be equivalent to a practical denial of justice. The law does not require this, but on the other hand permits the party injured to treat all concerned in the inquiry as constituting to- gether one party, by their joint co-operation accomplishing certain injurious results, and liable to respond to him in a gross sum as damages. But while the law permits all the wrongdoers to be proceeded against jointly, it also leaves the party injured at lib- erty to pursue any one of them severally, or any number less than the whole, and to enforce his remedy regardless of the participation of the others. While the wrong is joint it is also in contemplation of law several; the wrong of one man in beating another is not the less his personal wrong because of a third person having held the assaulted party while another delivered the blows, or because still others stood by, and by force "a-jewison v. Diendonne, 127 is Cooigy Torts (1st ed.), pp. 132- Minn. 163, 149 N. W. 20. 135. 641 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 505 or threats prevented the intervetition of the police. The officer who serves a void writ is not the less an individual wrongdoer because of the magistrate being liable for having issued it. And while in such cases the person injured may pursue all, so he may pursue any number of those who were legally chargeable with the wrong; if one is sued alone, it is no defense to him that others are not brought in to share the responsibility; if all are sued, one can not excuse himself by showing the insig- nificance of his participation as compared with that of others. The rules regarding remedies which are applicable to breaches of contracts are obviously inapplicable here. When contracts are distinct, though they may be as intimately related as are contracts for the different classes of work on the same building, the breach of both can not be redressed in the same suit, be- cause neither contractor is legally concerned with the conduct of the other, and to unite a controversy with each in one action would only breed confusion and difficulty, since the issues must be distinct, and separate results must be reached in the judgment. On the other hand, if two jointly undertake the work, it is the right of both to be made parties when complaint is made of nonperformance ; the other party has accepted their joint under- taking, and he can not elect to separate in his suit those who have not consented to sever in their contract. The case of wrongdoers is wholly different; the party injured has not as- sented to their action; he has not agreed what the consequences shall be if one or more shall trespass upon his rights, nor is he morally under obligation to pursue his remedy in any particular form because of that form being most to their convenience. Whatever course is seemingly most for his interest, it is just that he should be at liberty to select. Nor, after suit is brought, can there be any apportionment of responsibility, whether the suit be against one or against all. Each is responsible for the whole, and the degree of his blameableness as between himself and his associates is immaterial. When the contributory action of all accomplishes a particular result, it is unimportant to the party injured that one contributed much to the injury and an- 41t-Row. on Paktn. — ^VoL. 1 § 506 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 642 othfer little ; the one least guilty is liable for all, because he aided in accomplishing all." § 506. Nature of partnership liability in tort.— The liabil- ity of partners for torts committed by one partner or a servant is joint and several, not joint, as in case of contract.^® "In ac- tions ex delicto, generally, and always where a contract is not the gravamen of suit and is merely a matter of inducement or recital, a plaintiff may, at his option, treat the tort committed by two or more persons as either joint or several, and accord- ingly sue all or any of the tort-feasors ; and if one of the wrong- doers be sued alone, as the tort attaches upon each individually, he can not plead the nonjoinder of the others in bar or abate- iBStockwell V. United States, 3 Clifif. (U. S.) 284, Fed. Cas. No. 13466; Williams v. Hendricks, 115 Ala. 227, 22 So. 439, 41 L. R. A. 650, 67 Am. St. 32; Rogers v. Ponet, 21 Cal. App. 577, 132 Pac. 851; Rice v. Van Why, 49 Colo. 7, 111 Pac. 599; Hobbs V. Chicago Packing &c. Co., 98 Ga. 576, 25 S. E. 584, 58 Am. St. 320; Liebold v. Green, 69 111. App. 527; Hess v. Lowrey, 122 Ind. 225, 23 N. E. 156, 7 L. R. A. 90, 17 Am. St. 355; Haase v. Horton, 138 Iowa 205, lis N. W. 921, 16 Ann. Cas. 350; Duquesne Distributing Co. v. Greenbaum, 135 Ky. 182, 121 S. W. 1026, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 955, 21 Ann. Cas. 481 ; Guarantee Trust &c. Co. V. E. C. Drew Inv. Co., 107 La. 251, 31 So. 736; Birdsall v. Bemiss, 2 La. Ann. 449; Allen v. Leighton, 87 Maine 206, 32 Atl. 877; McCriUis V. Hawes, 38 Maine 566; Stockton V. Frey, 4 Gill (Md.) 406, 45 Am. Dec. 138; Patten v. Gurney, 17 Mass. 182, 9 Am. Dec. 141; Haney Mfg. Co. V. Perkins, 78 Mich. 1, 43 N. W. 1073; Heirn v. McCaughan, 32 Miss. 17, 66 Am. Dec. 588; Interurban Const. Co. V. Hayes, 191 Mo, 248, 89 S. W. 927; In re Peck, 206 N. Y. 55, 99 N. E. 258, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1223, Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 798; Roberts v. Johnson, 58 N. Y. 613; In re Blackford, 35 App. Div. 330, 54 N. Y. S. 972; Walker v. Anglo- American Mortg. & Trust Co., 72 Hun 334, 25 N. Y. S. 432, 55 N. Y. St. 54; Champion v. Bostwick, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 175, 31 Am. Dec. 376; Barrett v. McCrummen, 128 N. Car. 81, 38 S. E. 286; Mode v. Pen- land, 93 N. Car. 292 ; Nisbet v. Pat- ton, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 120, 26 Am. Dec. 122; Boston Foundry Co. v. White- man, 31 R. I. 88, 76 Atl. 757, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 1334; White v. Smith, 12 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 595; Hyrne v. Erwin, 23 S. Car. 226, 55 Am. Rep. 15; Grissom v. Hofius, 39 Wash. 51, 80 Pac. 1002; Hoxie v. Farmers &c. Nat Bank, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 462, 49 S. W. 637; Blyth v. Fladgate (1891), 1 Ch. 337; Moreton v. Hard- em, 4 B. & C. 223, 10 E. C. L. 553; Attorney-General v. Burges, Bunb. 223. Compare Patten v. Gurney, 17 Mass. 182, 9 Am. Dec. 141. 643 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 507 ment, nor give it in evidence under the general issue."^^ There- fore, it is not necessary in bringing an action to join all the part- ners, but it may be brought against one partner or all or any number less than all.^^ This joint and several liability of joint tort-feasors is not different from the joint and several liability of parties to a contract.^® And it is held in New York that as the partners are individually liable for the torts of a partner, the holder of a judgment against the firm in tort, may share equally in firm assets with firm creditors and equally in the individual assets of the partners with individual creditors.^" It seems that if the tort is founded on contract — ^that is, if it consisted in the breach of a contract either by malfeasance or nonfeasance — all the partners must be sued, as on a partnership contract.^^ Un- der the Uniform Partnership Act all partners are liable jointly and severally for everything chargeable to the partnership as a wrongful act or breach of trust, jointly for other debts and obligations.^^ § 507. Judgment against one partner or release of one partner releases all. — In England a judgment against one or more, but not all, of several joint tort-feasors, even though un- satisfied, is a bar to a subsequent action against the others.^^ Bu<- in this country it is usually held that an unsatisfied judgment against less than all of several joint tort-feasors is not a bar If White V. Smith, 12 Rich. L. (S. " In re Blackford, 35 App. Div, Car.) 595; Attorney-General v. 330, 54 N. Y. S. 972. Burges, Bunb. 223; Govett v. Rad- 20 In re Peck, 206 N. Y. 55, 99 N. nidge, 3 East 62; Sutton v. Clarke, E. 258, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1223, 6 Taunt. 29, 35, 42; Thomas v. Rum- Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 798. sey, 6 Jno. 31. 2i-Walcott v. Canfield, 3 Conn. 18 Howe V. Shaw, 56 Maine 291; 194; Whittaker v. Collins, 34 Minn. McCriUis V. Hawes, 38 Maine 566; 299, 25 N. W. 632, 57 Am. Rep. 55; Stroher v. Elting, 97 N. Y. 102, 49 Powell v. Layton, 2 Bos. & Pul. 365 ; Am. Rep. 515; Roberts v. Johnson, Weall v. King, 12 East 452. 58 N. Y. 613; Champion v. Bost- 22 Uniform Partnership Act, §§ 13, wick, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 175, 31 Am: 14, IS. Dec. 376; Mode v. Penland, 93 N. 23 Brinsmead v. Harrison, L. R. 7 Car. 292; White v. Smith, 12 Rich. C. P. 547. L. (S. Car.) 595; Mitchell v. Tar- butt, 5 T. R. 649. § 508 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 644 to a subsequent action against the others.^* The liability of the firm for torts of one partner is equal in extent to that of the partner who actually committed the wrong.^' The discharge or release of one partner for a tort releases all the partners from further liability in accordance with the general rules as to joint tort-feasors.*® § 508. Fraudulent misrepresentations. — That all the mem- bers of a firm may be held liable to a person for loss occasioned by the fraudulent misrepresentation of one member of the part- nership in. the sale of partnership property or in the course of partnership business, to the party so damaged is now settled be- yond question, and this whether they had any knowledge of, connection with or participation in the act.*^ The reason for the rule is based on agency. "All the partners will be bound by the fraud of one of the partners in contracts relating to the partnership made with innocent third parties. That is to say, all are responsible for the injury occasioned by the fraud, and are liable to an action brought upon the contract or for the re- covery of the property fraudulently obtained, whether they were cognizant of the fraud or not. The rule is the same as it is in respect to the responsibility of the principal for the fraud of his agent while acting within the scope of his authority, and indeed a partner becomes liable for the fraud of his copartner because of the relation each bears to the other of agent in the 2*Love3oy~v. Murray, 3 Wall. (U. remus v. McCormick, 7 Gill (Md.) S.) 1, 18 L. ed. 129. 49; Banner v. Schlessinger, 109 25Heirn v. McCaughan, 32 Miss. Mich. 262, 67 N. W. 116; Monmouth 17, 66 Am. Dec. 588. College v. Dockery, 241 Mo. 522, 145 26 Story Partnership (5th ed.), § S. W. 785; Wilson-Obear Grocery 168, p. 288. Co. V. Cole, 26 Mo. App. 5; Nemeth 27 Mcllroy v. Adams, 32 Ark. 315 ; v. Tracy, 159 App. Div. 497, 144 N. Alexander v. State, 56 Ga. 478; Y. S. 901; Chester v. Dickerson, 54 Wolf V. Mills, 56 111. 360; Kraft v. N. Y. 1, 13 Am. Rep. 550; Peckham Greenough, 175 111. App. 124; Beach Iron Co. v. Harper, 41 Ohio St. 100; V. State .Bank, 2 Ind. 488; Kilgore Boston Foundry Co. v. Whiteman, V. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136, 44 N. E. 31 R. I. 88, 76 Atl. 757, Ann. Cas. 108; Locke v. Stearns, 1 Mete. 1912 A„ 1334n; Gill v. First Nat. (Mass.) 560, 35 Am. Dec. 382; Do- Bank (Tex. Ciy. App.), 47 S. W. 645 LIABILITY TO tHIRD PERSONS § 508 partnership business."^^ As said 'in one typical case:^^ "De- fendant was sued as surviving member of the firm of Mellon Bros, for deceit in the sale of horses by such firm to plaintiff. On the trial, plaintiff sought to establish the allegations of the complaint as to fraudulent representations connected with such sale by offering to prove that the member of the firm who was dead at the time of the trial had, in effecting the sale, made cer- tain representations touching the soundness of the horse sold. The evidence was excluded by the trial court, plainly on the ground that one partner is not liable for the fraudulent repre- sentations of his copartner in effecting a sale of partnership prop- erty_. This is not the law, and on principle, ought not to be the law. Although a few courts have taken a different view of the question, there is ample authority to support the rule which ren- ders all the members of the firm liable for the tort of one of its members under such circumstances." The same rule applies to misrepresentations as to the validity of notes, held by a part- nership and sold to another party by one of the partners.^" And as to representations made by one partner concerning the sailing qualities of a vessel,^^ the health of hogs,^^ representations in exchange of lands,^^ the sale of linseed meal inferior to that 751; Reynolds v. Waller, 1 Wash. 13 Am. Rep. SSO; 1 Bates Partner- (Va.) 164; Brydges v. Branfill, 6 ship, § 472; Mechem Agency, § 743; Jur. 310, 12 Sim. 369; Norton v. Story Partnership, § 108. Cooper, 3 Smale. & G. 375. See also ^o French v. Rowe, 15 Iowa 563 ; Griswold v. Haven, 25 N. Y. 595, Tenney v. Foote, 95 111. 99; Nemeth 82 Am. Dec. 380; Strang v. Bradner, v. Tracy, 159 App. Div. 497, 144 N. 114 U. S. 555, 29 L. ed. 248, 5 Sup. Y. S. 901; McKee v. Hamilton, 33 Ct. 1038. Ohio St. 7, 28 Stewart v. Levy, 36 Cal. 159. si white v. Sawyer, 16 Gray 29 Brundage v. Mellon, 5 N. D. 72, (Mass.) 586. 63 N. W. 209 (1895); Strang ^2 Morehouse v. Northrop, 33 V. Bradner, 114 U. S. 555, 5 Sup. Ct. Conn. 380, 89 Am. Dec. 211. 1038, 29 L. ed. 248; Wolfe V. Pugh, ^s Kraft v. Greenough, 175 III. 101 Ind. 293; Jewett v. Carter, 132 App. 124; Stanhope v. Swafford, 80 Mass. 335; Locke v. Stearns, 1 Mete. lowa 45, 45 N. W. 403; Gannon v. (Mass.) 560, 35 Am. Dec. 382 ; Hausaman, 42 Okla. 41, 140 Pac. 407. Chester v. Dickerson, 54 N. Y. 1, § 508 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 646 represented/* the substitution of inferior pelts for those sold/^ and in one case where one partner made false representations as to the condition of a vessel, and stated that his copartner told him such was the condition, both partners were liable, the co- partner not making the representations being liable for his part- ner's misrepresentations if he had told him of the condition of the vessel, and the partner making the representations being lia- ble for the copartner's misrepresentation if he had told him of the condition.^® But in order for the rule to apply, and the other partners be held for the misrepresentation of one partner, it must be shown that the misrepresentations were made by the partner, knowing that the inquiries upon which such misrepre- sentations were made, were made with a view to purchase,^^ and were made by the partner in the course of business.** If one partner make a false warranty, within the scope of his authority, on a sale of partnership property, the other partners will also be bound thereby to the purchaser.** All the partners may be liable where goods were obtained for firm use by the fraud of one partner, the participation in the use of the goods being a ratification of such fraud; or where, on discovery of the fraud, the other partners fail to repudiate it,*° and one partner in a firm of real estate and loan brokers is liable for fraud of his absconded partner in inducing one to make a loan, where such partner was held out as having exclusive charge of such part of the business,*^ and it was held the defendant partner's neg- ligence in failing to discover the misdealing offset the negligence of the party who made the loan in failing to require a complete 3* Locke V. Stearns, 1 Mete. *» Banner v. Schlessinger, 109 (Mass.) 560, 35 Am. Dec. 382. Mich. 282, 67 N. W. 116. See also 3= Wolf V. Mills. 56 111. 360. Thomas v. Atherton, 10 Ch. Div. 185 ; 36 Cook V. Castner, 9 Cush. Stewart v. Levy, 36 Cal. 159; Town- (Mass.) 266. send v. Bogart, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) "In re Schuchardt, 15 Nat. Bankr. 355; Blight v. Tobin, 7 T. B. Men. Reg. 161. (Ky.) 612, 18 Am. Dec. 219. 38 Bienenstok v. Ammidown, 155 N. *i- Monmouth College v. Dockery, Y. 47, 49 N. E. 321. 241 Mo. 522, 145 S. W, 785. 39 Morehouse v. Northrop, 33 Conn. 380, 89 Am. Dec. 211. 647 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 509 abstract.*^ As a general rule, though firm obligations were cre- ated in fraud of innocent partners, they can not avoid liability unless the other party to the obligation shared in the fraud.*^ However, partners are not liable for fraud committed by a co- partner, if not done in the course of the partnership business,** unless they authorize or adopt such acts or receive their benefit.*^ § 509. Negligence. — Is a member of a partnership liable in tort for the negligence of his partner? On the one side it may be answered in the affirmative, owing to the fact that each partner is the agent of the other, and, as such, liable for such a tort if committed by the one partner within the scope of his authority. On the other hand, it has been urged that, if the neg- ligent partner was working as a fellow servant with the person injured, the fellow-servant rule would govern, and would pre- clude recovery by the person injured against the other partner. This point is answered in an English case,*° the court saiying: "The doctrine that a servant, on entering the service of an em- ployer, takes on himself, as a risk incidental to the service, the chance of injury arising from the negligence of fellow servants engaged in the common employment has no application in the case of the negligence of an employer. Though the chance of injury from the negligence of fellow servants may be supposed *2 Monmouth College v. Dockery, 47, 49 N. E. 321; Taylor v. Thomp- 241 Mo. 522, 145 S. W. 785. son, 176 N. Y. 168, 68 N. E. 240; *3 Seawall v. Payne, 5 La. Ann. Hawley v. Tesch, 88 Wis. 213, 59 N. 255; Coggswell v. Coggswell (N. W. 670; Hughes v. Twisden, 55 L. J.), 40 Atl. 213; Renton v. Chap- J. Ch. 481, 54 L. T. (N. S.) lain, 9 N. J. Eq. 62; Sweet v. Mor- 570; British Homes Assur. Corp. v. risen, 103 N. Y. 235, 8 N. E. 396; Paterson (1902), 2 Ch. 404, 71 L. Meyran v. Abel, 189 Pa. St. 215, 42, J. Ch. 872, 86 L. T. (N. S.) 826, 50 Atl. 122, 69 Am. St. 806; Harris W. R. 612. County V. Donaldson, 20 Tex. Civ. *5\\rallace v. James, S Grant Ch. App. 9, 48 S. W. 791. (U. C.) 163 ; Lindmeier v. Mona- ** Schwabacker v. Riddle, 84 III. han, 64 Iowa 24, 19 N. W. 839 ; Filter 517; Alexander v. State, 56 Ga. 478; v. Meyer, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 235, 41 Bartles v. Courtney, 6 Ind. Ter. 379, S. W. 152. 98 S. W. 133; Andrews 'v. De Forest, ^^Ashworth v. Stanwix, 3 El. & 22 App. Div. 132, 47 N. Y. S. 1011; EI. 701, 7 Jur. (N. S.) 467 (1860). Bienenstok v. Ammidown, 155 N. Y. § 509 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 648 to enter into the calculation of a servant in undertaking the serv- ice, it would be too much to say that the risk of danger from the negligence of a master, when engaged with him in their com- mon work, enters in like manner into his speculation. From a master he is entitled to expfect care and attention which the su- perior position and presumable sense of duty of the latter ought to command. The relation of master and servant does not the less subsist because, by some arrangement between the joint mas- ters, one of them takes on himself the functions of a workman." As a general rule, it may be said that partners are liable for the negligence, of their copartners for acts committed within the scope of their partnership authority and for the benefit of the firm.*'' Examples of the application of this rule have arisen where one partner, by negligently driving a partnership coach, injured a third party,*® where a partner,*" or an employe of a partnership, running a line of stage-coaches, lost money entrusted to the firm as a carrier ;°'' where employes engaged in unload- ing a vessel were injured by the negligence of a partner in a firm of stevedores, who was superintending the work;°^ where the employe' of a blacksmithing firm was injured by the careless act of one partner in throwing a welding compound on a bar which the employe was welding, causing a particle of liquid to strike and injure his eye;*^ where the negligence of one of a partnership of railroad companies injured an employe ;^^ where a partnership vessel, through her captain's negligence, damaged a wharf ;°* where a horse borrowed by a partner to use in the firm business was lost by his negligence ;^^ where a partner in a firm of butchers negligently left poisonous meat where it was *7 Myers v. Gilbert, 18 Ala. 467; =2 McCarragher v. Gaskell, 42 Hun Mellors v. Shaw, 1 Best & S. 437. 451. 6 N. Y. St.. 87. ^sMoreton v. Harden, 4 B. & C. ^b -w^igconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Ross, 223. 142 III. 9, 31 N. E. 412, 34 Am. St. *9Dwight V. Brewster, 1 Pick. 49. (Mass.) SO, 11 Am. Dec. 133. si gteel v. Lester, L. R. 3 C. P. s» Cobb V. Abbot, 14 Pick. Div. 121. (Mass.) 289. »5 wjtcher v. Brewer, 49 Ala. 119. '1 Linton v. Hurley, 14 Gray (Mass.) 19L 649 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 509 eaten by a dog, who died from the effects;^* where a servant was injured while following negligent directions of one part- ner;®^ and if there is a holding out of the partnership relation by persons inviting a person to their premises, a person injured from their negligence, they are liable as partners, even if not so in fact.^^ One partner in a firm of druggists is not liable when the other gives to a, person a dose of belladonna instead of dan- delion, giving away medicine not being within the scope of the firm business.®* The torts of one partner may be ratified by one or more of his copartners after the act was committed, if the tort was done for the benefit of the firm, and in such a case all so ratifying will be liable to the party injured/" Where a physician who is a member of a partnership is guilty of negligence in fail- ing to use a reasonable degree of care, skill and diligence in the conduct of a pase, then the negligence of one will be regarded as the negligence of all and all the partners held liable, unless the act complained of was done outside the course and purview of the partnership business." Law partnerships do not differ from other partnerships in the principles governing the liability of the partners,"^ and there can be no doubt that, if a suit at law be unskilfully or negligently conducted by one of the partners, the other members of the firm will be responsible to the injured person in damages.*^ But an attorney receiving a collection as an individual will alone be responsible, although he notifies the client that he is associated with another who attends to the col- 56 Dudley v. Love, 60 Mo. App. 420. N. E. 156, 7 L. R. A. 90, 17 Am. St. 57 Haley v. Case, 142 Mass. 316, 7 355 ; Boor v. Lowery, 103 Ind. 468, 3 N. E. 877. N. E. 151, 53 Am. Rep. 519; Haase v. 58 Jewison v. Dieudonne, 127 Minn. Morton, 138 Iowa 205, 115 N. W. 921, 163, 149 N. W. 20. 16 Ann. Cas. 350 ; Whittaker v. Col- 59Gwynn v. Duffield, 66 Iowa 708, lins, 34 Minn. 299, 25 N. W. 632, 57 24 N. W. 523, 55 Am. Rep. 286. Am. Rep. 55; Hyrne v. Erwin, 23 S. 60 Harrison v. Mitchell, 13 La. Ann. Car. 226, 55 Am. Rep. 15 ; Lee v. 260; Collins v. Waggoner, 1 111. 51; Moore (Tex. Civ. App.), 162 S. W. Vanderbilt v. Richmond Turnpike Co., 437. 2 N. Y. 479, SI Am. Dec. 315, 4 Coke 62 Livingston v. Cox, 6 Pa. St. 360. Inst. 317. 63 Warner v. Griswold, 8 Wend. (N. 61 Hess V. Lowrey, 122 Ind. 225, 23 Y.) 665; Blyth v. Fladgate (1891), 1 § 510 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 650 lection of accounts, where the client does not recognize the part- nership in the transaction.^* § 510. Trespass. — It has been held that each partner is liable for a trespass committed in the course of the partnership business by one of them, such as the seizure of cotton without right,**^ or pulling down a chimney of a tenant,"" or taking under execution upon a void judgment property of another,"' or taking property wrongfully upon execution,"^ or cutting timber on an- other's land,"^ or taking possession of another's meat packing plant, selling food from it to rebels and then burning it.'* § 511. Conversion. — A conversion by a person entrusted with goods, may be either negligent or wilful.'^ As a general rule, a conversion by one partner of the property of a third per- son, done in the ordinary course of the firm's business, makes all the partners liable, whether or not innocent as regards the wrongful act.'" For "when one partner, in a matter connected Ch. 337 (liability will extend to es- Clure v. Hill, 36 Ark. 268; Cunning- tate of deceased partner) ; Ex parte ham v. Woodbridge, 1(> Ga. 302 ; Kerr Selby, 6 DeG., M. & G. 783. v. Sharp, 83 111. 199; Bane v. Detrick, 6* Mardis v. Shackleford, 4 Ala. 493. 52 111., 19 ; Elliott v. Pontius, 136 Ind. 65 Robinson v. Goings, 63 Miss. 500. 641, 35 N. E.. 562, 36 N. E. 66 Brewing v. Berryman, IS N. B. 421 ; Jackson v. Todd, 56 Ind. SIS. 406, 75 Ind. 272; Bush v. Bush, 6T Chambers v. Clearwater, 40 N. Y. 33 Kans. 556, 6 Pac. 794,; Ryan (1 Keyes) 310, 1 Abb. Dec. 341. v. Morrill, 83 Ky. 352, 7 Ky. L. 339; 68 Brainerd v. Dunning, 30 N. Y. Howe v. Shaw, 56 Maine 291 ; Rolfe 211. V. Dudley, 58 Mich. 208, 24 N. W. 69 United States v. Baxter, 46 Fed. 657; Coleman v. Pearce, 26 Minn. 123, 350; Tucker v. Cole, 54 Wis. 539, 11 1 N. W. 846; Vanderburgh v. Bassett, N. W. 703; Brunswick v. Slowman, 4 Minn. 242 (Gil. 171); Robinson v. 8 C. B. 617, 7 Dowl. & L. 251. Goings, 63 Miss. 500; Interurban 70 Lucas V. Bruce (Ky.), 4 Am. L. Const. Co. v. Hayes, 191 Mo. 248, 89 Reg. (N. S.) 95. S. W. 927; Pundmann v. Schoeneich, TiHobbs V. Chicago Packing &c. 144 Mo. 149, 45 S. ,W. 1112; Martin. Co., 98 Ga. 576, 25 S. E. 584, 58 Am. v. Moulton, 8 N. H. 504; Galway v. St. 320 (1896). Nordlinger, 51 Hun 639, 4 N. Y. S. 72 Castle V. BuUard, 23 How. (U. 649, 21 N. Y. St. 197; Davis v. Gel- S.) 172, 16 L. ed. 424 ; Bunn v. Tim- haus, 44 Ohio St. 69, 4 N. E. 593 ; berlake, 104 Ala. 263, 16 So. 97; Nisbet v. Patton, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 120; Witcher v. Brewer, 49 Ala. 119; Mc- 26 Am. Dec. 122; Guillon v. Peterson, 651 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 511 with the business of the partnership, does an act to the injury of a third person, which is a tort by construction of law merely, his copartner is equally liable with him for the consequences of his act."''* "Partners may be sued in an action of trover, al- though there was no joint conversion in fact. A joint conver- sion may be implied in law by consent of a partner to the acts of his copartners."'^* However, if the partner when he received the property converted was not acting in the scope of the firm business, then the innocent partners are not liable, and the con- version is held the individual act of the partner.''^ The ques- tion of the application of this rule often arises when one partner converts money, of third persons, and if investing money for others is part of the firm business all partners are held liable,^" as where a member of a law firm collects money for a client and absconds,''^ or a partner in a mercantile firm collects money for a third party and uses it in the firm business,^^ and copart- ners in a brokerage firm are liable for a conversion of stock by one member.^^ But a§ such transactions are not within the scope of the firm business, innocent partners are not held liable where one partner in a shipping firm undertook to collect a draft for a third person and converted the money,*" or one member of a firm of lawyers received money to be invested generally and misappropriated it.*^ § 512. Wilful and malicious torts. — A somewhat peculiar situation arises when the torts complained of are wilful and malicious on the part of the offending partner. It will be re- membered that the wrongful act, in order to give the party in- 89 Pa. St. 163 ; Fletcher V. Ingram, 46 »«Willet v. Chambers, Cowp. 814; Wis. 191, SO N. W. 424; Tucker v. Moore v. Knight (1891), 1 Ch. 547. Cole, 54 Wis. 539, 11 N. W. 703. '? D wight v. Simon, 4 La. Ann. 490. 73 Myers v. Gilbert, 18 Ala. 467. ^swelker v. Wallace, 31 Ga. 362; 7* Bane v. Detrick, 52 111. 19. Whitaker v. Brown, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) « Fox V. Clemmons, 99 S. W. 641, 505. 30 Ky. L, 805 ; Battle v. Street, 85 ^9 Kavanaugh v. Mclntyre, 74 Misc. Tenn. 282, 2 S. W. 384; Stokes v. 222, 133 N. Y. S. 679. Burney, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 219, 22 S. »<> Toof v. Duncan, 45 Miss. 48. W. 126; Kinsey v. Archer, 80 Wis. siHarman v. Johnson, 2 El. & Bl. 201, 49 N. W, 962. 61. See also Rhodes v. Monies § 511 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 652 jured a right of action on account of partnership relation, must have been done (unless by consent or subsequent ratification, in which case the liability arises from other grounds than partner- ship liability) , within the scope of the partnership authority, or at least apparent authority. Hence, as wilful and malicious torts are not within the usual scope of partnership authority, partners will usually be relieved from liability for such acts by their copartner.*^ So, usually, the other partners are not held liable for a malicious prosecution by one partner on a charge of ' stealing property of the firm, since in bringing about such a prosecution he is performing a duty owing to the community, not to the firm.^^ Nor has a partner implied authority to bind his partners to such acts as detaining and searching a customer whom he suspects of stealing firm property.** And in Georgia, where a partnership may be sued in the firm name, in one case a partnership as such was held liable for a malicious prosecution when a prosecution for larceny was begun in furtherance of the firm's interests, and by direct authority of its members, and it was held that express malice may be imputed to a firm as an entity.®' However, some courts have held that if a wilful or malicious act is committed in the interest of all, and in the usual scope of the business of the firm, as for example, where one member makes actionable remarks about a, competitor of the firm, to the advantage of the firm, all the partners will be liable to the party so injured,®^ and this may even apply, in certain (189S), 1 Ch. 236, and Cleather v. Staples v. Schmid, 18 R. I. 224, 26 Twisden, 28 Ch, Div. 340. Atl. 193, 19 L. R. A. 824. 82Woodling V. Knickerbocker, 31 »* Bernlieimer v. Becker, 102 Md. Minn. 268, 17 N. W. 387; Abraham 250, 62 Atl. 526, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) V. Hall, 59 Ala. 386. 221, 111 Am. St. 356. See also Rosen- 83 Marks v. Hastings, 101 Ala. 165, krans v. Barker, 115 111. 331, 3 N. E. 13 So. 297; Rosenkrans v. Barker, 93, 56 Am. Rep. 169. 115 111. 331, 3 N. E. 93, 56 Am. Rep. ss Pagg y. Citizens Banking. Co., 169; Gilbert v. Emmons, 42 111. 143, 111 Ga. 73, 36 S. E. 418, 51 L. R. A. 89 Am. Dec. 412; Titcomb v. James, 463, 78 Am. St. 144. 57 111. App. 296; Kirk v. Garrett, 84 , ss Haney. Mfg. Co. v. Perkins, 78 Md. 383, 35 Atl. 1089; Farrell v. Mich. 1, 43 N. W. 1073; Baldy v. Friedlander, 63 Hun 254, 18 N. Y. Brackenridge, 39 La. Anij. 660, 2 So. S. 215, 43 N. Y. St. 445. Contra: 410; Lothrop v. Adams,' 133 Mass. 653 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 513 cases, to the extent of liability to all partners of exemplary or punitive damages/'' § 513. Libel and slander. — Each partner is liable for dam- ages resulting from a defamation made by one partner in aid of the business, for example, slanderous statements about a com- petitor,®^ or a libelous letter written with respect to firm busi- ness.*' So all partners in a firm which publishes a newspaper are held for a libel printed and published by one,'" and this is the rule even though there was a malicious intention of the one partner, since the act was done within the scope of the business.''- As to a slander or libel committed outside the scope of the firm business, none of the partners can be held who did not partici- pate in or authorize its publication.'^ Nor is a partner criminally liable for a libel published without his knowledge or consent,'^ but where he participates he is liable.'* In Georgia it has been held that an action for slander will not lie against a partner- ship.'^ A partnership which sells liquor to liquor dealers is not liable for slanderous words uttered by its traveling salesman * — as to a firm not a competitor, where the firm neither author- ized him to speak so, nor ratified his words." 471, 43 Am. Rep. 528. See also Mc- ^iLothropv. Adams, 133 Mass. 471, Ilroy V. Adams, 32 Ark. 315 ; Conely 43 Am. Rep. 528. V. Wood, 73 Mich. 203; Lockwood 92'\YoodIing v. Knickerbocker, 31 V. Bartlett, 54 Hun 636, 7 N. Y. S. Minn. 268, ■ 17 N. W. 387; Blyth v. 481, 27 N. Y. St. 93. Fladgate (1891), 1 Ch. 337. sTeckham Iron Co. v. Harper, 41 »3Reg. v. Holbrook, 3 Q. B. D. 60; Ohio St. 100; Robinson v. Goings, Reg. v. Holbrook, 4 Q. B. D. 42; 63 Miss. 500. Commonwealth v. Rovnianek, 12 Pa. 88 Haney Mfg. Co. v. Perkins, 78 Super. Ct. 86. Mich. 1, 43 N. W. 1073; Wheless v. »* Baldwin v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.), 122 S. W. 245, 45 S. W. 714. 929. s^Ozborn v. Woolworth, 106 Ga. 89 Burgess v. Patterson, 139 Ky. 459, 32 S. E. 581; Hendricks v. W. 547, 106 S. W. 837. G. Middlebrooks Co., 118 Ga. 131, 90 McDonald v. Woodruflf, 2 Dill. 44 S. E. 835. (U. S.) 244, Fed. Cas. No. 8770; ss DuQuesne Distributing Com- Atlantic Glass Co. v. Paulk, 83 Ala. pany v. Greenbaum, 135 Ky. 182, 121 404, 3 So. 800. S. W. 1026, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 955, 21 Ann. Cas. 481. § 514 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 654 § 514. Torts in collection of debts. — The collection of debts is one of the most important and well established rights of the partnership relation, and if conducted in the usual method em- ployed by the firm or by other persons, it comes within the scope of the partnership business and authority, and if the result is an injury to the debtor for which he has a remedy in tort, he may hold all the partners therefor. It has been held that the demand- ing and collecting illegal fees by one member of a partnership gives the injured party a right of action against the firm and consequently of suing every member thereof;'^ also that where one member of a firm caused an execution to be levied upon prop- erty of the judgment debtor, upon which property there is a chat- tel mortgage, knowing of the mortgage, but in disregard of it, the firm was held liable for the damage occasioned by such wrongful levy;®' and likewise where one partner causes goods of a third party to be levied on,"® or seizes property on a void judgment.^ In a New Hampshire case,^ the rule was not carried so far, and was relaxed to this extent, that it was a proper question to sub- mit to the jury as to whether the partner refusing to surrender the goods which, in fact, belonged to a third person, was acting within the proper scope and authority of the partnership busi- ness, and it would seem that this were the more equitable rule. If the acting partner secures a compromise with the debtor through fraud or misrepresentation of any kind, the third party will have an action for avoidance of the compromise.^ It must be remembered, however, that only usual methods of collection must be employed by the partner collecting the debt, in order that the injured party may hold the other members for the tort (in the absence of participation by them, or ratification thereof, or benefit therein).* An Illinois case^ holds that where a debtor " Lockwood V. Bartlett, 54 Hun 2 Taylor v. Jones, 42 N. H. 25. 636, 7 N. Y. S. 481, 27 N. Y. St. 93. ? Pierce v. Wood, 23 N. H. 519. 98 Harvey v. McAdams, 32 Mich. ^Woodling v. Knickerbocker, 31 472. Minn. 268, 17 N. W. 387. "9 Kuhn V. Weil, IZ Mo. 213. b Rosenkrans v. Barker, 115 111. 331, 1 Rolf e V. Dudley, 58 Mich. 208, 3 N. E. 93, 56 Am. Rep. 169. 24 N. W. 657. 655 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 515 to the firm is imprisoned by one member of the firm, wrongfully and maliciously, and no benefit having accrued to the firm thereby, the other members of the firm were not thereby, and by reason of their partnership relations, made liable to the injured party. It would appear that the liability, if thrown upon the partnership relations alone, depends upon whether or not the offending part- ner acted within the scope of the firm business and of his ap- parent authority, and for the benefit of the partnership. § 515. Acts against positive law. — Is a tort, committed by one member of a partnership, and which is against positive law, the subject of firm liability? The decisions upon this point are not unanimous. It has been held in Illinois that "Where a part- ner, in the course of partnership business, commits a fraud or does acts prohibited by law, the firm is liable, although the other partners have no knowledge of such fraud or illegal act.'"' There are also numerous cases which hold that where one member of a partnership commits acts in violation of the revenue laws, the other members of the firm are liable to the government for such damages and penalties as may accrue thereby.' A contrary rule has, however, been applied to this question in two United States cases,^ both of which require proof of authorization or ratifica- tion by the other partners in order to hold them for the acts of their copartner which are in violation of law. And many cases hold that an agency or authority to a partner to violate a statute will not be implied, and that such act is not within the scope of a partnership business which can exist only for lawful purposes." «Tenney v. Foote, 95 111. 99. See 'United States v. Thomasson, 4 also Allen v. Leighton, 87 Maine 206, Biss. (U. S.) 99, Fed. Cas. No. 16478; 32 Atl. 877; Bayles v. Newton, 50 N. Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. J. L. 549, 18 Atl. n (affd. 51 N. J. (U. S.) 531, 20 L. ed. 491 (smug- L. 553, 19 Atl. 174) ; Lockwood v. gling) ; Graham v. Pocock, L. R. 3 Bartlett, 130 N. Y. 340, 29 N. E. 257; P. C. 345; Attorney-General v. Warner v. Griswold, 8 Wend. (N. Stranyforth, Bunb. 97. Y.) 665 ; Crumless v. Sturgess, 6 8 Graham v. Meyer, 4 Blatchf. (U. Heisk. (Tenn.) 190; Spokane v. Pat- S.) 129, Fed. Cas. No. 5673; Schrei- terson, 46 Wash. 93, 89 Pac. 402, 8 ber v. Sharpless, 6 Fed. 175. L. R. A. (N. S.) 1104, 123 Am. St. » Marks v. Hastings, 101 Ala. 165, 921. 13 So. 297; Martin v. Simkins, 116 § 516 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 656 So, where one partner went on the land of another and wilfully cut. trees in violation of a statute, the copartner who had not consented and had no knowledge of the act was not liable for the statutory penalty/" § 516. Property wrongfully obtained or held. — As a rule, it matters not whether the offending partner obtains property belonging to another party, or whether he wrongfully retains or applies it. If he acts within the scope of the firm business and for the firm, all the members thereof are liable therefor to the party injured in either event, and this though the other partners were ignorant of the wrong, and entirely innocent of any actual wrongdoing.^'- Mr. Bates, however, in his wqrk on partnership, states that the innocent partners, in a case where the wrongdoing partner obtains the property under such conditions, are not liable in tort, but for money had and received, and this proposition is borne out by a Massachusetts case.^^ In this case the guilty part- ner forged the names of several persons, as indorsers, upon a note, and negotiated the note, using the proceeds for the benefit of the firm. The court held that all the partners could be sued ' upon the -note, and be liable thereupon, and that the holder need not, under the circumstances wait to sue until the maturity of the note. The money must, however, come into the possession of the partner who wrongfully appropriates it to his own use, where such application is made in a transaction connected with the firm business, if the innocent partners are to be held." The business of the great majority of partnerships does not include the collection of debts for others, and in one case^* where a partner did not account to a debtor of the firm for the proceeds of a note which the debtor gave this partner to collect for him, Ga. 254, 42 S. E. 483; Bernheimer "Palmer v. Scott, 68 Ala. 380. V. Becker, 102 Md. 250, 62 Atl. 526, 12 Manufacturers' Bank v. Gore, IS 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 221, 111 Am. St. Mass. 15, 8 Am. Dec. 83. 356; Hutchins v. Turner, 8 Humph. is Adams v. Sturges, 55 111. 468; (Tenn.) 415. Toof v. Duncan, 45 Miss. 48; Dounce i» Williams v. Hendricks, 115 Ala. v. Parsons, 45 N. Y. 180. 227, 22 So. 439, 41 L. R.,A. 650, 67 "Linn v. Ross, 16 N. J. L. 55. Am. St. 32. 657 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 517 with instructions either to pay the debtor the amount collected, or to apply the same upon the partnership claim. The partner collected the note and personally retained the amount collected. When the debtor found that it had not been credited to him^ he sought to hold the firm liable, but did not prevail in his con- tention, owing to the application of the above rule. It is true that the wrongdoing partner's connection with the firm gave him the opportunity of perpetrating the fraud, yet the transaction being entirely outside of the partnership business, not accruing to the benefit of the firm, and the other partners being inno- cent of the wrongdoing, no principle of law or of morals should have held or did hold the other partners. Many of the rules gov- erning partnership liability are artificial, and should not be unduly extended to hold innocent partners for wrongdoing of one part- ner in such a case as this, and keep the third party free from the results of his own carelessness. § 517. Misapplication of trust funds. — The subject of the liability of the partnership to third parties for trust funds, held for such third parties by one of the partners and used for the firm, is of great importance, and may be divided into two classes; first, where the partner holding the trust fund first converts it to his own use, and then turns it into the firm as his contribu- tion to the firm capital, and second, where the partner so holding the trust funds simply turns them over directly to the firm and for its benefit, by way of loan or otherwise. In either case, if the money or other trust property is mingled with the other property of the firm, and so used, the other partners can not be held for the misapplication, unless it be shown that the other partners were parties to such misapplication, or had knowledge of the nature of the property so held and disposed of. As Mr. Lind- ley expresses it : "If one partner is a trustee, and he improperly employs the trust funds in the partnership business, his knowl- edge that he is so doing is not imputable to the firm; and there- fore to affect the other partners with a breach of trust, further 42 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 51/, LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 658 evidence must be adduced." In a Mississippi case" it was stated that the rule is," "generally that a bill can not be maintained against the firm to recover from it the trust fund thus put -by the guilty partner, without participation or knowledge on the part of the others, into the assets of the firm." This rule, while not universal in all jurisdictions, is nevertheless very general.^'' If, however, the guilty party gives the cestui que trust the note of the firm for the amount of the trust funds used in the con- duct of the firm business, which the trustee advanced, the cestui que trust may enforce the note.^^ In the first classification the above rule probably applies to a greater extent than in the second. In the second, where the trust property comes directly to the firm, if it remains intact, the cestui que trust may follow it into the hands of the firm, and recover it by showing that the firm was not a purchaser for value,^° while it has been held in some jurisdictions where one partner, at the time of the formation of the firm, contributes trust funds as his contribution to the capital of the firm, that this is, in the absence of knowledge of the other members of the firm that the property so contributed was not his own, analogous to its sale and purchase, and that conse- quently the property can not be recovered, excepting such part thereof as the partner so contributing could himself have recov- ered as his own property.^" It is not claimed that the above distinction is universal, but it has been made, and with considerable logical grounds. In isGilruth V. Decell, 72 Miss. 232, 120; Willett v. Stringer, 17 Abb. Pr. 16 So. 250 (1894). (N. Y.) 152; Guillow v. Peterson, 7 16 Citing Palmer v. Scott, 68 Ala. W. N. Cas. (Pa.) 268; BourdiUon .•^82, and Welker v. Wallace, 31 Ga. v. Roche, 27 L. J. Ch. 681; Sims v. 362, to the contrary, and Pickels v. Brutton, S Exch. 802. McPherson, 59 Miss. 216, as support- is Richardson v. French, 4 Met. ing the- rule. (Mass.) 577. 17 Edwards v. Parker, 88 Ala. 356, i^ Carter v. Lipsey, 70 Ga. 417; 6 So. 684; Harper v. Lamping, 33 Renfrow v. Pearce, 68 111. 125 ; Shalu Cal. 641 ; Logan V. Bond, 13 Ga. 192 ; v. "Trowbridge, 28 N. J. Eq. 595; Englar v. Oflfutt, 70 Md. 78, 16 Atl. Stoddard v. Smith, 11 Ohio St. 581. 497, 14 Am. St. 332; Hollemback v. ^oGilruth v. Decell, 72 Miss. 232, More, 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 107 ; Tall- 16 So. 250 ; Hollemback v. More, 44 raadge v. Penoyer, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) N. Y. Super. Ct. 107. 659 LIABILITY. TO THIRD PERSONS § 517 almost all cases, moreover, the utmost good faith is required of the other partners, and if they receive the trust property with knowledge of the trust relation, it can be followed into their hands, regardless of the question whether it came under the above mentioned first or second class.^^ An exception to the above statement is made in a federal case,^^ which holds that even where the trustee partner, who is an officer of a bank, loans to his firm funds of the bank, which become mingled with the other partnership property, the bank can not follow and recover the funds, even though the other partners knew of the relation be- tween the banker-partner and the bank. In a case where the trust property must be returned, a delivery to the trustee part- ner is a valid repa3nTient, unless his authority as trustee has been revoked.^^ All partners have sometimes been held in cases where there was something to make the trust that of the firm, although but one partner dealt with the trust fund.^* In one or two cases attorneys have been disbarred for misconduct of a member of the firm in misappropriating a client's money,^^ but in most cases where a similar question was presented the contrary was held.^® The general rule may perhaps be thus summed up. Trust funds, contributed by a member of a partnership to the firm, can generally h^ followed by the cestui que trust, if intact, even Vvrhere they were received without notice of their trust relation, except that in some jurisdictions contributions to firm capital at the time of organization can not be followed as to the interests 21 Carter v. Lipsey, 70 Ga. 417; 258; Porter v. Vance, 14 Lea (Tenn.) Penn v. Fogler, 182 111. 76, 55 N. E. 629; Blair v. Bromley, 5 Hare 542; 192; Trull v. Trull, 13 Allen (Mass.) Atkinson v. Mackreth, L. R. 2 Eq. 407; Price v. Mulford, 36 Hun (N. 570; Eager v. Barnes, 31 Beav. 579; Y.) 247; Wilson v. Moore, 1 Myl. & Brydges v. BranfiU, 12 Sim. 369. K. 127; Willet v. Chambers, Cowp. 25 People ex rel v. Betts, 26 Colo. 814. 521, 58 Pac. 1091. 22 Case V. Beauregard, 1 Woods ^e Klingensmith v. Kepler, 41 Ind. (U. S.) 125, Fed. Cas. No. 2487. 341 ; Porter v. Vance, 14 Lea 23 Sherburne V. Goodwin, 44 N. H. (Tenn.) 629; In re McCaughey, 3 271. Ont. 425. 24 McGill V. McGill, 2 Mete. (Ky.), § 518 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 660 of the partners other than the trustee. The funds can not or- dinarily be followed and recovered if they do not remain intact, in the absence of knowledge of the other partners. The rule disallowing the following of the funds under certain conditions is based upon the grounds that the knowledge of the guilty part- ner is without the scope of the partnership business, hence is not to be imputed to the other partners, and the same rule applies to the knowledge of the trust relation which is held by other partners, as to any one or more who are innocent of the wrong.^'' Under the Uniform Partnership Act : "The partnership is bound to make good the loss: Where one partner acting within the scope of his apparent authority receives money or property of a third person and misapplies it; and where the partnership in the course of its business receives money or property of a third person and the money or property so received is misapplied by any partner while it is in the custody of the partnership."^* § 518. Liability of partners under criminal laws. — A part- nership can not be indicted criminally, hence a creditor can not hold a partnership liable criminally, but must look to such partners individually as have participated in the crime.^* That "guilt is personal" is so well established as to be axiomatic, and applies as well to partnership as to other relations, and no one can be punished criminally for criminal acts of his partner, merely by reason of any partnership relation, and in the absence of personal participation therein.*" A partner is not liable for a penalty because of the act of his copartner in "wilfully and knowingly" cutting the trees of another though done in the course of the partnership business,*^ This rule has not always been applied where the criminal act was an incident of the business, and the publisher of a newspaper has been held 27 Evans v. Bidleman, 3 Cal. 435. 440; State v. Coleman, Dudley (S. 28 Uniform Partnership Act, § 14. Car.) 32. 29 Allen V. State, 34 Tex. 230. ^i Williams v. Hendricks, IIS Ala. soAcree v. Commonwealth, 13 '277, 22 So. 439, 41 L. R. A. 650, 61 Bush (Ky.) 353; Whitton v. State, Am. St. 32. 37 Miss. 379; State v. Gay, 10 Mo. 661 LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS § 518 criminally as well as civilly liable for a libel published by his copartner.^^ Generally, a partner will not be liable for a wilful act on the part of his copartner outside the course of business, as a wanton assault on a woman.^^ There is also this exception to the general rule that a state or the Federal Government has the power to make partners jointly liable criminally for certain acts committed by one for the benefit of the firm, which has been done in some states as to certain matters, as, for example, violations of revenue laws,^* or for the unlawful sale of spirituous liquor, in some cases a partner being held guilty without ques- tion, if his partner made the sale, even though he was absent at the time or had no knowledge thereof.^^ It is said in other cases that the law will not imply an intent to violate penal laws from an agreement of partnership, and a partner is not liable for a sale by another unless he assented to it in some manner. ^° If, moreover, a partnership is formed and operated for an unlaw- ful and criminal purpose, all the partners who know of the na- ture of the business can be jointly indicted, not, however, be- cause of the partnership relation, but because of joint participa- tion and guilt.^^ As to creditors' rights under criminal laws, it should be further considered that criminal laws are public rather 32 Rex V. Waller, 3 Esp. 21. (Mass.) S42; Smith v. Adrian, 1 33 Titcomb V. James, 57 111. App. Mich. 495 ;• Gathings v. State, 44 Miss. 296. 343; Whitton v. State, 37 Miss. 379; 34 United States v. Thomasson, 4 State v. Neal, 27 N. H. 131 ; State v. Biss. (U. S.) 99, Fed. Cas. No. 16478; Wiggin, 20 N. H. 449; State v. Scog- United States v. McGinnis, 1 Abb. gins, 107 N. Car. 959, 12 S. E. 59, 10 (U. ~S.) 120, Fed. Cas. No. 15678; L. R. A. 542; State v. Simmons, 66 Commonwealth v. Sloan, 4 Cush. N. Car. 622. See also State v. Sterns, (Mass.) 52; Davis v. Berais, 40 N. Y. 28 Kans. 154; State v. Wadsworth, 30 453; Attorney-General v. Strany- Conn. 55; Tracy v. Perry, 5 N. H. forth, Bunb. 97; Attorney-Gen- 504; Stevens v. State, 14 Ohio 386. eral v. Surges, Bunb. 223; State 36Acree v.- Commonwealth, 13 V. Gilmore, 80 Vt. 514, 68 Atl. Bush (Ky.) 353. 658 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 786n. See srstockwell v. United States, 13 also note 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 419. Wall. (U. S.) 531, 20 L. ed. 491; 35 Waller v. State, 38 Ark. 656; United States v. Thomasson, 4 Biss. Robinson v. State, 38 Ark. 641; Phil- (U. S.) 99, Fed. Cas. No. 16478; Bar- lips V. State, 95 Ga. 478, 20 S. E. 270; rett v. State, 54 Ala. 579; State v. Commonwealth v. Cook, 12 Allen Bierman, 1 Strob. L. (S. Car.) 256. § 518 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 662 than private, and that a creditor of a partnership really has no private right excepting, perhaps, in such cases as assault and battery or a few others which in some states can be settled with- out compounding crime, in a criminal suit to aid him in a civil claim, but, if he starts criminal proceedngs, it is simply as a citi- zen, in the interest of society, and not as a creditor, seeking a private gain or remedy. CHAPTER XVII APPLICATION OF PARTNERSHIP ASSETS SECTION 525. In general. 526. Creditors have no lien on part- nership assets. 527. Application of assets by part- ners. 528. Application of firm assets by partners to individual debts. 529. Mortgage of firm property by partners. 530. Assignment by partners for benefit of creditors. 531. Transfer of property to part- ner or new firm. 532. Individual assets of partner. 533. Application of assets of part- nership by court. 534. Rights of partnership creditors in partnership assets. 535. Rights of partnership creditors in assets of individual part- ners. 536. Rights of creditors of individ- ual partners. 537. Rights of partner as firm cred- itor. 538. Rights of partners or firm as creditors of individual part- ner. 539. Rights of creditors of different firms having common part- ner. 540. Priority of creditors on change of membership. 541. Priority of creditors in cases of ostensible partnership. § 525. In general. — The subject of the application of part- nership assets, upon insolvency, bankruptcy, dissolution, or any occasion when the rights arise of partners and of creditors in firm property generally, as distinguished from specific rights obtained by legal action, is closely allied to the subject of liability to third peijsons and may properly follow it. Questions as to the proper application of partnership assets have been among the most perplexing ones arising in connection with partnership law, al- though now certain well-defined rules are recognized in most jurisdictions. It seems to be the intention implied in the crea- tion of a partnership relation, that the property contributed by each partner to the firm for the conduct of the business and that later acquired by it, should first be liable for all debts of the firm. Out of this arises what is known as the partner's lien. 663 43 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 525 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 664 As was said by Mr. Lindley :^ "In order to discharge himself from the habilities to which a person may be subject as a part- ner, every partner has a right to have the property of the part- nership applied in payment of the debts and liabilities of the firm. And in order to secure a proper division of the surplus assets, he has a right to have whatever may be due to the firm from his copartners, as members thereof, deducted from what would otherwise be payable to them in respect of their shares in the partnership. In other words, each partner may be said to have an equitable lien on the partnership property for the pur- pose of having it applied in discharge of the debts of the firm; and to have a similar lien on the surplus assets for the purpose of having them applied in payment of what may be due to the partners respectively, after deducting what may be due from them as partners. This right, lien, quasi-lien, or whatever else it may be called, does not exist for any practical purpose until the afifairs of the partnership have to be wound up, or the share of a partner has to be ascertained. * * * whilst the part- nership lasts, the lien attaches to everything that can be consid- ered partnership property, and is not therefore lost by the sub- stitution of new stock in trade for old. Further, on the death or bankruptcy of a partner, his lien continues in favor of his representatives or trustees and does not terminate until his share has been ascertained and provided for by the other partners. But after a partnership has been dissolved, the lien is confined to what was partnership property at the time of the dissolution and does not extend to what may have been subsequently acquired by the persons who continue to carry on the business. In this respect the lien in question differs from the lien of a mortgagee on a varying stock in trade assigned to him as a security for his loan." This right is recognized by the Uniform Partnership Act, providing that whpn dissolution is caused in any way a partner who has not caused dissolution wrongfully, each partner as against his copartners and all persons claiming through them 1 Lindley Partnership (8th ed.), p. 413. 665 APPLICATION OF ASSETS 525 in respect of their interest in the partnership, may, unless other- wise agreed, have the partnership property appHed to discharge , its HabiHties, and the surplus applied to pay in cash the net amount owing the partners.^ The Uniform Partnership Act defines partnership assets as the partnership property and the contribu- tions of the partners necessary for the payment of all liabilities to creditors and partners.^ Out of the right which is the founda- tion of the so-called partner's lien, arise the rules that a partner, without the consent of the other partners, can not dispose of partnership property to his own use,* and the right upon dissolu- tion of a partnership of partnership creditors to a preference over the individual creditors of each partner, this preference being based upon the presumption that such is the wish of each partner implied from his entering into the partnership relation.^ In this chapter the subject of application of partnership assets, 2 Uniform Partnership Act, § 38. See also Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 173, Fed. Cas. No. 6802; Krall V. Crampton, 9 Ben. 218, -Fed. Cas. No. 14008; Summers v. Heard, 66 Ark. 550, SO S. W. 78, 51 S. W. 1057; Leedom v. Ham, 116 Cal. xvi, 48 Pac. 222 (1897); Nelson v. Hayner, 66 111. 187; Pearson v. Keedy, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 128, 43 Am. Dec. 160; Crooker v. Crooker, 46 Maine 250; ilamilton v. Harris, 72 Mich. 56, 40 N. W. 56; Freedman v. Holberg, 89 Mo. App. 340; Standish v. Babcock; 52 N. J. Eq. 628, 29 Atl. 327; Mar- tin V. Carlisle (Okla.), 148 Pac. 833; Foster v. Hall, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 346; Blackwell v. Farmers' &c. Nat. Bank, 97 Tex. 445, 79 S. W. 518; Sherk v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 832; Bardwell v. Perry, 19 Vt. 292, 47 Am. Dec. 687; Skavdale v. Moyer, 21 Wash. 10, 56 Pac. 841, 46 L. R. A. 481 ; Stocken v. Dawson, 9 Beav. 239, 50 Eng. Reprint 335; Skipp v. Harwood, 2 Swanst. 586, 36 Eng. Reprint 739; Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. Jr. 119, 5 Rev. Rep. 237; West v. Skip, 1 Ves. 239, 27 Eng. Reprint 1006; Moore v. Riddell, 11 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 69. See for more complete discussion of partners' lien ante § 371. * Uniform Partnership Act, § 40 (a) (b). * See ante § 371, partner's lien. 5 Goldsmith v. Eichold, 94 Ala. 116, 10 So. 80, 33 Am. St. 97 (1891) ; El- lison V. Lucas, 87 Ga. 223, 13 S. E. 445, 27 Am. St. 242 (1891) ; Purple V. Farrington, 119 Ind. 164, 21 N. E. 543, 4 L. R. A. 535 (1889) ; Wins- low V. Wallace, 116 Ind. 317, 17 N..E. 923, 1 L. R. A. 179 (1888) ; Reyburn V. Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365, 16 S. W. 592, 27 Am. St. 350 (1891) ; Hundley v. Farris, 103 Mo. 78, 15 S. W. 312, 23 Am. St. 863, 12 L. R. A. 254 (1890) ; Arnold v. Hagerman, 45 N. J. Eq. 186, 17 Atl. 93, 14 Am. St. 712; Carver Gin & Machine Co. v. Bannon, 85 Tenn. 712, 4 S. W. 831, 4 Am. St. 803 (1887). See discussion in succeeding sections. § 526 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 666 both prior to and after dissolution, with reference to the rights of partners, partnership creditors and creditor? of individual part- ners, will be considered, also the rights of partnership creditors in the assets of individual partners. § 526. Creditors of partnership have no lien on partner- ship assets. — The question as to the rights of partnership creditors in the matter of subjecting the partnership property to the payment of their debts has frequently occupied the atten- tion of the courts and while it can not be doubted that firm creditors have, as a general thing, a claim against the partnership for the satisfaction of their debts, it seems that it can not be af- firmed that they have an interest in the property corresponding to that created by a specific lien. "On the contrary, it is well settled by the great weight of authority that simple partnership creditors have no specific lien, either legal or equitable, upon the partnership propeirty."® In order to obtain a lien on firm prop- erty, creditors must acquire it at law in .the same manner in which any creditor can secure a lien on his debtor's property, that is, by obtaining a judgment for his debt and levying execution, or by similar proceeding.^ A few earlier decisions have spoken in terms of creditors having a lien on partnership assets,' but Such 8 Hawkins v. Western Nat. Bank Cas. No. 6802; Mayer v. Clark, 40 (Tex. Civ. App.), 146 S. W. 1191. Ala. 2S9; Sickman v. Abernathy, 14 See also Fairbanks &c. Co. v. Wels- Colo. 174, 23 Pac. 447; Couchman v. hans, SS Nebr. 362, 75 N. W. 86S; Maupin, 78 Ky. 33; Thorpe v. Pen- Goldsmith V. Eichold, 94 Ala. 116, 10 nock Mercantile Co., 99 Minn. 22, 108 So. 80, 33 Am. St 97; Sickman v. N. W. 940 ; Fairbanks &c. Co. v. Wels- Abernathy, 14 Colo. 174, 23 Pac. 447; hans, SS Nebr. 362, 7S N. W. 86S Allen V. Center Valley Co., 21 Conn. Crippen v. Hudson, 13 N. Y. 161 130, 54 Am. Dec. 333; Smith v. Smith, Greenwood v. Brodhead, 8 Barb. (N 87 Iowa 93, 54 N. W. 73, 43 Am. St. Y.) 593; Clement v. Foster, 38 N 359; Williams v. Gage, 49 Miss. 777; Car. 213; Gwin v. Selby, 5 Ohio St. Level V. Farris, 24 Mo. App. 445; 96; Stahl v. Osmers, 31 Ore. 199, 49 Allen V. Grissom, 90 N. Car. 90; Sig- Pac. 958 ; Woddrop v. Ward, 3 Desaus. ler V. Knox County Bank, 8 Ohio (S. Car.) 203; White v. Parish, 20 St. 511. Tex. 688, 73 Am. Dec. 204; Redding- 7 Tracy v. Walker, 1 Flip. (U. S.) ton v. Franey, 124 Wis. 590, 102 N. 41, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14129; Hoxie W. 1065. V. Carr, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 173, Fed. « Sumner v. Hampson, 8 Ohio 328, 667 APPLICATION OF ASSETS § 526 use of the term is misleading. Firm creditors have no lien upon partnership property, they have merely an equity or right de- rived from or through the several members of the firm to have partnership debts satisfied from partnership property.' In other words, since each of the partners would have the right to de- mand the primary application of the firm assets to the payment of partnership obligations, firm creditors will be regarded as possessing a like right." So where a partner waives his lien the 32 Am. Dec. 722; Tillinghast v. Champlin, 4 R. I. 173, 6] Am. Dec. 510; Washburn v. Bank of Bellows Falls, 19 Vt. 278. 9 Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. Jr. 119. See cases cited in note 6, preceding section. Allen v. Center Valley Co., 21 Conn. 130, 54 Am. Dec. ZZZ ^ John Spry Lumber Co. v. Chappell, 184 111. 539, 56 N. E. 794; Ladd v. Gris- wold, 4 Gil. (111.) 25; 46 Am. Dec. 443; Johnson v. McClary, 131 Ind. 105, 30 N. E. 888 ; Merkley v. Gravel Switch Roller Mills Co.'s Assignee, 28 Ky. L. 1010, 90 S. W. 1059; Kim- ball V. Thompson, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 283; Thorpe v. Pennock Mercantile Co., 99 Minn. 22, 108 N. W. 940; First Nat. Bank v. Brubaker, 128 Iowa 587, 105 N. W. 116, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 256, 111 Am. St. 209; In re Coover's Appeal, 29 Pa. St. 9, 70 Am. Dec. 149. ^o Schmidlapp v. Currie, 55 Miss. 597, 30 Am. Rep. 530. See also Gold- smith V. Eichold, 94 Ala. 116, 10 So. 80, 33 Am. St. 97; Huiskamp v. Mo- line Wagon Co., 121 U. S. 310, 30 L. ed. 971, 7 Sup. Ct. 899; Lucas v. At- wood, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 378; Jones v. Fletcher, 42 Ark. 422; Hawk Eye Woolen Mills v. Conklin, 26 Iowa 422; Roop v. Herron, IS Nebr. IZ, 17 N. W. 353 ; In re Stewart, 193 Pa. St. 347, 44 Atl. 434; Himmelreich v. Shaffer, 182 Pa. St. 201, 37 Atl. 1007, 61 Am. St. 698; Bixler v. Kresge, 169 Pa. St. 405, 32 Atl. 414, 47 Am. St. 920. Compare Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 Am. Rep. 683. "The great weight of authority favdrs the doctrine that the firm creditors have no lien in their own right upon the partnership effects, and no direct right to com- pel their application to firm, in preference to individual debts. The right to compel such an application of partnership assets is generally re- garded as an equity the partners have as between themselves, but, so long as it exists in any of the partners, the creditors may, by a sort of sub- rogation to the right of the partner, compel its enforcement and by this means obtain an application of part- nership property to their demands. The right of the firm creditor in this respect is, however, a derivative one only, and not held or enforced in his own right; in other words, 'the equi- ties of the creditors can only be worked out through the equities of the partners.' From these premises it necessarily follows that, unless a partner is in condition to enforce such right, the creditors can not do so. The quasi lien, as it is sometimes called, of the creditor, being at best only the resultant of his debtor's lien, § 526 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 668 creditor thereby loses his equity.^ ^ Also, when the partners dispose of their interests in the property, they coineidentally obliterate any right existing in firm creditors to proceed against the same,^^ and the purchase by one partner of the interests of it of course can not exist after the debtor had himself ceased to have any lien from which it could be de- rived. The leading case upon this subject is, perhaps, that of Case v. Beauregard, 99 U. S. 119, 25 L. ed. 370, in which it was held that trans- fers made by the individual members of an insolvent firm of their interest in the partnership assets terminated the equity of any partner to require the application thereof to the payment of firm debts, and was, therefore, a complete bar to a bill filed by the partnership creditors for that pur- pose. But probably no clearer enun- ciation of the doctrine is to be found than that of Mr. Justice Matthews in Fitzpatrick v. Flannagan, 106 U. S. 648, 1 Sup. Ct. 369, 27 L. ed. 211. He says : 'The legal right of a part- nership creditor to subject the part- nership property to the payment of his debt consists simply in the right to reduce his claim to judgment, and to sell the goods of his debtor on execution. His right to appropriate the "partnership property specifically to the payment of his debt, in equity in preference to creditors of an in- dividual partner, is derived through the other partner, whose original right it is to have the partnership as- sets applied to the payment of part- nership obligations. And this equity of the creditor subsists as long as that of the partner, through which it is derived, remains.'" Stahl v. Os- mers, 31 Ore. 199, 49 Pac. 95^,, 11 John Spry Lumber Co. v. Chap- pell, 184 111. S39, 56 N. E. 794; Hoff- man V. Schoyer, 143 IlL 598, 28 N. E. 823; Farwell v. Cook, 42 111. App. 291 (affd. 151 111, 239, 37 N. E. 865, 42 Am. St. 237); Sigler v. Knox County Bank, 8 Ohio St. 511; Miller V. Estill, 5 Ohio St. 508, ()7 Am. Dec. 305; In re Gallagher's Ap- peal, 114 Pa. St. 353, 7 Atl. 237, 60 Am. Rep. 350; Backus v. Murphy, 39 Pa. St. 397, 80 Am. Dec. 531 ; Wig- gins v. Blackshear, 86 Tex. 665, 26 S. W. 939; Watson v. McKinnon, 73 Tex. 210, 11 S. W. 197; Royston v. John Spry Lumber Co., 85 III. App. 223 (aflfd. 184 III. 539, 56 N. E. 794) ; Selz V. Mayer, 151 Ind. 422, 51 N. E. 485 ; Ewart v. Nave-McCord Mer- cantile Co., 130. Mo. 112, 31 S. W. 1041; Millhiser v. McKinley, 98 Va. 207, 35 S. E. 446. 12 In re Sauthoff, 8 Biss. (U. S.) 35, Fed. Cas. No. 12380, 16 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 181 ; Thames v. Schloss, 120 Ala. 470, 24 So. 835 ; Bartlett v. Meyer Schmidt Grocery Co., 65 Ark. 290, 45 S. W. 1063 ; Teague v. Lind- sey, 106 Ala. 266, 17 So. 538 ; Frank- lin Sugar Refining Co. v. Henderson, 86 Md. 452, 38 Atl. 991, 63 Am. St. 524; Howe v. Lawrence, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 553, 57 Am. Dec. -68; Thorpe V. Pennock Mercantile Co., 99 Minn. 22, 108 N. W, 940; Mechanics' Sav. Bank v. Fargeson, 79 Miss. 64, 29 So. 791; Jackson Bank v. Durfey, 72 Miss. 971, 18 So. 456, 31 L. R. A. 470, 48 Am. St. 596; Rock Island Imple- ment Co. V. Sloan, 83 Mo. App. 438; Werner v. Her, 54 Nebr. 576, 74 N. W. 833 ; Richards v. Leveille, 44 Nebr. 38, 62 N. W. 304; Bannister v. Mil- 669 'application of assets § 527 all copartners deprives the firm creditors of any preference as to firm property over his individual creditors.^' § 527. Application of assets by partners. — While a part- nership is going and solvent the partners have, if all partners consent, the same power to dispose of firm property as they see fit, which any individual has to dispose of his property, the only limit in either case being that a disposition can not be made fraudulently.^* So, although a partnership has not enough prop- erty to pay its debts, this does not affect its power to convey its ler, 54 N. J. Eq. 121, 32 Atl. 1066 (Ala.) 232; Coffin v. Day, 34 Fed., (affd. 54 N. J. Eq. 701, 37 Atl. 1117) ; 687; Reynolds v. Johnson, 54 Ark. In re Spitz, 8 N. Mex. 622, 45^ Pac. 449, 16 S. W. 124 ; Sickman v. Aber- 1122, 34 L. R. A. 604; Nordlinger v. nathy, 14 Colo. 174, 23 Pac. 447; El- Anderson, 123 N. Y. 544, 25 N. E. lison v. Lucas, 87 Ga. 223, l3 S. E. 992; Bulger v. Rosa, 119 N. Y. 459, 445, 27 Am. St. 242; Young v. Clapp, 24 N. E. 853; Bernheimer v. Riiids- 147 111. 176, 32 N. E. 187, 35 N. E. kopf, 116 N. Y. 428, 22 N. E. 1074, 372; Purple v. Farrington, 119 Ind. 15 Am. St. 414; Consaulus v. Mc- 164, 21 N. E. 543, 4 L. R. A. 535; Conihe, 49 Hun 609, 17 N. Y. St. 538, Goudy v. Werbe, 117 Ind. 154, 19 N. 2 N. Y. S. 89 (affd. 119 N. Y. 652, E. 764, 3 L. R, A. 114; George v. 23 N. E. 1150) ; Citizens Nat. Bank Wamsley, 64 Iowa 175, 20 N. W. 1 ; V. Wehrle, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 535, 9 Woodmansie v. Holcomb, 34 Kans. Ohio Cir. Dec. 330 ; Stahl v. Osmers, 35, 7 Pac. 603 ; Jones v. Lusk, 2 Mete. 31 Ore. 199, 49 Pac. 958; Tillinghast (Ky.) 356; Hamilton v. Hodges, 30 V. Champlin, 4 R. I. 173, 67 Am. Dec. La. Ann. 1290 ; Coakley v. Weil, 47 510; Bristol Bank &c. Co. v. Jones- Md. 277; Heinemanv. Hart, 55 Mich, boro Banking &c. Co., 101 Tenn. 545, 64, 20 N. W. 792 ; Hanover Nat. Bank 48 S. W. 228; De Caussey v. Baily, v. Klein, 64 Miss. 141, 8 So. 208, 60 57 Tex. 665; Ex parte Mayou, 4 De Am. Rep. 47; Schmidlapp v. Currie, G., J. & S. 664, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 433. 55 Miss. 597, 30 Am. Rep. 530; Rey- 13 Hawkins v. Western Nat. Bank burn v. Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365, 16 S. of Hereford (Tex. Civ. App.), 146 W. 592, 27 Am. St. 350; National S. W. 1191; Hapgood v. Cornwell, Bank v. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13; 48 111. 64, 95 Am. Dec. 516; Ladd v. Bernheimer v. Rindskopf, 116 N. Y. Griswold, 4 Gil. (111.) 25, 46 Am. 428, 22 N. E. 1074, 15 Am. St. 414; Dec. 443 ; Dimon v. Hazard, 32 N. Y. Sigler v. Knox County Bank, 8 Ohio 65; Carver Gin & Machine Co. v. St. 511; Todd v. Lorah, 75 Pa. St. Bannon, 85 Tenn. 712, 4 S. W. 831, 155; Pepper v. Peck, 17 R. I. 55, 20 4 Am. St. 803. Atl. 16 ; Carver Gin & Machine Co. 1* Hawkins v. Western Nat. Bank v. B^jUipn, 85 Tenn. 712, 4 S. W. 831, (Tex. Civi App.), 146 S. W. 1191. 4 ArtlrSt. 803; Tompkins v. Wood- See also Pierce v. Pass, 1 Porter yard/sNv. Va. 216. § 528 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 670 property and give good title free from a claim of partnership creditors/^ § 528. Application by partners of firm assets to individual debts. — A partnership is not liable for debts of its individual members. However, a solvent firm in full control of its assets has undoubted power with consent of all partners to pay indi- vidual debts of one member, and may sell, assign or mortgage firm property for such purpose, if done upon consideration and without intent to hinder, defraud, or delay creditors,^^ or, as said 15 Bernheimer v. Rindskopf, 116 N. Y. 428, 22 N. E. 414, IS Am. St. 414; Sigler V. Knox County Bank, 8 Ohio St. Sll. 1^ See ante §§ 270, 4SS, Huiskamp v.Moline Wagon Co., 121 U.S. 310, 30 L. ed. 971, 7 Sup. Ct 899 (1887) ; Goodbar v. Gary, 16 Fed. 316, 4 Woods (U. S.) 663 (1882); In re Lane, 2 Lowell (U. S.) 333, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 13S (1874); Case v. Beauregard, 99 U. S. 119, 25 L. ed. 370 (1879); Coffin v. Day, 34 Fed. 687 (1888); In re Kahley, 2 Hiss. (U. S.) 383, Fed. Cas. No. 7S93,' 4 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 378 (1870) ; Boyd V. Arnold, 103 Ark. 105, 146 S. W. 118; Pierce v. Pass, 1 Porter (Ala.) 232 (1834) ; Smith v. Spinnenweber (Ark.), 170 S. W. 84 ; Embry v. Lewis (Ark.), 18 S. W. 372 (1892) ; Reyn- olds V. Johnson, 54 Ark. 449, 16 S. W. 124 (1891); Sickman v. Aber- nathy, 14 Colo. 174, 23 Pac. 447 (1889) ; Ellison v. Lucas, 87 Ga. 223, 13 S. E. 445, 27 Am. St. 242 (1891) ; Veal V. The Keely Co., 86 Ga. 130, 12 S. E. 297 (1890) ; Young v. Clapp, 147 111. 176, 32 N. E. 187, 35 N. E. 372 (1892) ; Hapgood v. Cornwell, 48 111. 64, 95 Am. Dec. 516 (1868); Keith V. Fink, 47 111. 272 (1868); Ladd V. Griswold, 4 Gil. (111.) 25, 46 Am. Dec. 443 (1847) ; Purple v. Far- rington, 119 Ind., 164, 21 N. E. 543, 4 L. R. A. 535 (1889); Goudy v. Werbe, 117 Ind. 154, 19 N. E. 764, 3 L. R. A. 114 (1889); Winslow v. Wallace, 116 Ind. 317, 17 N. E. 923, 1 L. R. A. 179 (1888); Fisher v. Syfers, 109 Ind. 514, 10 N; E. 306 (1887); Jewett v. Meech, 101 Ind. 289 (1884) ; Kistner v. Sindlinger, 33 Ind. 114 (1870) ; Dunham v. Hanna, 18 Ind. 270 (1862) ; Schaeffer v. Fith- ian, 17 Ind. 463 (1861); Weyer v. Thornburgh, 15 Ind. 124 (1860) ; Hol- land V. Fuller, 13 Ind. 195 (1859); Frank v. Peters, 9 Ind. 343 (1857) ; Case V. Ellis, 4 Ind. App. 224, 30 N. E. 907 (1892) ; McDonald v. Beach, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 55 (1827); Smith V. Smith, 87 Iowa 93,, 54 N. W. Ti, 43 Am. St. 359 (1893) ;. Poole v. Se- ney, 66 Iowa 502, 24 N. W. 27 (1885) ; George v. Wamsley, 64 Iowa 175, 20 N. W. 1 (1884) ; Maquoketa V. Willey, 35 Iowa 323 (1872); Woodmansie v. Holcomb, 34 Kans. 35, 37, 7 Pac. 603 (1885) ; Jones v. Lusk, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 356 (1859); Hamilton v. Hodges, 30 La. Ann. 1290 (1878) ; Coakley v. Weil, 47 Md. 277 (1877) ; Sanderson v. Stock- dale, 11 Md. 563, 573 (1857) ; Heine- man V. Hart, 55 Mich. 64, 20' N. W. 792 (1884) ; Hanover Nat. Bank v. Klein, 64 Miss. 141, 8 So. 208, 60 671 APPLICATION OF ASSETS 528 in some decisions, where enough property remains after the transfer to pay all partnership creditors. And if the partners have consented to such transfer, the consent can not be with- drawn after sale, so as to enable firm creditors to reach the property.^'' If, however, a firm is insolvent or the application of firm property to a debt of an individual member will make it insolvent, the authorities are divided, although the trend of de- cisions seems to be to hold such transfer valid if made in good faith.^® Thus, in one case it was held that, even when the firm Am. Rep. 47 (1886) ; Schmidlapp v. Currie, SS Miss. 597, 30 Am. Rep. 530 (1878) ; Reybum v. Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365, 16 S. W. 592, 27 Am. St. 350 (1891) ; Sexton v. Anderson, 95 Mo. 373, 8 S. W. 564 (1888) ; Tilford V. Ramsey, 37 Mo. 563, 565 (1866) ; Noble V. Miley, 20 Mo. App. 360 (1866) ; National Bank of the Me- tropolis V. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13 (1869) ; Nordlinger v. Anderson, 123 N. Y. 544, 25 N. E. 992 (1890) ; Bern- heimer v. Rindskopf, 116 N. Y. 428, 22 N. E. 1074, 15 Am. St. 414; Me- nagh V. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 Am. Rep. 683 (1873) ; Ransom v. Vandeventer, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 307 (1863) ; Van Bossum v. Walker, 11 Barb. 237 (1851) ; Burtus v. Tisdall, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 571 (1848) ; Kirby V. Schoonmaker, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 46, 49 Am. Dec. 160 (1848) ; Heye v. Bolles, 33 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 266, 2 Daly 231 (1867) ; O'Neil v. Salmon, 25 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 246 (1863); Smith V. Howard, 20 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 121 (1859) ; Wilson v. Robertson, 21 N. Y. 587 (1860), 19 How. Pr. 350; Wilcox v. Kellogg, 11 Ohio St. 394 (1842) ; Sigler v. Knox County Bank, 8 Ohio St. 511 (1858) ; Mil- ler V. Estill, 5 Ohio St. 508, 67 Am. Dec. 305 (1856); Todd v. Lorah, 75 Pa. St. 155 (1874); Gallagher v. First Nat. Bank (Pa.), 5 Cent. Rep. 725 (1886) ; Donnally v. Ryan, 41 Pa. St. 306 (1862) ; Siegel v. Chidsey, 28 Pa. St. 279, 70 Am. Dec. 124 (1857) ; Graeff v. Hitchman, 5 Watts (Pa.) 454 (1836) ; Brooke v. Evans, S Watts (Pa.) 196; Noble v. Mc- Clinbock, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 152 (1841) ; Purdy v. Powers, 6 Pa. St. 492 (1847) ; Tanner v. Hall, 1 Pa. St. 417 (1845) ; Pepper v. Peck, 17 R. I. 55, 20 Atl. 16 (1890) ; Jones' Case, 1 Overt. (Tenn.) 455 (1809) ; Carver Gin & Machine Co. v. Bannori, 85 Tenn. 712, 4 S. W. 831, 4 Am. St. 803 (1887) ; Tompkins v. Woodyard, 5 W. Va. 216, 229 (1872) ; Haben v. Harshaw, 49 Wis. 379, 5 N. W. 872 (1880) ; In re Caton, 26 U. C. C. P. 308 (1876) ; Ex parte Peele, 6 Ves. Jr. 602 (1802). "Boyd V. Arnold, 103 Ark. 105, 146 S. W. 118; Jewett v. Meech, 101 Ind. 289 (1884) ; Woodmansie v. Hol- comb, 34 Kans. 35, 7 Pac. 603; Schmidlapp v. Currie, 55 Miss. 597, 30 Am. Rep. 530 (1878) ; Hage v. Camp- bell, 78 Wis. 572, 47 N. W. 179, 23 Am. St. 422 (1891). IS Sherk v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 832; Case v. Beauregard, 99 U. S. 119, 25 L. ed. 370 (1879) ; Huiskamp v. Moline Wagon Co., 121 U. S. 310, 30 L. ed. 971, 7 Sup. Ct. 899 (1886) ; Teague V. Lindsey, 106 Ala. 266, 17 So. 538 § 528 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 672 or one of the members thereof is insolvent, a creditor of one of the partners who takes partnership property or the proceeds' of the same in payment of his debtor's personal obligation need not account therefor to a creditor of the firm, although he takes with knowledge that the property belonged to the firm as such.^" The reasoning seems to be that a partnership has the same con- trol over firm property which an individual has over his own property and as an individual, though insolvent, may pay one creditor in full, so a partnership may apply its assets to the valid individual debt of a member. It would seem, though, that no consideration passes to the partnership for such an application of assets to an individual debt, that is in effect a gift to one part- ner and therefore such transaction might be void as to creditors because without consideration.^" And many cases have held it a fraud on firm creditors for a firm which is insolvent or will become insolvent by the transfer, to apply firm property to the payment of one partner's individual debt.^^ (1895) ; Ellison v. Lucas, 87 Ga. 223, 13 S. E. 445, 27 Am. St. 242 (1891) ; Wallace v. Steagall, 52 111. App. 471 ; Purple V. Farrington, 119 Ind. 164, 21 N. E. 543, 4 L. R. A. 535 (1889) ; Winslow V, Wallace, 116 Ind. 317, 17 N. E. 923, 1 L. R. A. 179 (1881) ; Fisher v. Syfers, 109 Ind. 514, 10 N. E. 306 (1887); Warren v. Farmer, 100 Ind. 593 ; Trentman v. Swartzell, 85 Ind. 443 ; Smith v. Smith, 87 Iowa 93, 54 N. W. n, 43 Am. St. 359 (1893); Kincaid v. National Wall- Paper Co., 63 Kans. 288, 65 Pac. 247, 54 L. R. A. 412, 88 Am. St. 243; Woodmansie v. Holcomb, 34 Kans. 35, 7 Pac. 603 (1885) ; Mansur-Teb- betts Implement Co. v. Ritchie, 159 Mo. 213, 60 S. W. 87 ; Goddard-Peck Grocery Co. v. McCune, 122 Mo. 426, 25 S. W. 904, 29 L. R. A. 681 (1894) ; Seger's Sons v. Thomas Bros., 107 Mo. 635, 18 S. W. 33; Reyburn v. Mitchell. 106 Mo. 365, 16 S. W. 592, 27 Am. St. 350; Hundley v. Farris, 103 Mo. 78, 15 S. W. 312, 12 L. R. A. 254, 23 Am. St. 863; First Nat. Bank v. Brenneisen, 97 Mo. 145, 10 S. W. 884; Sexton v. Anderson, 95 Mo. Zli, 8 S. W. 564; Phelps v. Mc- Neely, (£ Mo. 554, 27 Am. Rep. 378 ; Pepper v. Peck, 17 R. I. 55, 20 Atl. 16 (1890); Bedford v. McDonald, 102 Tenn. 358, 52 S. W. 157; Marks V. Hill, 15 Grat. (Va.) 400; Day v. Wetherby, 29 Wis. 363. " First Nat. Bank v. Brubaker, 128 Iowa 587, 105 N. W. 116, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 256, 111 Am. St. 209. 20Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 Am. Rep. 683 ; Wilson v. Rob- ertson, 21 N. Y. 587, 19 How. Pr. 350. 21 Saunders v. Reilly, 105 N. Y. 12, 12 N. E. 170, 59 Am. Rep. 472; Goodbar v. Cary, 4 Woods. 663, 16 Fed. 316; Goetter v. Norman, 107 Ala. 585. 19 So. 56: Hill v. Draoer. 58 673 APPLICATION OF ASSETS 529 .§ 529. Mortgage of firm property by partners, — A part- nership has power to mortgage its property to secure firm debts." A mortgage otherwise yahd of firm property to secure a firm debt made by one partner or by all, may not be attached by other creditors of the firm because the mortgagees are preferred over them.^^ The lien of such mortgagee is superior to that of judg- ment creditors of individual partners.^* A mortgage of a part- ner's interest in partnership property to secure debts owed by him individually is subject to the claim of firm creditors, ■ since this mortgage can pass only the partner's share in the assets after firm debts are paid and partnership accounts are adjusted.^^ But Ark. 625, 24 S. W. 107S (1894) ; Cron V. Cron, 56 Mich. 8, 22 N. W. 94; Jackson Bank v. Durfey, 72 Miss. 971, 18 So. 456, 31 L. R. A. 470, 48 Am. St. 596; Caldwell v. Blooming- ton Mfg. Co., 17 Nebr. 489, 23 N. W. 336; Person v. Monroe, 21 N. H. 462; Arnold v. Hagerman, 45 N. J. Eq. 186, 17 Atl. 93, 14 Am. St. 712; Clements v. Jessup, 36 N. J. Eq. 569; Nordlinger v. Anderson, 123 N. Y. 544, 25 ISr. E. 992; Bernheimer v. Rindskopf, 116 N. Y. 428, 22 N. E. 1074, 15 Am. St. 4i4; Ransom v. Vandeventer, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 307 (1863) ; Kirby v. Schoonmaker, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 46, 49 Am. Dec. 160; Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 Am. Rep. 683 (1873) ; Wilson V. Robertson, 21 N. Y. 587, 19 How. Pr. 350 (1860); Wiggins v. Black- shear, 86 Tex. 665, 26 S. W. 939; Kurner v. O'Neil, 39 W. Va. 515, 20 S. E. 589 (1894) ; Snyder v. Luns- ford, 9 W. Va. 223 (obiter) ; Hage v. Campbejl, 78 Wis. 572, 47 N. W. 179, 23 Am. St. 422 (1891); Ex parte Snowball, L. R. 7 Ch. 534, 41 L. J. Bankr. 49, 26 L. T. (N. S.) 894, 20 Wkly. Rep. 786. 22 See §§ 301-304, 440-442. 23 Kiser v. Carrolton Dry Goods 43 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. I Co., 96 Ga. 760, 22 S. E. 303; Smith V. Smith (Iowa), SO N. W. 64 (1891) ; Letts-Fletcher Co. v. McMaster, 83 Iowa 449, 49' N. W. 1035; Miami County Nat. Bank v. Barkalow, 53 Kans. 68, 35 Pac. 796; Walker v. White, 60 Mich. 427, 27 N. W. 554; Wiggins V. Blackshear, 86 Tex. 665, 26 S. W. 939; Hage v. Campbell, 78 Wis. 572, 47 N. W. 179, 23 Am. St. 422. 2* Morton v. Higgins, 7 N. J. L. 343; Huggins v. White, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 563, 27 S. W. 1066. 25 Sloan V. Wilson, 117 Ala. 583, 23 So. 145; Embry v. Lewis (Ark.), 18 S..W. 372 (1892); Jones v. Par- sons, 25 Cal. 100; Chase v. Steel, 9 Cal. 64; Shaw v. McDonald, 21 Ga. 395; Fisher v. Syfers, 109 Ind. 514, 10 N. E. 306; Lewis v. Harrison, 81 Ind. 278; Cook v. Gilchrist, 82 Iowa 277, 48 N. W. 84; Fargo v. Ames, 45 Iowa 491; Aldridge v. Elerick, 1 Kans. App. 306, 41 Pac. 199; Bank of Kentucky v. Herndon, 1 Bush (Ky.) 359, 89 Am. Dec. 630 ; Thomp- son V. Spittle, 102 Mass. 207; Dens- more V. Mathews, 58 Mich. 616, 26 N. W. 146; Churchill v. Proctor, 31 Minn. 129, 16 N. W. 694; Ewart v. Nave-McCord Mercantile Co., 130 § 529 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 674 where firm real estate, title to which was in the name of one partner, was mortgaged to one who had no notice of the firm's ownership, to secure a partner's individual debt, such mortgagee's rights are prior to those of firm creditors.^" Firm property may be mortgaged to one partner and the mortgage is not invalid be- cause of the relationship,^'' although such fact may tend to bear upon the question whether the mortgage was fraudulent.^' Such mortgage is inferior to the rights of firm creditors.^® There is no doubt that a solvent partnership may mortgage, assign or use its property to secure one member's debt,^" the mere prefer- ' ence, by a mortgage, of individual debts over partnership debts not being such a fraud on firm creditors that a court of equity will Mo. 112, 31 S. W. 1041 ; Lovejoy v. Bowers, 11 N. H. 404; Mechanics' Bank v. Godwin, 5 W. J. Eq. 334; Barber v. Palmer, 70 Hun 498, 24 N. Y. S. 451, 53 N. Y. St. 753 ; Ruhl v. Phillips, 2 Daly 45 (revd. on other grounds in 48 N. Y. 125, 8 Am. Rep. 522) ; Ivie v. Blum, 159 N. Car. 121, 74 S. E. 807; Strauss v. Frederick, 91 N. Car. 121; Norwalk Nat. Bank V. Sawyer, 38 Ohio St. 339; McDer- mot V. Laurence, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 438, 10 Am. Dec. 468; Patterson v. Atkinson, 20 R. I. 102, 37 Atl. 532; Rose V. Izard, 7 S. Car. 442; Fort Worth Nat. Bank v. Daugherty, 81 Tex. 301, 16 S. W. 1028; Johnston V. Standard Shoe Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 398, 24 S. W. 580; Stebbins v. Willard, 53 Vt. 665; Jones v. Neale, 2 Pat. & H. (Va.) 339; Cunningham V. Ward, 30 W. Va. 572, 5 S. E. 646. 28 Robinson Bank v. Miller, 153 111. 244, 38 N. E. 1078, 27 L. R. A. 449, 46 Am. St. 883 ; Reeves v. Ayers, 38 111. 418; Seeley v. Mitchell, 85 Ky. 508, 4 S. W. 190, 9 Ky. L. 86; Rich- mond V. Voorhees, 10 Wash. 316, 38 Pac. 1014. Compare Hiscock v. Phelps, 49 N. Y. 97. " Ricketts V. Croom, 102 Ala. 332, 14 So. 637; Waterman v. Hunt, 2 R. I. 298; Howell Bros. Shoe Co. v. Mars, 82 Tex. 493, 17 S. W. 370. 28 Curtis V. Wilcox, 9r Mich. 229, 51 N. W. 992; Strong v. Hines, 35 Miss. 201; Heilbronner v. Lloyd, 17 Mont. 299, 42 Pac. 853; Taylor v. Missouri Glass Co., 6 Tex. Civ. App. 337, 25 S. W. 466. 29 Ricketts V. Croom, 102 Ala. 332, 14 So. 637; Monroe v. Hamilton, 60 Ala. 226; Taylor v. Watts, 20 S. W. 388, 14 Ky. L. 451; Parish v. Phil- lips, 1 Mart. (O. S.) (La.) 96; Ir- win v. Bidwell, 72 Pa. St. 244. soWoodmansie v. Holcomb, 34 Kans. 35, 7 Pac. 603 ; Jones v. Lusk, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 356; Schmidlapp v. Cur- rie, 55 Miss. 597, 30 Am. Rep. 530; McDonald v. Cash, 45 Mo. App. 66; Wilson V. Gamble, SO Nebr. 426, 69 N. W. 945; Miller v. Gunderson, 48 Nebr. 715, 67 N. W. 769; Bingham V. Tuttle, 82 Hun 51, 31 N. Y. S. 68, 63 N. Y. St. 367; Nil! v. Chidester, 52 Hun 612, 25 N. Y. St. 1036, 6 N. Y. S. 332. See also McKinney v. Rosenband, 23 Fed. 785, 23 Blatchf. 235; Goodbar v. Gary, 16 Fed. 316, 4 Woods (U. S.) 663 ; Citizens' Bank V. Williams, 128 N. Y. 77, 28 N. E. 675 APPLICATION OF ASSETS § 529 set the mortgage aside.^^ Such mortgage of itself constitutes a waiver of the rule, established for the benefit of the partners themselves, whereby firm debts are accorded a preference in the matter of payment out of the partnership property.^^ Such a preference of individual creditors when the partnership is in- . solvent, and this fact is known to the mortgagee, may, however, render the mortgage void as against firm creditors.^'' And probably the greater number of cases hold such a use of firm property valid, even though the firm was insolvent, when there was no intent to defraud.^* The failure to record a mortgage prior to a purchase by third persons will leave the mortgagee in 33, 26 Am. St. 454; Larzelere v. Tiel, 11 Wis. 322, 46 N. W. 126; Young v. 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 109, 39 Wkly. Notes Keighly, IS Ves. Jur. SS7, 33 Eng. Cas. 320. Reprint 865. 31 Winslow V. Wallace, 116 Ind. 317, 34. Coffin v. Day, 34 Fed. 687; In re 17 N. E. 923, 1 L. R. A. 179; Fisher Kahley, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 383, Fed. V. Syfers, 109 Ind. 514, 10 N. E. Cas. No. 7593, 4 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 306; National Bank of the Metropo- 378; Reynolds v. Johnson, 54 Ark. lis V. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13 (revd. 449, 16 S. W. 124; Rouss v. Wallace, 21 N. J. Eq. 530); Kennedy v. Na- 10 Colo. App. 93, 50 Pac. 366; El- tional Union Bank, 23 Hun (N. Y.) lison v. Lucas, 87 Ga. 223, 13 S. E. 494. 445, 27 Am. St. 242; Evansville Old 32 Fisher v. Syfers, 109 Ind. 514, Nat. Bank v. Heckman, 148 Ind. 490, 10 N. E. 306; In re Kahley, 2 Biss. 47 N. E. 953; Farwell v. Stick, 96 (U. S.) 383, Fed. Cas. No. 7593; Iowa 87, 61 N. W. 565, 64 N. W. Purple V. Farrington, 119 Ind. 164, 614; Myers v. Tyson, 2 Kans..App. 21 N. E. 543, 4 L. R. A. 535; Kirby 464, 43 Pac. 91; Goddard-Peck Gro- V. Schoonmaker, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) eery Co; v. McCune, 122 Mo. 426, 25 46, 49 Am. Dec. 160; Carver Gin &c. S. W. 904, 29 L. R. A. 681 (1893) Co. V. Bannon, 85 Tenn. 712, 4 S. (revg. 47 Mo. App. 307, and overrul- W. 831, 4 Am. St. 803. ing Phelps v. McNeely, 66 Mo. 554, 27 33 Cribb V. Morse, 17 Wis. 322, 46 Am. Rep. 378) ; Potts v. Blackwell, 57 N. W. 126; Keith v. Fink, 47 111. 272; N. Car. 58; Sigler v. Knox County Heineman v. Hart, 55 Mich. 64, 20 Bank, 8 Ohio St. 511 ; Carver Gin &c. N. W. '792 ; Rothell v. Grimes, 22 Co. v. Bannon, 85 Tenn. 712, 4 S. W. Nebr. 526, 35 N. W. 392; Ferson v. 831, 4 Am. St. 803 (distinguishing Monroe, 21 N. H. 462 ; Bannister v. Buck Stove Co. v. Johnson, 7 Lea 282 ; Miller, 54 N. J. Eq. 121, 32 Atl. 1066; Barcroft v. Snodgrass, 1 Coldw.430) ; Ransom v. Vandeventer, 41 Barb. (N. Batchelor v. Sanger, IS Tex. Civ. Y.) 307; Lester v. Pollock, 26 N. Y. App. 110, 38 S. W. 359; Marks v. Super. Ct. 691; In re Petze, 26 Misc. Hill, 15 Grat. (Va.) 400; Victor v. 72, 56 N. Y. S. 482; Snyder v. Luns- Glover, 17 Wash. 37, 48 Pac. 788, 40 ford, 9 W. Va. 223 ; Cribb v. Morse, L. R. A. 297. 530 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 676 the position of a simple firm creditor.^^ As has been stated, part- nership creditors have no Hen on the property of the partnership if the partners themselves have none.*° § 530. Assignment by partners for benefit of creditors. — Generally speaking, unless it is contrary to statute, the members of a partnership may assign for the benefit of partnership cred- itors with preferences part or all of the partnership property.^^ However, the preference of individual creditors of partners is held a fraud on firm creditors.** In some states an assignment by partners of all the partnership property for the benefit of creditors is required by statute' to include the individual prop- erty of the partners, in order to be valid.'* In other states it is not required that such assignments carry with them the individual property of the partners.*" An assignment by a partnership need 35 Hawkins v. Western Nat Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 146 S. W. 1191. 28 Carver Gin &c. Co. v. Bannon, 85 Tenn. 712, 4 S. W. 831, 4 Am. St. 803. See Jones Liens (2d ed.), § 788. 37 Harmon v. McRae, 91 Ala. 401, 8 So. 548; Stroff v. Swafford, 81 Iowa 695, 47 N. W. 1023; Hill v. B. M. Creel Co., 18 Ky. L. 132, 35 S. W. 537 ; Dispatch Printing Co.. v. George, 83 Minn. 309, 86 N. W. 339; Camp- bell V. Farmers' &c. Bank, 49 Nebr. 143, 68 N. W. 344; Richards v. Le- veille, 44 Nebr. 38, 62 N. W. 304; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Riddell, 50 Hun 600, 2 N. Y. S. 331, 18 N. Y. St. 471 ; George v. Grant, 28 Hun 69 (affd. 97 N. Y. 262); Griswold v. Nichols, 117 Wis. 267, 94 N. W. 33 ; Victor V. Glover, 17 Wash. 37, 48 Pac. 788, 40 L. R. A. 297; Ball v. Tennant, 25 Ont 50 (revd. on other grounds in 21 Ont. App. 602). 38 Saunders v. Reilly, 105 N. Y. 12, 12 N. E. 170, 59 Am. Rep. 472; Mur- ray v. Gerety, 11 N. Y. S. 205, 25 Abb. N. C. 161, 32 N. Y. St. 240; Bur- hans V. Kelly, 49 Hun 610, 2 N. Y. S. 175, 17 N. Y. St. 552. 39 Kennedy v. McKee, 142 U. S. 606, 12 Sup. Ct. 303, 35 L. ed. 1131 ; Swofford Bros. Dry-Goods Co. v. Mills, 86 Fed. 556; Sheppard v. Reeves, 39 Fla. 53, 21 So. 774; Will- iams V. Crocker, 36 Fla. 61, 18 So. 52 ; Simmons v. Curtis, 41 Maine 373; Maughlin v. Tyler, 47 Md. 545; Wyles V. Beals, 1 Gray (Mass.) 233; Farwell v. Brooks, 65 Minn. 184; In re Allen, 41 Minn. 430, 43 N. W. 382 ; May V. Walker, 35 Minn. 194, 28 N. W. 252 ; Derry Bank v. Davis, 44 N. H. 548; In re Wilson, 4 Pa. St. 430, 45 Am. Dec. 701; Focke v. Blum,. 82 Tex. 436, 17 S. W. 770; Still v. Focke, 66 Tex. 715, 2 S. W. 59; Mc- Cord Brady Co. v. Mills, 8 Wyo. 258, 56 Pac. 1003, 46 L. R. A. 737. ^oDrucker v. Wellhouse, 82 Ga. 129, 8 S. E. 40, 2 L. R. A. 328; Ex parte Hopkins, .104 Ind. 157, 2 N. 677 APPLICATION OF ASSETS § 531 not include the debts of individual partners/^ The reason for the distinction seems to be that in states where releases are re- quired of creditors, all the property liable to the payment of debts, which, in case of a partnership, includes the individual property of the partners, must be turned over by the assign- ment,^^ especially if individual property of the partners is not included.** Generally, one partner may transfer firm property to pay a firm debt, even though the result is to prefer one cred- itor,** -but general assignment for benefit of creditors by one partner is not valid, unless the other partners consent,*^ except in extraordinary cases where the other partners can not be quickly reached.*® § 531. Transfer of partnership property to partner or new firm. — If all the property of a partnership is transferred by a valid sale to one partner or to another firm in which some of the old partners are members, this destroys the partner's lien, and consequently the right of the creditors of the old partner- ship to a preference over the individual creditors of the pur- chaser.*^ If the consideration for the transfer is the assumption E. 587; Blake v. Faulkner, 18 Ind. Am. Dec. 272; Willis v. Bremner, 60 47; McFarland v. Bate, 45 Kans. 1, Wis. 622, 19 N. W. 403; Vernon v. 25 Pac. 238, 10 L. R. A. 521. Upson, 60 Wis. 418, 19 N. W. 400. "Johnston V. Dunn (N. J.), 29 Atl. "Heckman v. Messinger, 49 Pa. 361 ; Armstrong v. Hurst, 39 S. Car. St. 465 ; Mills v. Kerr, 7 Ont. App. 498, 18 S. E. 150 ; Trumbo v. Hamel, 769. 29 S. Car. 520, 8S. E. 83; Wilson v. **See ante § 444. Sullivan, 17 Utah 341, S3 Pac. 994; *5 See ante § 458 ; Loeb v. Pierpont, Auley V. Osterman, 65 Wis. 118, 25 58 Iowa 469, 12 N. W. 544, 43 Am. N. W. 657, 26 N. W. 568. Rep. 122; Shattuck v. Chandler, 40 *2Swofford Bros. Dry-Goods Co. Kans. 516, 20 Pac. 225, 10 Am. St. V. Mills, 86 Fed. 556; Bradley v. 227; Gates v. Andrews, -37 N. Y. 657, Bischel, 81 Iowa 80, 46 N. W. 755; 97 Am. Dec. 764; H. B. Clafflin Co. v. McFarland v. Bate, 45 Kans. 1, 25 Evans, 55 Ohio St. 183, 45 N. E. 3, 60 Pac 238, 10 L. R. A. 521; Riley v. Am. St. 686; Coleman v. Darling, 66 Carter, 76 Md. 581, 25 Atl. 667, 19 Wis. 155, 28 N. W. 367, 57 Am. Rep. L. R. A. 489, 35 Am. St. 443 ; Hag- 253. gerty v. Granger, IS How. Pr. (N. *« See cases cited in preceding note. Y.) 243 ; Blair v. Black, 31 S. Car. " Ball v. Danton, 64 Ore. 184, 129 346, 9 S. E. 1033, 17 Am. St. 30; Pac. 1032; Johnston v. Straus, 26 Goddard v. Bridgman, 25 Vt. 351, 60 Fed. 57-; Shimer v. Ruber, Fed. Cas. § 531 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 678 of the firm debts and both firm and purchaser are solvent, the purchaser takes the property free of any lien for firm debts/^ But if the purchasing partner agreed to apply the assets to- the payment of firm debts, or the sellers have otherwise retained the right to have the firm assets applied to firm debts, then, in equity, that right can be asserted by creditors of the old firm, and its assets' will still be treated as partnership assets/* It has often been held that even if the firm is not solvent, such a trans- fer in good "faith for a valid consideration, destroys the prefer- ence of firm creditors in the property.^" In some cases it has No. 12787, 19 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 414, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 402; Rdse v. Gunn, 79 Ala. 411 ; Mayer v. Clark, 40 Ala. 2S9; Jones v. Fletcher, 42 Ark. 422; Brown v. Miller, 11 Colo. 431, 18 Pac. 617; Schleicher v. Walker, 28 Fla. 680, 10 So. 33; Hanford v. Prouty, 133 111. 339, 24 N. E. 565; Purple v. Farrington,- 119 Ind. 164, 21 N. E. 543, 4 L. R. A. 535; Rosenstiel v. Gray, 112 111. 282; Kincaid v. Na- tional Wall-Paper Co., 63 Kans. 288, 65 Pac. 247, 54 L. R. A. 412, 88 Am. St. 243; Topliflf v. Vail, Harr. (Mich.) 340; Fulton v. Hughes, 63 Miss. 61; Norris v. Rumsey, 54 Mo. App. 143; Stanton v. Westover, 101 N. Y. 265, 4 N. E. 529; Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 Am. Rep. 683; Sage v. Chollar, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 596; Ketchum v. Durkee, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 480, 45 Am. Dec. 412; Robb v. Stevens, 1 Clarke Ch. (N. Y.) 191; Latham v. Skinner, 62 N. Car. 292; Mortley v. Flanagan, 38 Ohio St. 401 ; Willis V. Thompson, 85 Tex. 301, 20 S. W. 155; Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. Jr. 119, S Rev. Rep. 237, 31 Eng. Reprint 970. *8 Conroy v. Woods, 13 Cal. 626, 73 Am. Dec. 605 ; Hapgood v. Cornwell, 48 111. 64, 95 Am. Dec. 516; Maquo- keta V. Willey, 35 Iowa 323; Cald- well v. Scott, 54 N. H. 414; Rankin v. Jones, 55 N. Car. 169 ; In re Baker's Appeal, 21 Pa. St. 76, 59 Am. Dec. 752. *fl Sherk v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 832; Sedam v. Williams, 4 McLean (U. S.) 51, Fed. Cas. No. 12609; McClean v. Miller, 2 Cranch C. C. 620, Fed. Cas. No. 8692; Bowman v. Spalding, 8 Ky. L. 691, 2 S. W. 911; Childs v. Pellett, 102 Mich. 558, 61 N. W. 54; Phelps V. McNeely, 66 Mo. 554, 27 Am. Rep, 378 ; Moras v. Gleason, 64 N. Y. 204 In re Dawson, 59 Hun 239, 12 N. Y. S. 781, 36 N. Y. St. 311; Bulger v. Rosa, 53 Hun 239, 6 N. Y. S. 38 (affd. in 119 N. Y. 459, 24 N. E.' 853) Wildes V. Chapman, 4 Edw. Ch. (N, Y.) 669; Fries v. Ennis, 132 Pa. St. 195, 19 Atl. 59; Mensing v. Atchison (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 509 (1894); Ex parte Morley, 43 L. J. Bankr. 28, 29 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 442; Ex parte Manchester Bank, 48 L. J. Bankr. 94; Ex parte Wheeler, Buck. 25. ^oHudgins v. Rix, 60 Ark. 18, 28 S. W. 422, 30 S. W. 767; Allen v. Center Valley Co., 21 Conn. 130, 54 Am. Dec. 333; Hagan v. Scott, 10 La. 345 ; Howe v. Lawrence, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 553, 57 Am. Dec. 68; Cleve- 679 APPLICATION OF ASSETS § 531 even been held that a transfer from an insolvent firm to an in- solvent partner, in good faith, but upon no consideration beyond his promise to pay firm debts, has a similar result."^ The more general' rule is that such a transfer is voidable as to firm cred- itors, since nothing of value passes to the firm, and the effect is to hinder firm creditors." Such transfer does not affect the rights of the purchasing partner's individual creditors and can not be attacked by them.°^ Neither does it change the liability of the members of the old firm to its creditors/* In case of a solvent firm, there is no doubt of the right of the partners to convert the firm property into separate property by dividing it between them/^ So, even if the firm is insolvent such division land Nat. Bank v. Bryant (Tenn.), 54 S. W. 12, (1899) ; Sanchez v. Gold- Franfc^ (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 204 (1894); Douglas v. Alder, 13 Utah 303, 44 Pac. 706. siHuiskamp v. Moline Wagon Co., 121 U. S. 310, 7 S. Ct. 899, 30 L. ed. 971; Schleicher v. Walker, 28 Fla. 680, 10 So. ZZ; Purple v. Farrington, 119 Ind. 164, 21 N. E. 543, 4 L. R. A. 535; Kincaid v. National Wall-Paper Co., 63 Kans. 288, 65 Pac. 247, 54 L. R. A. 412, 88 Am. St. 243 ; Sexton v. Anderson, 95 Mo. VZ, 8 S. W. 564 (distinguished in McDonald v. Cash, 45 Mo. App. 66) ; Wilcox v. Kellogg, 11 Ohio 394. 52 Henderson v. Farley Nat. Bank, 123 Ala. 547, 26 So. 226, 82 Am. St. 140; Bartlett v. Meyer-Schmidt Gro- cery Co., 65 Ark. 290, 45 S. W. 1063; In re Landfield, 80 111. App. 417; Kelley v. Flory, 84 Iowa 671, SI N. W. 181 ; Wilson v. Soper, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 411, 56 Am. Dec. 573; Saloy V. Albrecht, 17 La. Ann. 75 ; Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Henderson, 86 Md. 452, 38 Atl. 991, 63 Am. St. 524; Jackson Bank v. Durfey, 72 Miss. 971, 18 So. 456, 31 L. R. A. 470, 48 Am. St. 596; Morehead v. Adams, 18 Nebr. 569, 26 N. W. 242; Arnold v. Hager- man, 45 N. J. Eq. 186, 17 Atl. 93, 14 Am. St. 712; Stanton v. Westover, 101 N. Y. 265, 4 N. E. 529; Brayton V. Sherman, 45 App. Div. 58, 60 N. Y. S. 1118 (affd. in 166 N. Y. 610, 59 N. E. 1119) ; Baer v. Wilkinson, 35 W. Va. 422, 14 S. E. 1; Cribb v. Morse, 17 Wis. 322, 46 N. W. 126,; Ex parte Mayou, 4 DeG., J. & S. 664, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 433, 34 L. J. Bankr. 25, 12 L. T. (N. S.) 254; In re Ca- ton, 26 U. C. C. P. 308. 53 Evans v. Hawley, 35 Iowa 83 ; Christen v. Ruhlman, 22 La. Ann. 570; Pierce v. Tiernan, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 253; Bush Co. v. Gibbons, 87 App. Div. 576, 84 N. Y. S. 478; Grif- fin V. Cranston, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 281; Boynton v. Page, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 425; Texas Drug Co. v. Baker, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 684, 50 S. W. 157. 6*Nixdorff v. Smith, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 132, 10 L. ed. 913; Ward v. Wood- burn, 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 346; Jones v. Smith, 31 S. Car. 527, 10 S. E. 340; Yeager v. Focke, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 542, 25 S. W. 662 ; Conaway v. Stea- ley, 44 W. Va. 163, 28 S. E. 793. 55 Allen V. Center Valley Co., 21 Conn. 130, 54 Am, Dec. 333; Whit- § 532 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 680 has often been upheld on the theory that the creditors' right to a preference is derived only through the partners and is waived by the partners upon the division."^ In several other decisions the opposite view was taken and the transfer held void as to creditors, and they were held entitled to enforce their claims against the property as firm assets.^^ § 532. Individual assets of partner. — A partner's separate estate is all his property which ihas not been placed in the part- nership business.^^ Sometimes it is held a partner's interest in lands used for partnership purposes but not owned by the firm, even though purchased with firm funds, may be reached by his creditors as separate property."" An itelm credited to a partner and the firm account is not his separate property until final settle- ment.*" And a partner's interest in an illegal partnership is not separate property.*^ Partners may dispose of their individual property as they see fit, if there are sufficient partnership assets to pay firm debts."^ A partner has no right to have the indi- vidual property of a copartner applied to firm debts.*^ It has often been held that since firm creditors are also creditors of part- worth V. Benbow, 56 Ind. 194; Poole v. Allerton, 3 Rob. (N. Y.) SSI; Ex V. Seney, 66 Iowa 502, 24 N. W. 27; parte Owen, 4 DeG. & Sm. 351. 58 Huiskamp v. Moline Wagon Co., "9 Cundey v. Hall, 208 Pa. St. 335, 121 U. S. 310, 30 L. ed. 971, 7 Sup. 342, 57 Atl. 761, 1134, 101 Am. St. Ct. 899 (revg. 14 Fed. 155); Lee v. 938; Stover v. Stover, 180 Pa. St. Bradley Fertilizer Co., 44 Fla. 787, 33 425, 36 Atl. 921, 57 Am. St. 654; So. 456; Fisher v. Syfers, 109 Ind. Lyons v. Murray, 95 Mo. 23, 8 S, W. 514, 10 N. E. 306; Bedford v. Mc- 170, 6 Am. St. 17. Donald, 102 Tenn. 358, 52 S. W. 157. «o Lyons v. Murray, 95 Mo. 23, 8 ST Wilkinson v. Yale, 6 McLean (U. S. W. 170, 6 Am. St. 17. S.) 16, Fed. Cas. No. 17678; Cox v. «i Patty-Joiner Co. v. City Bank, Peoria Mfg. Co., 42 Nebr. 660, 60 N. 15 Tex. Civ. App. 475, 41 S. W. 173. W. 933; Clements v. Jessup, 36 N. «2Whitlock Cordage Co. v. Hine J. Eq. 569; Ransom v. Vandeventer, (Md.), 93 Atl. 431; Holmes v. Fer- 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 307; Ruhl v. Phil- guson-McKinney Dry Goods Co., 86 lips, 2 Daly 45 (revd. on other grounds Miss. 782, 39 So. 70. in 48 N. Y. 125, 8 Am. Rep. 522). ea Mann v. Higgins, 7 Gill (Md.) =8 Mann v. Higgins, 7 Gill (Md.) 265; McDonald v. Meek, 57 Mo. App. 265; Very v. Clarke, 177 Mass. 52, 254. 58 N. E. 151, 83 Am. St. 260; Reed 681 APPLICATION OF ASSETS § 533 ners as individuals, an individual partner may make a valid as- signment of his separate property to pay, firm creditors, thus giv- ing them the preference over individual creditors.''* It is also held that such a transfer is a fraud upon individual creditors since they have a prior right on individual assets/^ It is held that an agreement in a note secured by collateral that the securities might -be applied to any other obligation held by the payee, entitled him to apply surplus proceeds from the col- lateral to the obligation of a partnership in wrhich the maker of the note w^as a member."" A quitclaim deed by a partner in an insolvent firm of all the firm property and good will, on condi- tion that a composition with creditors be carried out was held to be made to relieve the grantor's personal estate from liability and to divest him of all interest in the business."'^ § 533. Application of assets of partnership by court. — It has been seen that if a judgment has been recovered against a firm in an action at law, the firm property and the individual property of the partners are alike subject to execution."^ So equity will not take jurisdiction and marshal the assets of both the firm and the individual members unless both are within its jurisdiction and control, and will not ordinarily interfere with legal priorities or the enforcement of judgments at law,."° 6* Newman v. Bagley, 16 Pick, dusky, Fed. Cas. No. 12308, 17 Nat. (Mass.) 570 (183S) ; Gadsden v. Car- Bankr. Reg. 452; Elgin Nat. Watch son, 9 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 252, 70 Co. v. Meyer, 30 Fed. 659; Leinkauff Am. Dec. 207 (1857); Chessher v. v. Munter, 16 Ala. 194; Haralson v. Clamp, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 350, 30 S. Campbell, 63 Ala. 278; Cleghorn v. W. 466 (1895). Insurance Bank, 9 Ga. 319; Gillaspy esHolton v. Holton, 40 N. H. 11; v. Peck, 46 Iowa 461; Fullam v. Ab- Jackson v. Cornell, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. rahams, 29 Kans. 725 ; McCulloh v. Y.) 348. Dashiell, 1 Har. & G. (Md.) 96, 18 esin re Hill, 186 Fed. 569. Am. Dec. 271; Stevens v. Perry, 113 BT Peters v. McLaren, 218 Fed. 410. Mass. 380; Allen v. Wells, 22 Pick. 68 See ch. 16, on liability of part- (Mass.) 450, 33 Am. Dec. 757; New- ners to third parties. man v. Bagley, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 570; 69 Lewis V. United States, 92 U. S. Markham v. Calvit, 5 How. (Miss.) 618, 23 L. ed. 513 (afifg. Fed. Cas. 427; Bray v. Seligman, 75 Mo. 31; No. 15595, 13 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 33, Bowker v. Smith, 48 N. H. Ill, 2 2, Wkly. Notes Cas. 31) ; In re San- Am. Rep. 189; Howell v. Teel, 29 N. § 534 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 682 It has been seen that a partner has the right to have the firm assets applied to firm debts, and that firm creditors derive from this right a preference in firm property over creditors of indi- vidual partners. Out of these ^principles have been developed the equitable rules as to the application of partnership and indi- vidual assets as between partnership and individual creditors. § 534. Rights of partnership creditors in partnership assets. — When the application of partnership assets is en- tirely in the hands of a court of equity, as upon dissolution by the court or bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, and where the assets are unaffected by any prior disposition on the part of partners or any valid or prior legal liens against them, it has been stated that "the general rule is that the assets of a firm are to be applied in the following manner: (1) In payment of the debts of the firm to persons who are not partners; (2) in pay- ment to each partner ratably what is due from the firm to him for advances, as distinguished from capital put in; (3) in paying each partner ratably what is due from the firm to him in respect of capital; (4) the ultimate residue, if any, is divisible among the partners in the proportion in which profits are divisible under the partnership contract.'"" This is substantially the rule pro- vided by the Uniform Partnership Act which in this respect merely follows the general law,^^ and the rule obtaining as a general thing is that a preference is to be accorded partnership creditors in the payment of their claims out of the proceeds of the firm property, and that the rights of the creditors of the in- J. Eq. 490; Wisham v. . Lippincott, 9 Car.) 18; Bardwell v. Perry, 19 Vt. N. J. Eq. 353; Crook v. Rindskopf, 292, 47 Am. Dec. 687; Straus v. Kern- lOS N. Y. 476, 12 N. E. 174; Meech good, 21 Grat. (Va.) S84; Lord v. V. Allen, 17 N. Y. 300, 72 Am. Dec. Devendorf, 54 Wis. 491, 11 N. W. 903, 465; Hassell v. Griffin, 2 Jones Eq. 41 Am. Rep. 58. (N. Car.) 117; In re Gallagher's ^o Hyre v. Lambert, 37 W. Va. 26, Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 353, 7 Atl. 237, 16 S. E. 446. 60 Am. Rep. 350; In re Cumming's ^i Uniform Partnership Act, § 40 Appeal, 25 Pa. St. 268, 64 Am. Dec. (b). 695; Kuhne v. Law, 14 Rich. L. (S. 683 APPLICATION OF ASSETS § 535 dividual members of the firm are measured by the amount of the distributive share of the debtor partner on final settlement/^ § 535. Rights of partnership creditors in assets of indi- vidual partners. — Thus the general rule is that firm creditors have a priority in firm assets and creditors of individual partners a priority in their individual assets.'^ With this rule and the reasons advanced for it there has been much dissatisfaction. Mr. " McMillan v. Hadley, 78 Ind. 590. See also Hundley v. Farris, 103 Mo. 78, 15 S. W. 312, 12 L. R. A. 254, 23 Am. St. 863. Compare and see gen- erally Booher v. Perrill, 140 Ind. 529, 40 N. E. 36 ; Robinson v. Security Co., 87 Conn. 268, 87 Atl. 879, Ann. Cas. 1915 C, 1170; Johnson v. Shirley, 152 Ind. 453, 53 N. E. 459; Troll v. City of St. Louis, 257 Mo. 626, 168 S. W. 167; Ivie v. Blum, 159 N. Car. 121, 74 S. E. 807; Ball v. Danton, 64 Ore. 184, 129 Pac. 1032. See also Bridge v. McCullough, 27 Ala. 661; Lucas v. Atwood, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 378; Bullock V. Hubbard, 23 Cal. 495, 83 Am. Dec- 130; Chase v. Steel, 9 Cal. 64; Filley V. Phelps, 18 Conn. 294; Clark v. Al- lee, 3 Har. (Del.) 80; Camp v. Mayer, 47 Ga. 414; Conant v. Frary, 49 Ind. 530; Cox v. Russell, 44 Iowa 556; Pease v. Rush, 2 Minn. 107; Bass V. Estill, SO Miss. 300 ; Williams V. Gage, 49 Miss. 777; Phelps, v. Mc- Neely, 66 Mo. 554, 27 Am. Rep. 378 French v. Lovejoy, 12 N. H. 458 Roberts v. Oldham, 63 N. Car. 297 In re Frow, Jacobs & Co.'s Estate, 73 Pa. St. 459; Johnson v. King, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 233; Converse v. McKee, 14 Tex. 20; Washburn v. Bel- lows Falls Bank, 19 Vt. 278; Chris- tian V. Ellis, 1 Grat. (Va.) 396; Car- per V. Hawkins, 8 W. Va. 291. 73 Clark V. Johnson, 7 Ala. App. 507, 61 So. 34; Lewis v. United States, 92 U. S. 618, 23 L. ed. 513; In re Groetzinger, 110 Fed. 366 (affd. 127 Fed. 814, 62 C. C. A. 494) ; In re Estes, 3 Fed. 134, 6 Sawy. 459; Smith V. Mallory, 24 Ala. 628; Charles v. Eshleman, S Colo. 107; Dilworth V. Curts, 139 111. 508, 29 N. E. 861; Dean v. Phillips, 17 Ind. 406; Firsch-Wickwire Co. v. Denison Clothing Co. (Iowa), 138 N. W. 1101; Taylor v. Riggs, 8 Kans. App. 323, 57 Pac. 44; Glenn v. Gill, 2 Md. 1 ; Ro- senberg V. Schraer, 200 Mass. 218; Somerset Potters Works v. Minot, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 592; Irby v. Graham, 46 Miss. 425 ; Davis v. Howell, 33 N. J. Eq. 72 (affd. 34 N. J. Eq. 292) ; Cammack v. Johnson, 2 N. J. Eq. 163 ; Egberts v. Wood, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 517, 24 Am. Dec. 236; Wilder v. Keel- er, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 167, 23 Am. Dec. 781 ; Everall v. Stevens, 158 App. Div. 723, 143 N. Y. S. 874; Rodgers v. Meranda, 7 Ohio St. 179; In re Black's Appeal, 44 Pa. St. 503; Fowlkes V. Bowers, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 144; Read v. Bailey, 3 App. Cas. 94, 47 L. J. Ch. 161, 37 L. T. (N. S.) 510; Rolfe v. Flower, L. R. 1 P. C. 27, 12 Jur. (N. S.) 345; Ex parte Crowder, 2 Vern. 706. See also In re Peck, 206 N. Y. 55, 99 N. E. 258, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1223, Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 798n (revg. 150 App. Div. 922, 135 N. Y. S. 1131). § 535 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 684 Mechem says, quoting from a leading case :^* "The correctness of this rule, however, has been much controverted and there has not always been a perfect concurrence in the reasons as- signed for it by those courts which have adhered to it. By some it has been said to be an arbitrary rule, established from consid- ' erations of convenience; by others, that it rests on the basis that a primary liability attaches to the fund on which the credit was given, — that in contracts with a partnership, credit is given on the supposed responsibility of the firm; while in contracts with a partner as an individual, reliance is supposed to be placed on his separate responsibility. And again, others have assigned as a reason for the rule that the joint estate is supposed to be bene- fited to the extent of every credit which is given tO' the firm, and that the separate estate is, in like manner, presumed to be en- larged by the debts contracted by the individual partner, and that there is consequently a clear equity in confining the creditors, as to preferences to each estate respectively which has been thus benefited by their transactions. But these reasons are not en- tirely satisfactory. So important a rule must have a better foundation to stand upon than mere considerations of conveni- . ence; and practically it is undeniable that those who give credit to a partnership look to the individual responsibility of the part- ners as well as that of the firm ; and also, those who contract with a partner m his separate capacity place reliance on his various resources or means, whether individual or joint. And inasmuch as individual debts are often contracted to raise means which are put into the business of a partnership, and also partnership effects often withdrawn from the firm and appropriated to the separate use of the partners, it can not be practically true that the separate estate has been benefited to the extent of every credit given to each individual partner, nor that the joint estate has retained from the separate estate of each partner the bene- fit of every credit given to the firm," The court, however, con- 7* Mechem Partnership, § 293, quot- ing Rodgers v. Meranda, 7 Ohio St 179. 685 APPLICATION OF ASSETS § 535 eluded that the rule was well established, saying: "Some gen- eral rule is necessary, and that must rest on the basis of the un- alterable preference of the partnership creditors in the joint ef- fects and their further right to some claim in the separate prop- erty of each of the several partners. The preference, therefore, of the individual creditors of a partner in the distribution of his separate estate, results as a principle of equity from the pref- erence of partnership creditors in the partnership funds, and their advantage in having different funds to resort to, while the individual creditors have but one." But whether the reasons assigned for the rule are satisfactory or not, the rule itself seems to be established by the clear weight of authority. And this rule was followed by the framers of the Uniform Partner- ship Act, since it is the settled rule already in most states.'® In New York the general rule has been modified to the extent that the holder of a claim arising out of a tort for which the members of the partnership are both jointly and severally liable is entitled upon assignment for creditors to share equally in partnership assets with other partnership creditors, and in individual assets with individual creditors.'^* In some jurisdictions the rule is that firm creditors, must exhaust the firm property and then may share equally with individual creditors in individual prop- ert;;^" As to this rule, Mr. Mechem says:" "But notwith- 75 Uniform Partnership Act, § 40 Conn. 268, 87 Atl. 879, Ann. Cas. (h). See 29 Harv. L. Rev. 306, article 1915 C, 1170; Camp v. Grant, 21 Conn. ■ by William Draper Lewis. 41, 54 Am. Dec. 321 ; Gueringer v. 76 In re Peck, 206 N. Y. 55, 99 N. E. His Creditors, 33 La. Ann. 1279; 258, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1223, Ann. Blair v. Black, 31 S. Car. 346, 9 S. E. Cas. 1914 A, 798n (revg. 150 App. 1033, 17 Am. St. 30; Kuhne v. Law, Div. 922, 135 N. Y. S. 1131); In re 14 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 18; Sniffer v. Blackford, 35 App. Div. 330, 54 N. Y. Sass, 14 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 20; Gads- S. 972. And it is held in New York den v. Carson, 9 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) that the personal assets of a partner 252, 70 Am. Dec. 207; Fleming v. Bill- can not be taken to satisfy firm debts ings, 9 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 149; Rice unless firm assets are first exhausted v. Barnard, 20 Vt. 479, 50 Am. Dec. or the estate of the other partner is 54; Bardwell v. Perry, 19 Vt. 292, insolvent. In re Roberts, 214 N. Y. 47 Am. Dec. 687; Pettyjohn v. Wood-' 369, 108 N. E. 562. roof, 86 Va. 478, 10 S. E. 715. 77 Robinson v. ' Security Co., 87 78 Mechem Partnership, § 294. § 535 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 686 standing the quite general concurrence in the rule giving each class of creditors priority in the respective funds, it has met with some forcible dissent, and upon principle it is difficult to be sus- tained. The true rule, from the standpoint of principle, would seem to be that inasmuch as each partner is individually liable for the partnership debts, the creditors of the firm (and there- fore of each partner as well), after exhausting the partnership assets, are entitled to share equally with the separate creditors in the separate assets of the partners. The basis of this rule is found in the fact that the partnership creditor has recourse to two funds (i. e. the partnership assets and the individual assets) while the individual creditor has recourse to but one fund, namely the individual assets; and it is a principle of equity that where one creditor has access to two funds while another cred- itor has access to but one, the former shall exhaust the separate fund before resorting to the common fund." It was also said in a Connecticut case in criticizing the more general rule 'J^ "The principle of marshaling of assets has been occasionally invoked. As pertinent as that doctrine, may be to the requirement that the joint creditors, having two funds to which they are, entitled to look, and the separate creditors only one, the former should be compelled to exhaust the fund against which they, alone can go before resorting to the other, it furnishes no justification for forbidding the partnership creditors with claims unsatisfied out of the joint funds to look to the separate funds until after the separate creditors have had their claims satisfied. Equity never wrought into the doctrine of marshaling of assets any principle fratight with any such unjust consequences. * * '^^ A cred- itor of a partnership can look to partnership property to satisfy his claim, or he can, at his option enforce his judgment by direct levy upon the estate of any partner with an entire disregard of the partnership property. In equity his claim is a joint and several one. A creditor of a partner has no claim upon partner- ^^ Robinson v. Security Co., 87 Conn. 268, 87 Atl. 879, Ann. Cas. 191S C, 1170. 687 APPLICATION OF ASSETS § 539 ship property. The most that he can under any circumstances reach is the interest of the partner, which may be nothing at all if the firm liabilities so make it. A rule of distribution of assets in insolvency which overlooks these distinctions whether heed- lessly or in the search for equahty as between the two classes of creditors, disregards an important factor in the situation." In some other jurisdictions the rule is that individual creditors shall receive a percentage from, the individual property equal to that received from the firm property by firm creditors and the remaining property is then distributed pro rata between the classes.*" In one case in Maine it was held that the estate of an insane partner and the partnership funds in the hands of the receiver were one fund for the payment of firm debts.^^ In any of these jurisdictions it is usually held that if there is but one fund for both classes of creditors, that is if there are no part- nership assets and no solvent partner, then partnership creditors and individual creditors share equally in the separate property of a partner,*^ though the contrary has also been held.^^ Where a partner is a surety for a firm debt, his individual creditors have the right to compel the application of the firm property to the firm debts before his individual property.®* The creditors of a so Johnson v. Gordon, 102 Ga. 350, 7 Atl. 243; Pearce v. Cooke, 13 R. 30 S. E. 507; Fayette Nat. Bank v. I. 184; Higgins v. Rector, 47 Tex. Kenney, 19 Ky. 133, 2 Ky. L. 35; 361; Curtis v. Woodward, 58 Wis. Whitehead v. Chadwell, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 499, 17 N. W. 328, 46 Am. Rep. 647 432 ; Northern Bank v. Keizer, 2 Duv. ( 1883 ) . (Ky.) 169. Compare Toombs v. Hill, ^3 Howe v. Lawrence, 9 Cush. 28 Ga. 371. (Mass.) 553, 57 Am. Dec. 68 (1852) ; 81 Fogg V. Tyler, 111 Maine 546, 90 Warren v. Farmer, 100 Ind. 593 Atl. 481. (1884) ; In re Gray, 111 N. Y. 404 82 Records v. McKim, 115 Md. 299, (1888). 80 Atl. 968; In re West, 39 Fed. 203 s^In re Foot, 8 Ben. 228, 12 Nat. (1889); In re Lloyd, 22 Fed. 88 Bankr. Reg. 337, Fed. Cas. No. 4906; (1884) ; Emanuel v. Bird, 19 Ala. Bell v. Hepworth, 134 N. Y. 442, 31 596, 54 Am. Dec. 200; Harris v. Pea- N. E. 918 (affg. 51 Hun 616, 4 N. Y. body, Ti Maine 262 ; Brock v. Bate- S. 823, 22 N. Y. St. 114) ; Averill v. man, 25 Ohio St. 609; Rodgers v. Me- Loucks, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 470; Wilder randa, 7 Ohio St. 179; Grosvenor v. v. Keeler, 3 Paige (N.Y.) 167, 23 Austin, 6 Ohio 103, 25 Am. Dec. 743 ; Am. Dec. 781. See also Lawson v. Alexander v. Gorman, 15 R. I. 421, Dunn, 66 N. J. Eq. 90, £7 Atl. 415. 536 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 688 firm have a prior right over individual creditors of the partners to subject firm real estate to the payment of debts.*° § 536. Rights of creditors of individual partners. — What- ever may be the facts concerning the possession of a lien by part- nership creditors, no court has been found which has gone to the extent of holding that creditors of the individual members of the firm are entitled to a preference over the partnership cred- itors in the matter of satisfaction of their claims from the com- mon property. On the other hand, it seems to be settled that firm creditors take priority over personal creditors, and that the latter are recognized only after the amounts owing the former have been paid, for the rights of individual creditors in firm assets are limited to the debtor's interest which is his share in Compare Gotzian v. Shakman, 89 Wis. 52, 61 N. W. 304, 46 Am. St. 820; Whitlock Cordage Co. v. Hine (Md.), 93 Atl. 431 ; Rush v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 319. 85 Long V. Slade, 121 Ala. 267, 26 So. 31 ; Goldthwaite v. Janney, 102 Ala. 431, IS So. 560,. 28 L. R. A. 161, 48 Am. St. 56; Shanks v. Klein, 104 U. S. 18, 26 L. ed. 635; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. (U. S.) 333, 11 L. ed. 622 (affg. 3 McLean 27, Fed. Cas. No. 11116) ; In re Warren, 2 Ware (Dav. 320) 322, Fed. Cas. No. 17191 (1847) ; Golden State &c. Iron Works v. Dav- idson, 73 Cal. 389, IS Pac. 20 ; Reeves V. Ayers, 38 111. 418; Booher v. Per-, rill, 140 Ind. 529, 40 N. E. 36; Walling V. Burgess, 122 Ind. 299, 22 N. E. 419, 23 N. E. 1076, 7 L. R. A. 481; McMillan v. Hadley, 78 Ind. 590 (1881) ; Conant v. Frary, 49 Ind. 530 (1875) ; Paige v. Paige, 71 Iowa 318, 32 N. W. 360, 60 Am. Rep. 799; Stad- ler V. Allen, 44 Iowa 198 (1876); Evans v. Hawley, 35 Iowa 83 (1872) ; Flanagan v. Shuck, 82 Ky. 617, 6 Ky. L. 699; Bryant v. Hunter, 6 Bush (Ky.) 75; Galbraith v. Gedge, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 631. (1855); Calder v. Creditors, 47 La. Ann. 346, 16 So. 852; Crooker v. Crooker, 46 Maine 250; Fall River Whaling Co. v. Bor- den, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 458 (1852) ; Childs v. Pellett, 102 Mich. 558, 61 N. W. 54; Smith v. Jones, 18 Nebr. 481, 25 N. W. 624 (1885) ; Standish V. Babcock, 52 N. J. Eq. 628, 29 Atl. 327; Matlack v. James, 13' l^T. J. Eq. 126 (1860) ; Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 165, 47 Am. Dec. 305; Everett v. Schepmoes, 6 Hun (N. Y.) 479 (1876); Schenck v. In- graham, 5 Hun (N. Y.) 397 (1875) ; Hiscock V. Phelps, 49 N. Y. 97; Sands v. Kimbark, 27 N. Y. 147 (1863); CoUumb v. Read, 24 N. Y. SOS (1862) ; Delmonico v. Guillaume, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 366; Menden- hall V. Benbow, 84 N. Car. 646 (1881) ; Ross V. Henderson, 11 N. Car. 170 (1877) ; Donaldson v. State Bank, 16 N. Car. 103, 18 Am. Dec. 577; Mar- vin V. Trumbull, Wright (Ohio) 386 (1833) ; Lane v. Jones, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 627; Diggs v. Brown, 78 Va. 292 (1884). 689 APPLICATION OF ASSETS § 536 the surplus after firm debts are paid, and after all equities be- tween partners, are adjusted.^® So it has been held that although an individual creditor attaches firm property prior to the suing out of attachment by partnership creditors, the lien of the latter will be superior to that of the former/^ Again, in another case, the complainants, alleging themselves to be judgment creditors of the partnership, sought to hold the defendants who had ob- tained possession of the partnership assets by fraudulently repre- senting that one of their number had been appointed receiver, trustees ex maleficio, but the court denied them a decree on ac- count of the fact that their judgments were against persons associated in the partnership relation as individuals, and third ssLovins v. Laub, 85 Misc. 336, 147 v. Ritchie, 159 Mo. 213, 60 S. W. 87; N. Y. S. 304; Ryckman v. Manerud, In re Edward's Estate (Mo.), 24 S. 68 Ore. 350, 136 Pac 826, Ann. Cas. W. 758 (revd. 122 Mo. 426, 25 S. W. 1915 C, 522; Moore Grocery Co. v. 904, 29 L. R. A. 681); Rockefellar McCan (Tex. Civ. App.), 169 S. W. v. Dellinger, 22 Mont. 418, 56 Pac. 191. See also State v. Emmons, 99 822, 74 Am. St. 613 ; Tappan v. Blais- Ind. 452 ; United States v. Duncan, dell, 5 N. H. 190 ; Standish v. Babcock, 4 McLean (U. S.) 607, Fed. Cas. 52 N. J. Eq. 628, 29 Atl. 327; United No. 15003, 12 111. 523 ; New York Nat. Bank v. Weatherby, 70 App. Div. Commercial Co. v. Francis, 101 Fed. 279, 75 N. Y. S. 3; Drexel v. Pease, 16, 41 C. C. A. 167; New York Com- 59 Hun 626, 13 N. Y. S. 774, 37 N. mercial ,Co. v. Francis, 96 Fed. 266; Y. St. 166 (affd. 129 N. Y. 96, 29 N. Dixie Cotton Oil Co. v. Morris, 79 E. 241) ; Daniel v. Crowell, 125 N. Ark. 113, 94 S. W. 933; Livermore Car. 519, 34 S. E. 684; Rodgers v. V. Truesdell, 9 Colo. App. 332, 48 Pac. Meranda, 7 Ohio St. 179; McManus v. 276; Witter v. Richards, 10 Conn. Z7 ; Smith, Z7 Ore. 222, 61 Pac. 844; Pon- Haines y. Millers, 61 Ga. 344; Mc- tins v. Walls, 197 Pa. St. 223, 47 Atl. Gillis V. Hogan, 190 111. 176, 60 N. E. 203 ; In re Stewart's Estate, 193 Pa. 91 (affg. 85 111. App. 194) ; Johnson St. 347, 44 Atl. 434; Calhoun v. Bank V. Shirley, 152 Ind. 453, iZ N. E. 459; of Greenwood, 42 S. Car. 357, 20 S. Van Zuuk v. Pothoven, 132 Iowa 19, E. 153; Wright v. Market Bank 109 N. W. 288; Holmes v. Miller, 19 (Ch. App. 1900) (Tenn.), 60 S. W. Ky. L. 660, 41 S. W. 432; Downing 623; Willis v. Freeman, 35 Vt. 44, 82 V. Linville, 3 Bush (Ky.) 472; Reily Am. Dec. 619; Maddock's Admx. v. V. Creditors, 45 La. Ann. 470, 12 So. Skinker, 93 Va. 479, 25 S. E. 535 ; 519; Ridgely v. Carey, 4 Harr. & Lewis v. Crane, 50 W. Va. 239, 40 S. McH. (Md.) 167; Kunzfe v. Cox, 113 E. 347; Rommerdahl v. Jackson, 102 Mich.' 546, 71 N. W. 864, 67 Am. St. Wis. 444, 78 N. W. 742. 480; Atwood v. Meredith, Z7 Miss. 87 New York Commercial Co. v. 635; Mansur-Tebbetts Implement Co. Francis, 101 Fed. 16, 41 C. C. A. 167. 44 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 537 , LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 690 persons not members of the firm.'^ So a loan of money to a per- son with which to purchase an interest in a firm,*^ or to a partner to pay the amount of his contribution to the partnership capital does not create a firm obligation.'" Moreover it has been held that the indorsement by a partner of the individual note of his copartner does not entitle it to satisfaction as a claim against the firm.''^ So where a partner assigns his interest' in the property of the firm as security for his individual debt, such security is taken subject to the fluctuations of the business and can only be realized upon after firm debts, including those subsequently contracted, have been paid.®^ But, as was seen, in equity the creditors of .individual partners are generally given a preference over firm creditors in a partner's separate estate.'^ § 537. Rights of partner as firm creditor. — A partner stands, in the matter of obtaining satisfaction of any debts owing him by the firm as such, on a plane intermediate betweeyi those occupied by firm and individual creditors. In other words, he is a secondary creditor. Whatever right he may pos- sess as regards reimbursement is inferior to the rights of part- nership creditors and it is only after the latter's claims have been discharged that he can secure recognition of his demands.** Yet 88 Savage v. Johnson, 125 Ala. 18 Ky. L. 1061, 39 S. W. SOI ; Arnold €]Z, 28 So. 547. v. Hamer, Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 509; 89 Dixie Cotton Oil Co. v. Morris, McDonald v. Meek, 57 Mo. App. 254 ; 79 Ark. 113, 94 S. W. 933; Harga- Crockett v. Grain, 33 N. H. 542; Case dine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co. v. v. McGill, 69 N. J. Eq. 354, 60 All. Sappington, 105 Mo. App. 655, 78 S. 569; In re Baldwin, 170 N. Y. 156, 63 W. 1049. N. E. 62, 58 L. R. A. 122; Ganson v. 90 McGillis V. Hogan, 190 III. 176, 60 Lathrop, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 455 ; Mat- N. E. 91 (affg. 85 111. App. 194). ter of Hallock, 47 Misc. 571, 96 N. 91 In re Hallock, 47 Misc. 571, 96 Y. S. 105; In re Stewart, 4 Abb. Pr. N. Y. S. 105. 408, 4 Bradf. Surr. (N. Y.) 254; In 92 Ivie V. Blum, 159 N. Car. 121, 74 re D'Invillier's Estate, 13 Phila. (Pa.) S. E. 807. 362. See Felan v. McGill, 3 Ch. 93 See § 535. Emanuel v. Bird, 19 Chamb. (U. C.) 68. Ala. 596, 54 Am. Dec. 200; Toombs 9* Wallerstein v. Ervin, 112 Fed. V. Hill, 28 Ga. 371; Bond v. Nave, 62 124, 50 C. C. A. 129; Coster v. Bank Ind. 505; Gillaspy v. Peck, 46 Iowa of Georgia, 24 Ala. 37; Josselson v. 4^1 ; Beard v. Bank of Hardinsburg, Butler, 162 Ky. 229, 172 S. W. 503 ; 691 APPLICATION OF ASSE;TS i 537 it has been held that the assignee of a partner's claim ranks equally with other creditors,'^ and that the claim of a partner will take precedence over the claims of individual creditors of other members of thefirm.^^ So, too, it has been held that if a partner mortgage his separate property to secure a firm debt, he thereby becomes a surety for the firm, and that his separate creditors, upon his -bankruptcy or insolvency, have a right to insist that the partnership property be first applied to the payment of the Wilkerson v. Tichenor, 62 S. W. 870, 23 Ky. L. 244; Simrall v. O'Bannons, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 608; Rowlett v. Grieve, 8 Mart. (O. S.) (La.) 483, 13 Am. Dec. 296; White Cloud Milling &c. Co. V. Thomson (Mo.), 175 S. W. 897; Pott V. Schmucker, 84 Md. 535, 36 Atl. 592, 35 L. R. A. 392, 57 Am. St. 415; White Cloud Milling &c. Co. V. Thomson, 166 Mo. App. 170, 148 S. W. 969; Ross v. Carson, 32 Mo. App. 148 ; Roop v. Herron, 15 Nebr. 73, 17 N. W. 353; Lawson v. Dunn, 66 N. J. Eq. 90, 57 Atl. 415; Edison Electric Illuminating Co. v. DeMott, 51 N. J. Eq. 16, 25 Atl. 952; Coffin V. Hollister, 64 Hun 639, 5 Silv. 172, 7 N. Y. S. 734; In re Rieser, 19 Hun 202 (affd. 81 N. Y. 629) ; Martin v. Carlisle (Okla.), 148 Pac. 833 ; Barr v. McFall, 131 Pa. St. 304, 18 Atl. 876; Colwell v. Wey- bosset Nat. Bank, 16 R. I. 288, IS Atl. 80, 17 Atl. 913; Frank v. Anderson, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 695 ; Schuster v. Far- mers' &c. Nat. Bank, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 206, 54 S. W. m, 55 S. W. 1121, 56 S. W. 9Z; Gibbs v. Humphrey, 91 Wis. Ill, 64 N. W. 750; Kay v. Johnston, 21 Beav. 536, 52 Eng. Re- print 967; In re Ruby, 24 Ont. App. 509. But see Gillespie v. Salmon, 2 Cal. App. 501, 84 Pac. 310, in which it is held that where a partner pays and takes up a firm note, he thereby becomes a creditor of the partner- ship and in his suit for an account- ing and settlement, the assets of the firm must be first applied to the pay- ment of his claim. 95 Frank v. Anderson, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 695. Contra: In re Rieser, 19 Hun 202 (affd. 81 N. Y. 629). See also Nichol v. Stewart, 36 Ark. 612; Moore v. Steele, 61 Tex. 435, 3 S. W. 448. ssBoyce v. Coster, 4 Strobh. Eq. (S. Car.) 25. See also' Gillespie v. Salmon, 2 Cal. App. 501, 84 Pac. 310; Hobbs V. McLean, 117 U. S. 567, 29 L. ed. 940, 6 Sup. Ct 870 ; Warren v. Taylor, 60 Ala. 218; Nichol v. Stew- art, 36 Ark. 612 ; Rainey v. Nance, 54 111. 29; Stone v. Manning, 3 111. 530, 35 Am. Dec. 119; Walter v. Herman, 110 Ky. 800, 62 S. W. 857, 23 Ky. L. 741; Purdy v. Hood, S Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 626; Crooker v. Crooker, 52 Maine 267, 83 Am. Dec. 509; Conk- ling V. Washington University, 2 Md. Ch. 497; Pierce v. Tiernan, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 253; Cheeseman v. Sturges, 19 N. Y. Super. Ct. 520; Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 165, 47 Am. Dec. 305; Mendenhall v. Ben- bow, 84 N. Car. 646 ; Moore v. Steele, 67 Tex. 435, 3 S. W. 448; Christian V. Ellis, 1 Grat. (Va.) 396; Ex parte King, 1 Rose 212, 17 Ves. Jr. 115, 11 Rev. Rep. 34, 34 Eng. Reprint 45. § 538 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 692 debt so secured.'^ Along the same line it is held that each part- ner has a specific lien on the partnership stock for moneys ad- vanced by- him more than his share for the use of the copart- nership, and the lien of each partner exists, not only as against the other partner, but also as against all persons claiming through them or any of them.*^ § 538. Rights of partners or firm as creditors of individual partner. — Under the rule that the individual creditors of a partner, are preferred to the creditors of the firm in his separate assets, the firm or copartners representing it, can not share in the separate estate until the separate creditors are paid.®* But where a partner has fraudulently appropriated firm money to his own use, the firm, as a creditor, or its representative is entitled to share equally with his individual creditors.^ And a copartner who has an individual claim tnay share with other individual creditors,^ although in so doing he must not come into competi- tion with firm creditors." "Averill V. Loucks, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 470. 38 Lewis V. Harrison, 81 Ind. 278. 89 In re Hamilton, 1 Fed. 800 (1880) ; George v. Morison, 93 Md. 132, 48 Atl. 744; Somerset Potters Works V. Minot, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 592; Kirby v. Carpenter, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 373; In re McCormick's Appeal, SS Pa. St. 2S2 ; Cowan v. Gill, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 674 (1883) ; Gibbs v. Hum- phrey, 91 Wis. Ill, 64 N. W. 750; Walton V. Butler, 29 Beav. 428, 54 Eng. Reprint 693 ; Pinkett v. Wright, 2 Hare 120, 6 Jur. 1102, 12 L. J. Ch. 119, 24 Eng. Ch. 120, 67 Eng. Re- print 50; Read v. Bailey (1877), 3 App. Cas. 94; Ex parte assignees of Lodge & Feudal (1790), 1 Vesey Jr. 166. Contra: Bird v. Bird, 11 Maine 499, 1 Atl. 455. 1 Wile V. Denison Clothing Co,, 158 Iowa 109, 138 N. W. 1098; McEIroy V. AUfree, 131 Iowa 518, 108 N. W. 119; Ex parte Sillitoe, 1 Glyn & Jame- son 374. 2 Busby V. Chenault, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 554; In re Dell, 5 Sawy. (U. S.) 344, Fed. Cas. No. 3774; Hill v. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31; Payne v. Matthews, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 19, 29 Am. Dec. 738; In re Scott's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 173; Moffatt v. Thomson, 5 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 155, 57 Am. Dec. IZl; Morris v. Morris, 4 Grat., ( Va.) 293 ; In re Motion, L. R. 9 Ch. 192, 43 L. J. Bankr. 59; Ex parte Watson, Buck 449, 4 Madd. 477, 20 Rev. Rep. 319; Ex parte Topping, 4 DeG., J. & S. 551, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 210; Wood V. Dodgson, 2 M. & S. 195, 1 Rose 47, 14 Rev. Rep. 628. 3 Mann v. Higgins, 7 Gill (Md.) 265; Lawson v. Dunn, 6^ N. J. Eq. 90, 57 Atl. 415; In re Bennett's Es- tate, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 331; Ex parte 693 APPLICATION OF ASSETS § 540 § 539. Rights of creditors of different firms having com- mon partner. — The rule where there are different partner- ships having common members, is that the assets of each part- nership belong to its own creditors, in preference to the creditors of the other partnership which has common members.* If the same persons carry on the same business at different places and under different names, the courts make no distinction, and recog- nize hut one partnership.^ § 540. Priority of creditors on change of membership. — The general rule is that when a change of members is made as by retirement of one partner and admission of another, this is the creation of a new firm and the property of the old firm be- comes that of the new firm, extinguishing the rights of the cred- itors of the old firm to a preference.* This is not the case if it is provided by agreement that change of membership shall not work a dissolution.'' Where the new firm has agreed in consid- eration of the transfer of firm assets, to assume the debts of the old firm, then the creditbrs of each share equally.* Change of membership in a joint stock company does not affect the rights of creditors.' The framers of the Uniform Partnership Act, recognizing the injustice of the somewhat arbitrary rule that Andrews, 25 Ch. D, SOS, S3 L. J, Ch. 133 ; Guild v. Leonard, 18 Pick. 411, SO L. T. (N. S.) 679; Ex parte (Mass.) Sll; Smith v. Howard, 20 Grazebrook, 2 Deac. & C. 186. How. Pr. (N. Y.) 121 ; Hollis v. Sta- * Selz V. Mayer, ISl Ind. 422, SI N. ley, 3 Baxt. (Tenn.) 167, 27 Am. Rep. E. 485; Rowlett v. Grieve, 8 Mart. 759. (O. S.) (La.) 483, 13 Am. Dec. 296; ''Rand v. Wright, 141 Ind. 226, 39 Bonwit V. Heyman, 43 Nebr. 537, 61 N. E. 447. N. W. 716; In re Grove's Appeal, 176 s pgyser v. Myers, 135 N. Y. 599, Pa. St. 354, 35 Atl. 237; McCauly v. 32 N. E. 699; Smead v. Lacey, 1 McFarlane, 2 Desaus. Eq. (S. Car.) Disn. 239, 12 Ohio Dec. 597; Shedd 239. V. Brattleboro Bank, 32 Vt. 709; 6 Campbell v. Colorado Coal &c. Co., Thayer v. Humphrey, 91 Wis. 276, 64 9 Colo. 60, 10 Pac. 248; Bancode Por- N. W. 1007, 30 L. R. A. 549, 51 Am. tugal V. Waddell, 5 App. Cas. 161. St. 887. Compare Oswego Second Nat. Bank » Carter v. McClure, 98 Tenn. 109, V. Burt, 93 N. Y. 233; and West v. 38 S. W. 585, 36 L. R. A. 282, 60 Am. Valley Bank, 6 Ohio St. 168. St. 842. « Locke V. Hall, 9 Greenl. (Maine) § 541 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 694 creditors of a firm lost their right to a preference in partnership assets upon a change of membership, provided that in practically all cases of continuance of business by a firm on change of mem- bership, the creditors of the old firm are also creditors of the new firm,^° and also the incoming partner is made liable for debts of the old firm to the extent of the partnership property/^ § 541. Priority of creditors in cases of ostensible partner- ship. — In the few cases in which the question has arisen it is generally held that creditors of an ostensible partnership, where in fact one person was sole owner, are not entitled to have the property in the possession of the supposed firm applied to their debts prior to those of the individual creditors of the real debtor.^^ The reasoning seems to be that partnership cred- itor's rights to a preference can only be worked out through the partner's rights, and if there is no partnership in fact, then there is no basis for such preference/^ But sometimes a preference may be granted on the ground of estoppel.^* And in one leading case, the court gave the creditors of the ostensible partnership priority over creditors who had credited the real owner as an individual, the court saying: "If a person allows another to carry on business in such a way as to amount to a holding out to persons generally that he and such other are partners, and credit is given to both on the supposition that they are partners in fact, the property with which such business is carried on, though in law that of such persons, in equity will be treated as the joint property of such person and such other; and neither of them, nor the creditors of either, can prove up in insolvency in i» Uniform Partnership Act, § 41. 414, 47 Am. St. 920; In re Scull's Ap- " Uniform Partnership Act, § 17. peal, US Pa. St. 141, 7 Atl. 588. 12 Johnson v. Williams, 111 Va. 95, , i* Grabenheimer v. Rindskoff, 64 68 S. E. 410, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) Tex. 49; Himmelreich v. Shaffer, 182 406, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 47; Miller v. Pa. St. 201, Zl Atl. 1007, 61 Am. St. Creditors, Zl La. Ann. 604; Bremen 698; Whitworth v. Patterson, 6 Lea Savings Bank v. Branch-Crookes Saw (Tenn.) 119. See also Densmore v. Co., 104 Mo. 425, 16 S. W. 209 ; Bates Mathews, 58 Mich. 616, 26 N. W. 146. V. Nuckols (Miss.), 11 So. 109; Bix- "Kelly v. Scott, 49 N. Y. 595; ler V. Kresge, 169 Pa. St. 405, 32 Atl. Hillman v. Moore, 3 Tenn. Ch. 454; 695 APPLICATION OF ASSETS § 541 competition with the creditors who have trusted the two as partners and the business as that of the two. * * * Applying the law thus stated to the question under consideration, the con- clusion is easily reached that, while there are no firm assets at law of the ostensible firm of J. B. Goss & Co., all the property used by J. B. Goss in conducting the business, in equity, is the joint prop- erty of such ostensible firm, and to it all the creditors of such ostensible firm can resort, the same in all respects as if there had been a firm in fact."" And this rule has been applied in other cases.^® In order to prevent such holdings as this, it was pro- vided in effect in the Uniform Partnership Act that where one represents himself or consents to another representing him as a partner with one or more persons not actually partners, then no partnership liability results, and "he is liable jointly with the other persons, if any, so consenting to the contract or representa- tion as to incur liability, otherwise separately."" Meridian Nat. Bank v. McConica, 4 E. 722; In re Rowland, L. R. 1 Ch. Ohio C. D. 106, 8 Ohio C. C. 442. 421; Ex parte Hayman, L. R. 8 Ch. 15 Thayer v. Humphrey, 91 Wis. 276, Div. 11 ; Ex parte Arbouin, 1 De Gex. 64 N. W. 1007, 30 L. R. A. 549, 51 359. Am. St. 887. " Uniform Partnership Act, § 16. 1^ Van Kleeck v. McCabe, 87 Mich. See discussion by William Draper 599, 49 N. W. 872, 24 Am. St. 182; Lewis, 29 Harv. Law. Rev., pp. 300- Gorham v, Innis, 115 N. Y. 87, 21 N. 302. CHAPTER XVIII CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP SECTION 550. Change of membership — In gen- eral. 551. Transfer of partner's interest to copartner. 552. Transfer of partner's interest to third party. 553. Firm name — Good-will — Compe- tition by retiring partner. 554. Rights of retiring partner in as- sets of old firm. 555. Rights of continuing partner and new firm in assets of old firm. 556. Liability of retiring partner for obligations of old firm. 557. Assumption of debts of old firm. 558. Retiring partner as surety on ob- ligations of old firm. SECTION 559. Liability of continuing partners or new firm for obligations of old firm. 560. Liability under Uniform Part- nership Act of persons continu- ing business. 561. Liability of incoming partner fpr obligations of old firm. 562. Novation — ^Application of pay- ments. 563. Liability of retiring partner for new firm's obligations. 564. Liability to retiring partner on breach of agreement to assume firm debts. § 550. Change of membership — In general. — As was stated in a former chapter, a partner has a right to sell his in- terest in the firm.^ The sale by a partner of his interest in the firm does not prevent the other partners from carrying on the business, and if they do it is presumed that it is done under the old agreement.^ There are many holdings to the effect that a transfer of, a partner's interest works a dissolution of the firm.* iSee ante ch. 11, § 291. See also Alvord V. Smith, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 232; Cochran v. Perry, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 262; Cassels v. Stewart, 6 App. Cas. 64, 29 Wkly. Rep. 636; Ex parte Peake, 1 Madd. 346, 16 Rev. Rep. 233, 56 Eng. Reprint 128. 2 See ante § 225, on continuation of business. See also Frederick v. Cooper, 3 Iowa 171; Gossett v. Weatherly, 58 N. Car. 46; Zaepfel v. Baumgardner, 6 Lane. Bar. (Pa.) 141. Contra: Givens v. Berry, 21 Ky. L. 680, 52 S. W. 942, holding that a new partnership is created when a new partner is admitted. 3 See § 591, on dissolution by trans- fer of partner's interest. 696 697 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 550 So.it has often been held that the retirement of a partner/ the admission of a new partner,^ the sale of a partner's interest to a copartner,* or to a third person/ bring about the dissolution of the firm. And there are authorities to the effect that when a partner retires from the firm or a new partner is admitted, with- out discontinuing the business, this is the dissolution of the old firm and the creation of a new one/ Under the Uniform Part- nership Act transfer of a partner's interest does not .of itself dissolve a partnership/ Whatever in the absence of express agreement of all partners may be the technical effect of the ad- mission of a new member or retirement of an old member these conditions are ordinarily cared for by agreement, either under provisions in partnership articles authorizing a retirement,^" or .arrangements made by the partners at the time of retirement.^^ By agreement of all the partners a new member may be admitted into an existing firm, increasing the number of partners," but ^Violett V. Fairchild, 6 La. Ann. 193; Eieaver v. Lewis, 14 Ark. 138; Spaunhorst v. Link, 46 Mo. 197; Warren v. Maloney, 29 Mo. App. 101; Bank of Mobile v. Andrews, 2 Sneed. (Tenn.) S3S. 6 Hatchett v. Blanton, 72 Ala. 423 ; McCall V. Moss, 112 III. 493 ; Mudd V. Bast, 34 Mo. 465 ; Bank of Mobile V. Andrews, 2 Sneed. (Tenn.) S3S; Peters v. McWilliams, 78 Va. 567. e Schleicher v. Walker, 28 Fla. 680, 10 So. 33 ; Clark v. Carr, 45 111. App. 469; Rogers v. Nichols, 20 Tex. 719. Not ipso facto, Taft v. Bufifum, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 322; tobdell v. Bald- win, 93 Mich. 569, S3 N. W. 730. ; 7 McCall V. Moss, 112 111. 493; De •Manderfield v. Field, 7 N. Mex. 17, 32 Pac. 146; Mumford v. McKay, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 442, 24 Am. Dec. 34; Cochran v. Perry, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 262; Ballard v. Callison, 4 W. Va. 326; Conrad v. Buck, 21 W. Va. 396. 8 See § 591, on dissolution by trans- fer of interest. 8 Uniform Partnership Act, § 27. iPAlvord V. Smith, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 232; Guccione v. Scott, 33 App. Div. 214, S3 N. Y. S. 462 (affg. 21 Misc. 410, 47 N. Y. S. 475) ; Merrick v. Brainard, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 574; Cooper V. Edeburn, 198 Pa. St. 229, 47 Atl. 1116; Wilson v. Black, 164 Pa. St. 555, 30 Atl. 488; Houghtaling V. Brinckle, 7 Pa. Dist. 518 ; McGlen- sey V. Cox, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 387; Col- lins V. Barker (1893), 1 Ch. 578, 62 L. J. Ch.'316, 68 L. i: 572; Rowlands v. Evans, 30 Beav. 302, 8 Jur. (N. S.) 88; Cooper v. Watlington, 2 Chit. 451, 18 E. C. L. 732 ; Watney v. Trist, 45 L. J. Ch. 412. And see Schuyler V. Cullen, 120 App. Div. 637, 105 N. Y. S. 544. "Hazell V. Clark, 89 Mo. App. 78; McConomy v. Reed, 152 Pa. St. 42, 25 Atl. 176; Gray v. Smith, 43 Ch. D. 208, 59 L. J. Ch. 145. 12 See ante § 201, delectus per- sonarum. § 551 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 698 one partner has no power to admit another into the firm.^^ The admission of a new partner into a firm may be a valid consid- eration for an agreement of another partner to abstain from various acts.^* § 551. Transfer of partner's interest to copartner. — The transfer by a partner of his interest in the firm business to a co- partner upon valuable consideration, passes his entire title to firm property and assets,^^ subject to no liens in favor of partner- ship creditors/" A note given for such interest is a valid debt." If either partner does not act with the utmost good faith toward the other in the sale and purchase of an interest in the business, the sale may be rescinded or an action for deceit will lie.^® But the agreement ' for transfer must be clear and completely exe- cuted, and a partner's interest in firm property is not affected by mere preliminary negotiations for a sale of his interest or the creation of an agency in the other partner to collect firm debts.^" Thus, partners who buy a note which another partner^ owes to the firm for his interest in the partnership do not acquire the right to take his place in the firm.^" But a transfer of his in- terest by a partner to a copartner is subject to a prior mortgage i^Folsom V. Fernstrom, 43 Utah ^'^ Richardson v. Da /is, 70 Miss. 432,, 134 Pac. 1021. 219, 11 So. 790; Ratchford v. Cov- " Marvel v. Jonah, 86 Atl. 968, 81 ington County Stock Co., 172 Ala. N. J. Eq. 369. 461, 55 So. 806. 15 Richardson v. Davis, 70 Miss. is See ch. 14, § 400, on duties of 219, 11 So. 790; Towle v. Hammond, partners toward each other. See also 99 Fed. 510, 40 C' C. A. 498; Math- Dovey v. Dovey, 95 Nebr. 624, 146 erson v. Belden, 14 App. Div. 519, 43 N. W. 923 ; Crawford v. Stainback;- N. Y. S. 888; Euless v. Tomlinson 76 Ark. 346, 88 S. W. 991; Wright (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 534 v. Duke, 91 Hun 409, 36 N. Y. S. (1896); Bean v. Warden (Tex. Civ. 853, 72 N. Y. St. 375; Law v. Law App.), 31 S. W. 831 (1895) ; Ex (1905), 1 Ch. 140, 74 L. J. Ch. 169; parte Birley, 2 Mont., D. & DeG. 354; Stroud v. Wiley, 27 Ont. App. 516. Cof ton V. Horner, 5 Price 537 ; Lin- " Spears v. Willis, 151 N. Y. 443, gen V. Simpson, 1 Sim. & St. 602, 24 45 N. E. 849; Riggen v. Investment Rev. Rep. 249; Hughes v. Chambers, Co., 31 Ore. 35, 47 Pac. 923. 14 Manitoba 163 ; Crowe v. Buchanan, 20 Yergler v. Kaufmann, 176 111. 36 Nova Scotia 1. App. 563. "In re Suprenant, 217 Fed. 470. 699 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 552 known to the purchasing partner.^^ A purchase by one partner of a copartner's share will not inure to the benefit of a third partner.^^ § 552. Transfer of partner's interest to third party. — A partner has full power to transfer his interest in the firm to a third person.^^ But such transfer does not make the transferee a partner in the firm, it only conveys his interest, which is a right to his share of the profits and surplus, and where such transfer is held to work a dissolution, the right acquired by the assignee is merely the partner's share in the surplus after all debts of the firm are paid and partnership accounts settled.^* A few cases have held that he becomes a tenant in common in partnership property.^'' The Uniform Partnership Act provides as to the transfer of a partner's interest, which is defined as "his share of the profits and surplus and the same is personal property," that :^® "a conveyance by a partner of his interest in the partnership does not of itself dissolve the partnership, nor, as against the other partners in the absence of agreement, entitle the assignee, during the continuance of the partnership, to inter- 21 Watts V. Driscoll, 82 L. T. Rep. bell v. West, 86 N. Y. 280; Menagh (N. S.) 255. V. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 Am. 22 Towle V. Hammond, 99 Fed. 510, Rep. 683 ; Reinheimer v. Hemingway, 40 C. C. A. 498. 35 Pa. St. 432 ; Still v. Focke, 66 Tex. 23 See §§ 291, 292. See also Sherk 715, 2 S. W. 59; In- re Ritson (1899), V. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 1 Ch. 128, 68 L. J. Ch. 11. But see 152 S. W. 832; Schurtz v. Romer, 82 Keith v. Ham, 89 Ala. 590, 7 So. Cal. 474, 23 Pac. 118; Jackson v. 234; Planters' Trading Co. v. Moore, Stanford, 19 Ga. 14; Pease v. Rush, .7 Ala. App. 393, 62 So. 302; Blood- 2 Minn. 107; Metrick v. Brainard, 38 worth v. Booser, 99 Ark.. 238, 138 S. Barb. (N. Y.) 574. W. 457; TuUer v. Leaverton, 143 2* Thompson v. Lowe, 111 Ind. 272, Iowa 162; Sherrod v. Mayo, 156 N. 12 N. E. 476; New York Fourth Nat. Car. 144, 72 S. E. 216, Ann. Cas. Bank v. Carrollton R. Co.. 11 Wall. 1912 D, 1205n. (U. S'.) 624, 20 L. ed. 82; Noonan 25 McCauley v. Fulton, 44 Cal. 355 ; V. Nunan, 16 Cal. 44, 18 Pac. 98 ; Stokes v. Stevens, 40 Cal. 391 ; King- Rosenstiel v. Gray, 112 111. 282 ; Shu- man v. Spurr, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) ler V. Button, 75 Iowa 155, 39 N. 235. W. 239; Leader v. Plante, 95 Maine 2^ Uniform Partnership Act, §§ 26, 343, SO Atl. 53, 85 Am. St. 418; Tar- 21, 28. § 552 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 700 fere in the management or administration of the partnership business or affairs, or to require any information or account of partnership transactions, or to inspect the partnership books; but it merely entitles the assignee to receive in accordance with his contract the profits to which the assigning partner would otherwise be entitled. In case of a dissolution of the partner- ship, the assignee is entitled to receive his assignor's interest and may require an account from the date only of the last account agreed to by all the partners. On due application to a competent court by any judgment creditor of a partner, the court which entered the judgment, order, or decree, or any other court, may charge the interest of the debtor partner with payment of the unsatisfied amount of such judgment debt with interest thereon; and may then or later appoint a receiver of his share of the profits, and of 'any other money due or to fall due to him in re- spect of the partnership, and make all other orders, directions, accounts and inquiries which the debtor partner might have made, or which the circumstances of the case may require. The interest charged may be redeemed at any time before foreclosure, or in case of a sale being directed by the court may be purchased without thereby causing a dissolution: (a) with separate prop- erty, by any one or more, of the partners, or (b) with partner- ship property, by any one or more of the partners with the con- sent of all the partners whose interests are not so charged or sold. Nothing in this act shall be held to deprive a partner of his right, if any, under the exemption laws, as regards his in- terest in the partnership." However, there is no conflict in the law, that the purchase of a partner's interest does not make the purchaser a partner, unless all the other partners consent to his admission, for the principle is firmly established that one can not be made a partner of another without his consent," but such 27 Jones V, Way, 78 Kans. 535, 97 v. Spurr, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) 235; Pac. 437, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) llSOn; Harvey v. Ford, 83 Mich. 506, 47 N. McNamara v. Gaylord, 1 Bond (U. W. 242; Freeman v. Bloomfield, 43 S.) 302, Fed. Cas. No. 8910; Freligh Mo. 391; Waterman v. Johnson, 49 V. Miller, 16 La. Ann. 418; Fearn v. Mo. 410; Gorder v. Pankonin, 83 Tiernan, 4 Rob. (La.) 367; Kingman Nebr. 204, 119 N. W. 449, 131 Am. 701 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 553 consent may be shown by acquiescence or ratification.^' Where a sale to a third person is made on the basis of the books and in- ventory of the firm, the contract includes no debts not found on the books or in the inventory.^' § 553. Firm name — Good-will — Competition by retiring partner. — The right to use the firm name after sale of one partner's interest, the disposal of the good-will of the firm, and the right of a retiring partner to engage in business of a com- peting nature with that of the old firm, were all discussed rather fully in the preceding chapters on firm name, powers and good- will, and reference to those chapters should be made. It may be said here generally that the right to the use of the firm name may be regulated by agreement,^" that in some jurisdictions partners continuing the business have no right to use the old firm name after the retirement of a partner,^^ that in other jurisdictions the purchasers of the partnership property and business are en- titled to use the firm name if done in such a manner as to re- lieve the retiring partner from liability,^* that the good-will St. 629; Filley v. Walker, 28 Nebr. si California Civ. Code, § 992 ; Law- 506, 44 N.'W. 12,7; Fay v. Waldron, rence v. Hull, 169 Mass. 250, 47 N. 3 N. Y. S. 894. » E. 1001, applying Pub. Stat., ch. 16, 28Meaher v. Cox, 2,7 Ala. 201; §§ 6, 7; Williams v. Farrand, 88 Mich. Rosenstiel v. Gray, 112 111. 282 ; Mur- 473, 50 N. W. 446, 14 L. R. A. 161 ; ray v. Bogert, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 318, Morgan v. Schuyler, 79 N. Y. 490, 35 7 Am. Dec. 466; Mason v. Connell, Am. Rep. 543; Read v. Mackay, 47 1 Whart. (Pa.) 381; Cochran v. Misc. 435, 95 N. Y. S. 935, 17 N. Y. Perry, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 262. Ann. Cas. 43; Merry v. Hoopes, 111 29McGilvery v. McGilvery, 23 N. Y. 415, 18 N.E. 714; Adams v. Idaho 116, 128 Pac. 978. Adams, 7 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 292; so Harryman v. Harryman, 93 Kans. Rowell v. Rowell, 122 Wis. 1, 99 N. 223, 144 Pac. 262; Bagby &c. Co. v. W. 473. Rivers, 87 Md. 400, 40 Atl. 171„ 40 ^^ Snyder Mfg. Co. v. Snyder, 54 L. R. A. 632, 67 Am. St. 357; Hoi- Ohio St. 86, 43 N. E. 325, 31 L. R. brook V. Nesbitt, 163 Mass. 120, 39 A. 657; Brass &c. Works v. Payne, N. E. 794; Rosenheim v. Rosenfield, 50 Ohio St. 115, 33 N. E. 88, 19 L. 59 Hun 625, 13 N. Y. S. 720, 37 N. R. A. 82; In re Eraser (1892), 2 Y. St. 550; Howland v. Roosevelt, 5 Q. B. 633, (>J L. T. Rep. (N. S.) N. Y. S. 75; Fite v. Dorman (Tenn.), 401; Burchell v. Wilde (1900), 1 Ch. 57 S. W. 129 (1900). SSI, 69 L. J. Ch. 314; Levy v. Walker, § 554 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 702 of the business is property, salable as such, passing to purchasers of a partner's entire interest,^^ unless a contrary mtention is shown,^* and that a retiring partner may set up a competing business so long as he does not mislead customers into believing that he has succeeded the old firm,^° or may by agreement lose his right to carry on such a business,^^ while there are some decisions granting him the right tO' solicit old customers, some denying such right/ ^ § 554. Rights of retiring partner in assets of old firm. — An absolute executed sale of a partner's interest in the -firm deprives him of property rights in the assets,^^ and he becomes the purchaser's creditor,^® he has lost his lien on the assets of the. 10 Ch. D. 436, 48 L. J. Ch. 273; Bryce v. Davidson, 25 U. C. Q. B. 371. ^3 California Civ. Code, § 993 ; Montana Civ. Code, § 1372; Bell v. Ellis, 33 Cal. 620 ; Whitney v. Whit- ney, lis Ky. 552, 74 S. W. 194, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2465 ; Warfield v. Booth, 33 Md. 63; Dwight v. Hamilton, 113 Mass. 175 ; Cassidy v. Metcalf , 1 Mo. App. 593; Sheppard v. Boggs, 9 Nebr. 257, 2 N. W. 370; People v. Roberts, 159 N. Y. 70, S3 N. E. 685, 45 L. R. A. 126; Steinfeld v. Na- tional Shirtwaist Co., 99 App. Div. 286, 90 N. Y. S. 964; Kellogg v. Tot- ten, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 35 ; Brass &c. Works V. Payne, SO Ohio St. 115, 33 N. E. 88, 19 L. R. A. 82; Burckhardt v. Burckhardt, 42 Ohio St. 474, 51 Am. Rep. 843; Burkhardt v. Burk- hardt, 5 Ohio Dec. (Reprint). 185; Fite V. Dorman (Tenn.), 57 S. W. 129 (1900) ; Hill v. Fearis (1905), 1 Ch. 466, 74 L. J. Ch. 237; Townsend V. Jarman (1900), 2 Ch. 698; Jen- nings V. Jennings (1898), 1 Ch. 378, 67 L. J. Ch. 190. 3* Webster v. Webster, 180 Mass. 310, 62 N. E. 383; McCall v. Mosch- cowitz, 14 Daly 16, 1 N. Y. St. 99, 10 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 107. ssCrownfield v. Phillips (Md.), 92 Atl. 1033; Cottrell v. Babcock Print- ing Press Mfg. Co., 54 Conn. 122, 6 Atl. 791; Garrison v. Nute, 87 111. 215; Armstrong v. Bitner, 71 Md. 118, 17 Atl. 1054, 20 Atl. 136; Hutch- inson V. Nay, 183 Mass. 355, 67 N. E. 601; Williams v. Farrand, 88 Mich. 473, 50 N. W. 446, 14 L. R. A. 161 ; White v. Jones, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 328, 24 N. Y. Super. Ct. 321; Burkhardt v. Burkhardt, S Ohio Dec. 185; White v. Trowbridge, 216 Pa. 11, 64 Atl. 862; Trego v. Hunt (1896), A. C. 7, 65 L. J. Ch. 1; Churton v. Douglas, Johns. 174, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 887. 36 Du Bois V. Padgham, 18 Cal. App. 298, 123 Pac. 207. 37 See ch. 12, §§ 317-319. ssGilmour v. Kerr (Ky.), 36 S. W. S54; Hyde v. Easter, 4 Md. Ch. 80; Mafflsrn V. Hathaway, 106 Mass. 414; Ex parte Clarkson, 4 Deac. & C. 56, 2 Mont. & A. 4; Grace v. Smith, W. BI. 998. 33 Moses V. Powers, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 393 ; Huffman v. Huffman, 63 S. 703 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 554 6™!*° and such assets are subject to the claims of the purchaser's creditors.*^ Where the sale does not become absolute until the pur- chaser performs some condition, such as paying firm creditors or paying the purchase-price, or where the purchaser took subject to a trust for creditors of the firm, the retiring partner has a lien on the firm assets which may be asserted by him or by creditors of the firm.*^ A retiring partner who has not sold his interest is entitled to share in the firm assets, on distribution," and has a right to share in the profits made after his retirement.** If, Car. 1, 40 S. E. 963 ; Allen v. Cooky, S3 S. Car. 414, 31 S. E. 634; R. F. Scott Grocery Co. v. Carter (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 375 (1896). *" Smith V. Edwards, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 106, 46 Am. Dec. 71; Coffin V. McCuUough, 30 Ala. 107; Parker V. Merritt, 105 111. 293; Goembel v. Arnett, 100 111. 34 ; Barkley v. Tapp, 87 Ind. 25; Griffith v. Buck, 13 Md. 102 ; Andrews v. Mann, 31 Miss. 322 ; Commercial Bank v. Lewis, 13 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 226; Alpaugh v. Sav- age (N. J.), 19 Atl. 380; Vosper v. Kramer, 31 N. J. Eq. 420; Cory v. Long, 2 Sweeny (N. Y.) 491 ; Latham V. Skinner, 62 N. Car. 292 ; Seibricht V. Rohrkasse, 3 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 43, 2 Wkly. L. Cas. 2S7. See also McGregor v. Ellis, 2 Disn. (Ohio) 286, 13 Ohio Dec. 175; Tracy v. Walker, 1 Flip. (U. S.) 41, Fed. Cas. No. 14129; Croone v. Bivens, 2 Head (Tenn.) 339; Hall v. Johnston, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 110, 24 S. W. 861. «Baca v. Ramos, 10 La. 417, 29 Am. Dec. 463; Vetterlein v. Barnes, 6 Fed. 693 ; Steffee v. Kerr, 2 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 17S. «2 McGown V. Sprague, 23 Ala. 524 ; Parker v. Merritt, 105 111. 293; Hatchell V. Chew, 58 S. W. 816, 22 Ky. L. 738; Olson v. Morrison, 29 Mich. 395; Topliff v. Vail, Harr. (Mich.) 340; Fitzgerald v. Christ, 20 N. J. Eq. 90; Bulger v. Rosa, 119 N. Y. 459, 24 N. E. 853 ; In re Dawson, .59 Hun 239, 12 N. Y. S. 781, 36 N. Y. St. 311 ; Williams v. Bush, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 623; Robb v. Stevens, 1 Clarke Ch. (N. Y.) 191; Brenton v. Thompson, 20 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 133; Allen V. Cooley, 53 S. Car. 414, 31 S. E. 634; White v. Parish, 20 Tex. 688, 17> Am. Dec. 204; Kellogg v. Fox, 45 Vt. 348; Shackelford v. Shackel- ford, 32 Grat. (Va.) 481; Redding- ton v. Franey, 124 Wis. 590, 102 N. W. 1065; Thayer v. Humphrey, 91 Wis. 276, 64 N. W. 1007, 51 Am. St. 887, 30 L. R. A. 549; In re Kemptner, L. R. 8 Eq. 286, 21 L. T. 223, 17 W. R. 818; Ex parte Wood, 10 Ch. D. 554, 39 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 646; Stev- enson v. Sexsmith, 21 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 355 ; McGregor v. Anderson, 6 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 354. *3Childs V. Pellett, 102 Mich. 558, 61 N. W. 54; Blun v. Mayer, 113 App. Div. 247, 99 N. Y. S. 25 ; Watson v. Itasca First Nat. Bank, 95 Tex. 351, 67 S. W. 314 (affg. (Civ. App. 1902) 66 S. W. 232). In re Langmead, 20 Beav. 20, 1 Jur. (N. S.) 198; Fisher v. McPhee, 28 Nova Scotia 523; Schuyler v. Cullen, 120 App. Div. 637, 105 N. Y. S. 544. ** Varnum v. Winslow, 106 Iowa ^ 555 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 704 through mistake or fraud in accounting, errors were made on the side of the retiring partner, showing too large a balance due him, the purchasing partner may have the accounting sur- charged in equity as to the amount of the errors.*^ The pur- chasing partner may have a settlement set aside for duress and fraud of the retiring partner,*® but not if he has failed to seek to rescind, and to restore the consideration received.*^ § 555. Rights of continuing partners and new firm in as- sets of old firm. — In most cases the rights of the continuing partners or of a new firm in the assets of the old firm will be found to have been fixed by agreement. If the terms of the agreement are such that the partner merely sells his interest and the transferees continue the old firm, they acquire all rights to firm assets which the old firm had.*^ If, however, the change in membership has caused a dissolution of the firm and after- ward a new one is formed, it seems there must be an express,** or clearly implied^" agreement in order to pass the property interests of the old firm completely, and ordinarily the property remains that of the old firm."^ Thus, where a partner is in- debted to the old firm, his indebtedness does not pass to the 287, 76 N. W. 708; Moore V. Rawson, 258; Clark v. McClelland, 2 Grant 185 Mass. 264, 70 N. E. 64. (Pa.) 31 ; Ex parte Alexander, 1 *5 Ehrmann v. Stitzel, 121 Ky. 751, Glyn & J. 409, 2 Glyn & J. 275; Ex 90 S. W. 275, 28 Ky. L. 728, 123 Am. parte Peake, 1 Madd. 346, 16 Rev. St. 224. Rep. 233. «6Dovey v. Dovey, 95 Nebr. 624, ^sPorst v. Kirkpatrick, 64 N. J. 146 N. W. 923. Eq. 578, 54 Atl. 554; Adams v. Wil- *'^ Dovey v. Dovey, 95 Nebr. 624, limantic Linen Co., 46 Conn. 320; 146 N. W. 923. Grafton v. Paine, 7 App. Cas. (D. *8Rudy V. Austin, 56 Ark. 73, 19 C.) 255; Moshier v. Kitchell, 87 111. S. W. Ill, 35 Am. St. 85; Bradley v. 18; Tobias v. Commercial Sav. Bank, Richardson, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 343, 136 Mich. 135, 98 N. W. 984; Forst 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1786, ,23 Vt. 720; v. Kirkpatrick, 64 N. J. Eq. 578, 54 Robbins v. Butler, 24 111. 387; Rand Atl. 554. V. Wright, 141 Ind. 226, 39 N. E. so New York Commercial Co. v. 447; Burnell v. Weld, 59 Maine 423; Francis, 101 Fed. 16, 41 C. C. A. Pease v. Rush, 2 Minn. 107 ; St. Nich- 167. olas Bank v. De Rivera, 3 N. Y. S. =1 Painter v. Wilcox, 52 Colo. 639, 666; Cast v. Johnston, 3 N. Y. St. 125 Pac. 503. 705 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 556 new one, but continues to be the property of the old, unless there is a special agreement of all partners.^^ But it seems to be the rule that where copartners purchase a partner's interest and agree to pay the firm debts, this extinguishes his indebtedness to the firm, the presumption being that this indebtedness was taken into account in reckoning the value pf the partner's in- terest." § 556. Liability of retiring partner for obligations of old firm. — A partner who has retired from a firm remains liable as principal after that time on all firm obligations incurred pre- vious to his retirement. This rule holds even where his copart- ners or the new firm have agreed to discharge all such obliga- tions, for while he would not be liable to contribute to the co- partners on such obligations, he is bound to the creditors who contracted with the firm when he, as a member of the firm, was a principal in the making of the contract,^* except in cases where 52McCaU V. Moss, 112 111. 493; BtjuHug Andrae & Sons Co. v. Rosenstielv. Gray, 112 111. 282; Tom- Peck, 176 Mo. App. 61, 162 S. W. linson v. Hammond, 8 Iowa 40; 1059; Hayward v. Burke, 151 111. Learned v. Ayres, 41 Mich. 677, 3 121, Z1 N. E. 846; Wilfey v. Temple, N. W. 178; Akhurst v. Jackson, 1 85 111. App. 69; Gobdenow v. Jones, Swanst. 85, 36 Eng. Reprint 308. 75 III. 48; Richards v. Fisher, 2 Al- S3 Liquidating Comrs. of Bank of len (Mass.) 527; Smith v. Shelden, Monroe v. Dodson, 131 La. 990, 60 35 Mich. 42, 24 Am. Rep. 529; Bots- So. 659; Painter v. Painter, 68 Cal. ford v. Kleinhans, 29 Mich. 332; 395, 9 Pac. 450; Clark v. Carr, 45 111. Skinner v. Hitt, 32 Mo. App. 402; App. 469; Houk v. Walker, 131 Ind. Grotte v. Weil, 62 Nebr. 478, 87 N. 231; Thompson v. Lowe, 111 Ind. W. 173; Morss v. Gleason, 2 Hun 31, 272, 12 N. E. 476; Over v. Hether- 4 Thomp. & C. ?74 (affd. 64 N. Y. ington, (A Ind. 365 ; Hasselman v. 204) ; Sinclair v. Gallaiid, 8 Daly (N. Douglass, 52 Ind. 252; Mueller v. Y.) 508; Morehead v. Wriston, 11 Sutter, 96 Iowa 80, 64 N. W. 665; N. Car. 398; Dean v. Collins, IS N. Leeds V. Holmes, 6 Mart. (La.) (N. Dak. 535, 108 N. W. 242, 9 L. R. A. S.) 655 ; Sweet v. McConnel, 2 Nebr. (N. S.) 49, 125 Am. St. 610 and ex- 1; Schlicker v. Whyte, 65 N. J. Eq. haustive note; Butler v. Birkey', 13 404, 54 Atl. 1125; Linke v. Fleming, Ohio St. 514; Allen v. Cooley, 53 S. 25 Grat. (Va.) 704; Hobbs v. Wil- Car. 414, 31 S. E. 634; Bryan v. Hen- son, 1 W. Va. 50. Contra: Jones derson, 88 Tenn. 23, 12 S. W. 338; V. Bliss, 45 111. 143; Coffing v. Tay- Mogelin v. Westhoff, 33 Tex. 788; lor 16 111. 457. Sanders v. Bush (Tex. Civ. App.), 45— Rojv. ON Partn.— Vol. 1 557 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 706 the creditors have agreed to accept and substitute the liability of the continuing partners or new firm/° or have become estopped to hold the retiring partner.^" § 557. Assumption of debts of old firm. — A creditor can not be held to have assented to the agreement of a new firm or continuing partners to assume liability for all debts of the old firm because of mere knowledge or notice of it/' The agree- ment of creditors to an assumption of partnership debts which will release a retiring partner must be based on a good and suiBfi- 39 S. W. 203; Smith v. Jameson, S T. R. 601, Peake 213 ; Bailey v. Grif- fith, 40 U. C. Q. B. 418. 55 Webb V. Butler (Ala.), 68 So. 369; Harris v. Lindsay, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 271, Fed. Cas. No. 6124; Harris V. Lindsay, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 98, Fed. Cas. No. 6123 ; Regester v. Dodge, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 79, 6 Fed. 6, 61 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 107; First Nat. Bank v. Cheney, 114 Ala. 536, 21 So. 1002; Brewer v. Johnson, 87 Ark. 641, 112 S. W. 364; Tootle v. Cook, 4 Colo. App. Ill, 35 Pac. 193; Grif- fin V. Orman, 9 Fla. 22; Doxey v. Service, 30 Ind. App. 174, 65 N. E. 757; Morrison v. Kendall, 6 Ind. App. 212, 33 N. E. 370; McAreavy v. Magirl, 123 Iowa 605, 99 N. W. 193; Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Jennings, 29 Kans. 657, 44 Am. Rep. 668; Norman v. Jackson Fertilizer Co., 79 Miss. 747, 31 So. 419; Keim &c. Hardw. Co. v. Williams, 154 Mo. App. 716, 136 S. W. 1; Willis Coal &c. Co. v. Fur- stenfeld, 146 Mo. App. 279, 129 S. W. 1028; Ridgley V. Robertson, 67 Mo. App. 45 ; National Cash Register Co. V. Brown, 19 Mont. 200, 47 Pac. 995, 37 L. R. A. SIS, 61 Am. St. 498; Grotte V. Weil, 62 Nebr. 478, 87 N. W. 173; Bronx Metal Bed Co. v. Wallerstein, 84 N. Y. S. 924; Dean V. Collins, 15 N. Dak. 535, 108 N. W. 242, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49, 125 Am. St. 610; Rawson v. Taylor, 30 Ohio St. 389, 27 Am. Rep. 464; Butler v. Birkey, 13 Ohio St. 514; Whittier v. Gould, 8 Watts (Pa.) 485; Bryan v. Henderson, 88 Tenn. 23, 12 S. W. 338; Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Wells, 90 Tex. 110, 37 S. W. 411, 59 Am. St. 783; Buchanan v. Clark, 10 Grat. (Va.) 164; Wadhams' v. Page, 1 Wash. 420, 2S Pac. 462 (revd. on other grounds in 6 Wash. 103, 32 Pac. 1068); McCoy v. Jack, 47 W. Va. 201, 34 S. E. 991- Barnes v. Boyers, 34 W. Va. 303, 12 S. E. 708; First Nat. Bank v. Finck, 100 Wis. 446, 76 N. W. 608; Swire v. Redman, L. R. 1 Q. B. Div. 536, 35 L. T. 470, 24 W. R. 1069. 58 Regester v. Dodge, 6 Fed. 6, 19 Blatchf. 79, 61 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 107. 57 Morrison v. Kendall, 6 Ind. App. 212, 33 N. E. 370; Hayward v. Burke, 151 111. 121, 37 N. E. 846; Clark v. Taylor, 68 Iowa S19, 27 N. W. 493; Weirick v. Graves, 73 111. App. 266; Botsford V. Kleinhans, 29 Mich. 332; Ridgley v. Robertson, 67 Mo. App. 45; Rawson v. Taylor, 30 Ohio St. 389, 27 Am. Rep. 464; Whittier v. Gould, 8 Watts (Pa.) 485; Frye v. Phillip, 46 Wash. 190, 89 Pac. 559; Scott V. Hallock, 16 Wash. 439, 47 707 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 558 cient consideration/^ The earlier rule was that a mere under- taking by one partner on dissolution to pay a firm debt is not a consideration for the release of a retiring partner, since the promising partner was already bound/' but later the rule has been stated that a consideration is sufficient where a creditor obtains greater security and the obligation of an individual partner may be a better security, better terms of payment, ne- gotiable paper or other benefit, or where there is a detriment to the retiring partner/" § 558. Retiring partner as surety on obligations of old firm. — The retiring partner, on another partner assuming after dissolution the payment of firm debts, becomes a surety for the existing debts. All cases admit that he is a surety as to the copartners,""^ and that creditors of the old firm have the right Pac. 968; McCoy v. Jack, 47 W. Va. 201, 34 S. E. 991 ; Waldeck v. Brande, 61 Wis. 579, 21 N. W. 533; Blew v. Wyatt, 5 Car. & P. 397. 58 Norman v. Jackson Fertilizer Co., 79 Miss. 747, 31 So. 419; Sil- verman V. Chase, 90 111. Zl ; Bronx Metal Bed Co. v. Wallerstein, 84 N. Y. S. 924; Laucks v. Martin, 6 Sad. (Pa ) 352, 9 Atl. 279, 20 W. N. C. 93. 59 Early v. Burt, 68 Iowa 716, 28 N. W. 35 ; Fagg v. Hambel, 21 Iowa 140, 89 Am. Dec. 561; Fowler v. Coker,- 107 Ga. 817, ZZ S. E. 661; Clark V. Billings, 59 Ind. 508; Eagle Mfg. Co. V. Jennings, 29 Kans. 657, 44 Am. Rep. 668; Chase v. Vaughan, 30 Maine 412; Walstrom v. Hopkins, 103 Pa. St. 118; Nightingale v. Chafee, 11 R. I. 609, 23 Am. Rep. 531; Lodge v. Dicas, 3 Barn. & Aid. 611, 22 R. R. 497; David v. Ellice, 5 Barn. & C. 196, 1 Car. & P. 368, 4 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 125, 29 R. R. 216. 60 Johnson v. Emerick, 70 Mich. 215, 38 N. W. 223; In re Clap, 2 Lowell (U. S.) 226, Fed. Cas. No. 2784; Hellman v. Schwartz, 44 111. App. 84; Leihy v. Briggs, 33 111. App. 534; Rusk V. Gray, 83 Ind. 589; Motley V. Wickoff, 113 Mich. 231, 71 N. W. 520; Ludington v. Bell, 17 N. Y. 138, ZZ Am. Rep. 601 ; Backus v. Fobes, 20 N. Y. 204; Lyth v. Ault, 7 Exch. 669; Thompson v. Percival, S Barn. & Ad. 925, 3 Nev. & M. 167, 3 L. J. K. B. 98 ; Kirwan v. Kirwan, 4 Tyr. 491, 2 C. & M, 617, 3 L. J. Ex. 187; Staver Carriage Co. v. Jones, 32 Okla. 713, 123 Pac. 148; Rodgers-Wade Furniture Co. v. Wynn (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 340. eoaWendlandt v. Sohre, 37 Minn. 162, 33 N. W. 700; Sheppard v. Bridges, 137. Ga. 615, 74 S. E. 245; Preston v. Garrard, 120 Ga. 689, 48 S. E. 118, 102 Am. St. 124; Macln- tyre v. Massey, 11 Ga. App. 458, 75 S. E. 814; Chandler v. Higgins, 109 111. 602 ; Conwell v. McCowan, 81 111. 285; Wiley v. Temple, 85 111. App. 69; Bays v. Conner, 105 Ind. 415, S N. E. 18; Williams v. Boyd, 75 Ind. 286; McAreavy v. Magirl, 123 Iowa 605, 99 N. W. 193 ; Johnson v. Emerick, 70 Mich. 215, 38 N. W. 223; § 558 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 708 in collecting their claims to proceed against all the old partners.®^ And the general rule indicated by the more modern authorities is that as to all creditors who have notice of the arrangement by which one partner assumes firm debts, the retiring partner is liable only as surety/^ but in order to apply this rule, the cred- itors must have had not only notice of the dissolution, but also notice of the assumption of debts by one partner. As said in Smith V. Shelden, 35 Mich. 42, 24 Am. Rep. 529; Graham v. Thorn- ton (Miss.), 9 So. 292; Barber v. GiUson, 18 Nev. 89, 1 Pac. 452; Col- grove V. Tallman, 67 N. Y. 95, 23 Am. Rep. 90 ; Waddington v. Vreden- bergh, 2 Johns. Gas. (N. Y.) 227; Williams V. Bush, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 623; Morss v. Gleason, 64 N. Y. 204 (affg. 2 Hun 31, 4 Thomp. & C. 274); Millerd v. Thorn, 56 N. Y. 402, 15- Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 371; Dodd v. Dreyfus, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 600, 57 How. Pr. 319; Reed v. Asche, 18 App. Div. 501, 46 N. Y. S. 126; Dean v. Collins, 15 N. Dak. 535, 108 N. W. 242, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49, 125 Am. St. 610; Wilson V. Stilwell, 14 Ohio St. 464; Butler V. Birkey, 13 Ohio St. 514; Campbell v. Floyd, 153 Pa. St. 84, 25 Atl. 1033; In re Prow's Estate, 73 Pa. St. 459; Allen v. Cooley, S3 S. Car. 414, 31 S. E. 634; Bryan v. Henderson, 88 Tenn. 23, 12 S. W. 338; ^tna Ins. Co. v. Wires, 28 Vt. 93; Johnson v. Young, 20 W. Va. 614; Webster v. Lawson, 73 Wis. 561, 41 N. W. 710; Maingay v. Lewis, Ir. Rep. 5 C. L. 229 (revg. Ir. Rep. 3 C. L. 495). 61 Smart v. Breckinridge Bank, 28 Ky. L. 646, 90 S. W. 5, 4 L. R. A, (N. S.) 800; Smith & Cheney Co. V. Schmidt, 142 Mich. 1, 105 N. W. 39. szOakeley v. Pasheller, 4 Clark & F.'207, 10 Bligh (N. S.) 548; Rouse V. Bradford Banking Co. [1894], A. C. 586; Maingay v. Lewis, Ir. Rep. 5 C. L. 229 (revg. Ir. Rep. 3 C. L. 495) ; Bailey v. Griffith, 40 U. C. Q. B: 418; Sheppard v. Bridges, 137 Ga. 615, 74 S. E. 245; Preston v. Gar- rard, 120 Ga. 689, 48 S. E. 118, 102 Am. St. 124; Maclntyre v. Massey, 11 Ga. App. 458, 75 S. E. 814; Wiley V. Temple, 85 111. App. 69; Johnson v. Emerick, 70 Mich. 215, 38 N. W. 223 ; Smith V. Shelden, 35 Mich. 42, 24 Am. Rep. 529; Porter v. Baxter, 71 Minn, 195, 73 N. W. 844; Barber v. GiUson, 18 Nev. 89, 1 Pac. 452; Carroll v. Sharp, 67 Misc. 254, 122 N. Y. S. 694; Phillips v. Mendelsohn, 67 Misc. 142, 121 N. Y. S. 913; Schmitt v. Greenberg, 58 Misc. 570, 109 N. Y. S. 88; Filippini v. Stead, 4 Misc. 405, 23 N. Y. S. 1061, 53 N. Y. St. 520; Akin V. Van Wirt, 124 App. Div. 83, 108 N. Y. S. 327; Palmer v. Purdy, 83 N. Y. 144; Morss v. Glea- son, 64 N. Y. 204 (affg. 4 Thomp. & C. 274, 2 Hun 31) ; Millerd v. Thorn, 56 N. Y. 402, IS Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 371 ; Reed v. Ashe, 18 App. Div. SOI, 46 N. Y. S. 126; United States Nat. Bank v. Underwood, 2 App. Div. 342, 37 N. Y. S. 838, 73 N. Y. St. SO; Colgrove v. Tallman, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 97; Thurber V. Corbin, SI Barb. (N. Y.) 215, 36 How. Pr. 66; Johnson v. Jones, 39 Okla. 323, 13S Pac. 12, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) S47n; Campbell v. 709 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 558 one case:"^ "Where one partner sells his interest in the part- nership property to the other, with the agreement that the con- tinuing partner shall assume and pay all the partnership debts and the sale is made with full knowledge, agreement and consent of the creditors of said partnership, the retiring partner, as a matter of law, ipso facto, becomes surety only for such debts, and if the creditors, having such knowledge of such agreement, consent thereto and permit the continuing partner to dissipate, or negligently lose, or dispose of, the partnership property, upon which they have a lien, the surety is discharged to the extent that he may be prejudiced thereby." However, there are several well-considered cases which hold that even as to a creditor with notice the original relation as joint debtor remains/* As said in one of these cases: "The question in controversy (and upon this there is a conflict of judicial opinion) is whether a creditor who is not a party to the agreement between the partners creating this new relation between them, and does not assent to it, but merely has notice of it, is bound by it, and must, after such Floyd, 153 Pa. St. 84, 25 Atl. 1033; 48 S. E. 118, 102 Am. St. 124; Bran- First Nat. Bank v. Larsen, 146 Wis. num v. Wertheimer-Swartz Shoe Co., 653, 132 N. W. 610. The American 117 Ala. 601, 23 So. 639; First Nat. cases so holding all go back to the Bank v. Cheney, 114 Ala. 536, 21 So. case of Oakeley v. Pasheller, 4 CI. & 1002; Hall v. Jones, 56 Ala. 493; F. 207. It was said of this case, how- Ridgley v. Robertson, 67 Mo. App. ever, in the case of Preston v. Gar- 45; Young v. Bell (N. J. Eq.), 41 rard, 120 Ga. 689, 48 S. E. 118, 102 Atl. 226; United States Nat. Bank Am. St. 124 : "In the case of Swire v. Underwood, 2 App\ Div. 342, 27 N. V. Redman, L. R. 1 Q. B. 536, Cock- Y. S. 838, 7Z N. Y. St. 50; McLaugh- burn, C. J., shows very clearly that lin v. Bieber, 56 N. Y. S. 490 (revd. the House of Lords did not, in Oak- 41 App. Div. 561, 58 N. Y. S. 790) ; eley v. Pasheller [4 CI. & F. 207], in- Rawson v. Taylor, 30 Ohio St. 389, 27 tend to rule as was supposed, but Am. Rep. 464; Shapleigh Hardware merely to hold that the retiring part- Co. .v. Wells, 90 Tex. 110, 2,7 S. W. ner would be released only in the 411, 59 Am. St. 783; McCoy v. Jack, event the creditor consented to the 47 W. Va. 201, 34 S. E. 991 ; Barnes arrangement between the partners." v. Boyers, 34 W. Va. 303, 12 S. E. 63 Johnson v. Jones, 39 Okla. 323, 708 (limiting Johnson v. Young, 20 135 Pac. 12, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) W. Va. 614). Contra: Gourley v. 547n_ Tyler (Tex.), 4 Willson Civ. Cas. Ct. 6* Preston v. Garrard, 120 Ga. 689, App., § 215, 15 S. 'W. 731. § 558 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 710 notice, treat the retiring partner, not as a joint debtor, but as a surety. We have no hesitation in holding that, under such cir- cumstances, the partners continue to be bound as joint debtors to the creditor, pursuant to their original obligation. In our view there is no reasonable ground for a difference of opinion upon this. The obligation of the partners to their creditor was created by contract. They were joint obligors. By the contract they subjected themselves to all of the obligations of that rela- tion, and conferred upon their creditor all of the benefits arising from it. " To sustain the doctrine that the partners can, by their own act, change the character of their obligation to their cred- itor, and without his assent, express or implied, violates the fundamental principles of the law of contract. It abrogates an express contract without the consent of the party beneficially interested, and forces upon him a new contract to which he has not given his assent. In Pingree on Suretyship and Guaranty, § 21, it is said that 'the great weight of authority is that two or more principal debtors can not, by agreement among themselves, without consent of the creditor, so change the character of the liability of , one of them to such creditor from principal to surety, as to enable him to demand from the creditor the treatment of a surety for the debt ; that is, a retiring partner or other principal debtor can not become a surety as to the creditor by simply in- forming him that his codebtors have agreed that he shall be held only as a surety.' "®^ Mere notice that one partner has retired or that one partner has purchased the interests of the other in the business is not notice of such purchaser's assumption of firm debts, and notice of assumption must be clear and spe- cific in order to bind a creditor."" Under the rule that the re- fiSDean v. Collins, IS N. Dak. 535, Purdy, 83 N. Y. 144; United States 108 N. W. 242, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) Nat. Bank v. Underwood, 2 App. Div. 49, 125 Am. St. 610. 342, 37 N. Y. S. 838, 73 N. Y. St. SO; 68 Wiley V. Temple, 85 111. App. Filippini v. Stead, 4 Misc: 405, 23 N. 69; Skannel v. Taylor, 12 La. Ann. Y. S. 1061, 53 N. Y. St. S20; Maier 773; Johnson v. Emerick, 70 Mich. v. Canavan, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 272; Um- 215, 38 N. W. 223; Young v. Bell barger v. Plume, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) (N. J. Eq.), 41 Atl. 226; Palmer v. 461. 711 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 558 tiring partner is liable to the creditors as surety, an agreement with the creditor extending the time of payment of the debt by the assuming partner discharges the retiring partner," and the acceptance of the note of an assuming partner in payment of a debt has often been held to discharge the other partners.*^ A few states hold that a creditor of a partnership is not entitled to the benefit of the assumption of firm debts by a partner in ab- sence of an agreement to that effect, but that he must follow the persons with whom he contracted, in order to recover.®" But 6^ Maclntyre v. Massey, 11 Ga. App. 458, 75 S. E. 814; Brannum v. Wert- heimer-Swartz Shoe Co., 117 Ala. 601, 23 So. 639; Preston v. Garrard, 120 Ga. 689, 48 S. E. 118, 102 Am. St. 124; Tootle v. Cook, 4 Colo. App. Ill, '35 Pac. 193 ; Wiley v. Temple, 85 III. App. 69; Walter A. Wood Mowing &c. Mach. Co. V. Oliver, 103 Mich. 326, 61 N. W. 507; Leithauser v. Baumeister, 47 Minn. 151, 28 Am. St. 336, 49 N. W. 660; Colgrove v. Tallman, 67 N. Y. 95, 23 Am. Rep. 90 (affg. 5 Hun 103) ; Millerd v. Thorn, 56 N. Y. 402, IS Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 371; Filippini v. Stead, 4 Misc. 405, 23 N. Y. S. 1061, 53 N. Y. St. 520; Dodd V. Dreyfus, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 600, 57 How. Pr. 319; Morrison v. Perry, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 33; Brown v. Davis, 6 Duer (N. Y.) 549; Lazelle V. Miller, 40 Ore. 549, 67 Pac. 307; Oakeley v. Pasheller, 4 Clark & F. 207, 10 Bligh (N. S.) 548; Main- gay v. Lewis, "Ir. Rep. 5 C. L. 229 (revg. Ir. Rep. 3 C. L. 495); Rouse V. Bradford Banking Co. [1894], A. C. 586 (affg. [1894] 2 Ch. 32, 63 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 890). B^Hoopes v. McCan, 19 La. Ann. 201; Smith v'. Shelden, 35 Mich. 42, 25 Am. Rep. 529; Leithauser v. Bau- meister, 47 Minn. 151, 28 Am. St. 336, 49 N. W. 660; Palmer v. Purdy, 83 N. Y. 144; Millerd v. Thorn, 56 N. Y. 402, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 371; Dodd V. Dreyfus, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 600, 57 How. Pr. 319; Thurber v. Corbin, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 215, 36 How. Pr. 66; Reed v. Ashe, 18 App. Div. 501, 46 N. Y. S. 126; Bedford v. Deakin, 2 Barn. & Aid. 210, 2 Starkie 156. fi^Atwood V. Lockhart, 4 McLean (U. S.) 350, Fed. Cas. No. 642; In re Isaacs, 3 Sawy. (U. S.) 35, 6 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 92, Fed. Cas. No. 7093 ; Lee v. Fontaine, 10 Ala. 755, 44 Am. Dec. 505; Ringo V. Wing, 49 Ark. 457, 5 S. W. 787; Hicks v. Wyatt, 23 Ark. 55; Salter v. Edward Hines Lumber Co., 77 111. App. 97; Sternburg v. Cal- lanan, 14 Iowa 251 ; Locke v. Hall, 9 Maine 133; Beall v. Poole, 27 Md. 645; Robb v. Mudge, 14 Gray (Mass.) 534; Wild v. Dean, 3 Allen (Mass.) 579; Childs v. Walker, 2 Allen (Mass.) 259; Ayres v. Gallup, 44 Mich. 13, 5 N. W. 1072; Hayes v. Knox, 41 Mich. 529, 2 N. W. 670; Spaunhorst v. Link, 46 Mo. 197; Manny v. Frasier, 27 Mo. 419; Par- malee v. Wiggenhorn, 6 Nebr. 322 Morehead v. Wriston, 73 N. Car. 398 Kountz v. Holthouse, 85 Pa. St. 235 Torrens v. Campbell, 74 Pa. St. 470 Campbell v. Lacock, 40 Pa. St. 448 § 559 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 712 generally the American courts allow a creditor, whether or not he consented to an assumption of debts by one partner, to take advantage of it if he wishes and to elect to pursue' the assuming partner for satisfaction of his debt.'* In New York it seems to be the present rule that a creditor not consenting to a gen- eral assumption of firm debts may not take advantage of it, but may take advantage where the assumption is of particular debts or debts owing particular creditors.'^ § 559. Liability of continuing partners or new firm for obligations of old firm. — When a partner retires and the members of the old firm continue the business, they and the retiring partner are alike liable for the debts of the old firm under the ordinary rules of partnership liability heretofore dis- cussed. If a new firm is organized, the new firm as such is not liable for the old firm's debts, except where it assumes them Shoemaker v. King, 40 Pa. St. 107; McCarteney v. Wyoming Nat. Bank, 1 Wyo. 382 ; Ex parte Freeman, Buck. Bankr. 471. 70 In re Downing, 1 Dill (U. S.) 33, Fed. Cas. No. 4044; Fish v. First Nat. Bank, ISO Fed. 524; Austin v. Seligman, 21 Blatchf. (U. S.) 506, 18 Fed. 519; Bessemer Sav. Bank v. Ro- senbaum Grocery Co., 137 Ala. 530, 34 So. 609; Lehow v. Simonton, 3 Colo. 346; Williams v. Boyd, 75 Ind. 286; Way v. Fravel, 61 Ind. 162; Haggerty v. Johnston, 48 Ind. 41 ; Hardy v. Blazer, 29 Ind. 226, 92 Am. Dec. 347; Devol v. Mcintosh, 23 Ind. 529; Case v. Ellis, 4 Ind. App. 224, 30 N. E. 907; Malanaphy v. Fuller & J. Mfg. Co., 125 Iowa 719, 101 N. W. 640, 106 Am. St. 332 ; Poole v. Hint- rager, 60 Iowa 180, 14 N. W. 223; Garvin v. Mobley, 1 Bush (Ky.) 48; Francis v. Smith, 1 Duv. (Ky.) 121 ; Maxfield v. Schwartz, 43 Minn. 221, 45 N. W. 429; Dodge v. Cutrer, 100 Miss. 647, 56 So. 455; McKillip v. Cattle, 12 Nebr. 477, 11 N. W. 735; Hannigan v. Allen, 127 N. Y. 639, 27 N. E. 402; AUendorph v. Wheeler, 101 N. Y. 649, 5 N. E. 42; Arnold V. Nichols, 64 N. Y. 117; Barlow v. Myers, 64 N. Y. 41, 21 Am. Rep. 582; Merrill v. Green, 55 N. Y. 270; Claf- lin V. Ostrom, 54 N. Y. 581 ; Sinclair V. Galland, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 508; Reyn- olds V. Lawton, 62 Hun 596, 17 N. Y. S. 432, 43 N. Y. St. 578; Mack- intosh V. Fatman, 38 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 145; Clasgens Co. v. Silber, 93 Wis. 579, 67 N. W. 1122; Kimball v. Noyes, 17 Wis. 696. Ti Wheat V. Rice, 97 N. Y. 296; Corner v. Mackey, 147 N. Y. 574, 42 N. E. 29 (affg. 73 Hun 236, 25 N. Y. S. 1023, 57 N. Y. St. 26) ; Serviss V. McDonnell, 107 N. Y. 260, 14 N. E. 314; Barlow v. Myers, 64 N. Y. 41, 21 Am. Rep. 582. 713 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 559 expressly/" or such assumption may be implied from conduct." So, participation in the benefits of continuing contracts of the old firm,'* or admission or recognition of liability on the debt,'" or entries of obligations on the books of the new firm,'® or giving a note of the new firm for a debt of the old, with the consent 72 Starr v. Stiles, 2 Ariz, 436, 19 Pac. 225; Bank of Commerce v. Ada County Abstract Co., 11 Idaho 756, 85 Pac. 919; Weil v. Jaeger, 174 111. 133, 51 N. E. 196 (affg. 73 111. App. 271) ; Davis Sewing Mach. Co. v. Buckles, 89 111. 237; Waller v. Davis, 59 Iowa 103, 12 N. W. 798; Shelton 'v. Baer, 90 Mo. App. 286; Stirn v. Hemken, 72 Hun 91, 25 N. Y. S. 583, 55 N. Y. St. 759; In re Ryan, 70 Hun 164, 24 N. Y. S. 273, 53 N. Y. St. 922; McLinden v. Wentworth, 51 Wis. 170, 8 N. W. 118, 192; Dockery v. Faulk- ner (Tex. Civ. App.), 101 S. W. 501 (1907) ; Cranfurd v. Cocks, 6 Exch. 287, 20 L. J. Exch. 169. 73 Leavenworth v. Brandon, 76 Wash. 394, 136 Pad 375; Edmondson v. Barren, 2 Cranch (U. S.) 228, Fed. Cas. No. 4284 ; Smith v. Ledyard, 49 Ala. 279; Freeman v. Badgley, 105 Cal. 372, 38 Pac. 955 ; Frazer v. Howe, 106 111. 563; Karraker v. Eddleman, 101 111. App. 23; Salter v. Edward Hines Lumber Co., 77 111. App. 97; Drake v. Hays, 27 La. Ann. 256; Alex- ander V. McPeck, 189 Mass. 34, 75 N. E. 88 (applying Rev. Laws, ch. 90, § 4) ; Tay v. Ladd, 15 Gray (Mass.) 296i 77 Am. Dec. 364; La Montagne V. Bank of New York Nat. Banking Assn., 183 N. Y. 173, 76 N. E. 33 ; Pey- ser v. Myers, 135 N. Y. 599, 32 N. E. 699; Hannigan v. Allen, 127 N. Y. 639, 27 N. E. 402 ; Fagely v. Bellas, 17 Pa. St. 67; Ash v. Werner, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 39; Gwinn v. Lee, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 646, 42 Wkly. Notes Cas. 124; Meyberg v. Steagall, 51 Tex. 351. 71 Freeman v. Huttig Sash & Door Co. (Tex.), 153 S. W. 122; Rogers v. Riessner, 30 Fed. 525 ; Lucas v. Coul- ter, 104 Ind. 81, 3 N. E. 622 ; Penn v. Fogler, 182 111. 76, 55 N. E. 192 (revg. 77 111. App. 365) ; Frazer v. Howe, 106 111. 563 ; McCracken v. Milhous, 7 111. App. 169 ; Giddings v. Sievers, 24 Md. 363; Wilgus v. Lewis, 8 Mo. App. 336; Sizer v. Ray, 87 N. Y. 220; Du- rand v. Curtis, 57 N. Y. 7 ; Fuller v. Rowe, 59 Barb. (N. Y.) 344; Keller v. West, B. & C. Mfg. Co., 39 Hun (N. Y.) 348; Pierce v. Alspaugh, 83 N. Car. 258; Brooke v. Ev^ns, 5 Watts (Pa.) 196; Allen v. Atchison, 26 Tex. 616; Barlow v. Wainwright, 2 Vt. 88, 52 Am. Dec. 79 ; York v. Orton, 65 Wis. 6, 26 N. W. 166; Dyke v. Brewer, 2 Car. & K. 828; Helsby v. Mears, 5 Barn. & C. 504, 75 Salter v. Edward Hines Lumber Co., 77 111. App. 97; Love v. Adams, 23 La. Ann. 66; Shaw v. McGregory, 105 Mass. 96; Coleman v. Pearce, 26 Minn. 123, 1 N. W. 846; Wright v. Carman, 47 N. Y. St. 125, 19 N. Y. S. 696; Bate v. McDowell, 17 Jones & S. (N. Y.)' 106; White v. Thielens, 106 Pa. St. 173; Siegel v. Chidsey, 28 Pa. St. 279, 70 Am. Dec. 124. 78 Cadwallader v. Blair, 18 Iowa 420; Sternburg v. Callanan, 14 Iowa 251 ; Cross v. Burlington Nat. Bank, 17 Kans. 336; Ex parte Griffin, 3 Ont. App. Rep. 1. § 559 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 714 of all partners," may be sufficient to charge the new firm with assumption of the debts of the old. But merely a recognition that the firm property is liable for old firm debts, does not make a new partner personally liable.'* It has been held that the agreement of the new firm to pay debts of the old one, must be consented to by all members of the new one.'® A firm may be bound when a member applies its funds in paying a debt of an old firm of which he was a member, to a creditor who did not know of the change,*" but such partner would be liable to con- tribute to his copartners.*^ And where there is a purchase of a partner's interest in a firm by copartners who continue the busi- ness and have agreed to apply partnership property to the debts of the firm they take the assets subject to a trust in favor of the creditors of the old firm.*^ But the general rule is that a sale of a partner's interest in a partnership to a copartner deprives the creditors of any right to assert the retiring partner's lien on the partnership property even though the sale was made upon a contract including the assumption of firm debts by the ^^ Morris v. Marqueze,' 74 Ga. 86 ; So. 659 ; Sedam v. Williams, 4 Mc- Silverman v. Chase, 90 111. 37; Leit- Lean (U. S.) 51, Fed. Cas. No. 12609; hauser v. Baumeister, 47 Minn. 151, Marsh v. Bennett, 5 McLean (U. S.) 49 N. W. 660, 28 Am. St. 336; Spaun- 117, Fed. Cas. No. 9110; Lee v. Fon- horst V. Link, 46 Mo. 197; Goodrich taine, 10 Ala. 755, 44 Am. Dec. 505; V. Clute, SO Hun 605, 3 N. Y. S. 102, Kreling v. Kreling, 118 Cal. 413, SO 20 N. Y. St. 662 (affd. in 117 N. Y. Pac. 546; Cobb v. Benedict, 27 Colo. 633, 22 N: E. 1129); Morrison v. 342, 62 Pac. 222; Robinson v. Roos, Perry, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 33; Howell 138 111. 550, 28 N. E. 821; Silverman V. Wilcox & G. Sewing Mach. Co., 12 v. Chase, 90 111. 37; Edens v. Will- Nebr. 177, 10 N. W. 700; Rice v. iams, 36 111. 252; Peyton v. Lewis, 12 Wolff, 65 Wis. 1, 26 N. W. 181. B. Mon. (Ky.) 356; Bowman v. 78 Freeman v. Huttig Sash & Door Spalding, 8 Ky. L. 691, 2 S. W. 911 ; Co. (Tex.), 153 S. W.' 122. Topliff v. Jackson, 12 Gray (Mass.) 79 Webb V. Butler (Ala.), 68 So. 565; Shattuck v. Lawson, 10 Gray 369. (Mass.) 405; Schlicher v. Vogel, 61 8»Newhall v. Wyatt, 139 N. Y. 452, N. J. Eq. 158, 47 Atl. 448 (affd. 65 34 N. E. 1045, 36 Am. St. 712. N. J. Eq. 404, 54 Atl. 1125) ; Morss 81 In re Raiguel's Appeal, 80 Pa. v. Gleason, 64 N. Y. 204 (affg. 2 Hun St. 234. 31, 4 Thomp. & C. 274) ; Earon v. 82 Liquidating Comrs. of Bank of Mackey, 106 Pa. St. 452; White v. Monroe v. Dodson, 131 La. 990, 60 Magann, 65 Wis. 86, 26 N. W. 260. 715 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 559 purchaser/^ There are a few cases to the contrary." A mere participation in the benefits of previous contracts or transactions is not sufficient to make the new firm hable.'^ A few cases hold that a promise of a new firm, some of whose members were partners in the old, to pay debts of the old firm is a promise to pay the debts of another, which must be in writing under the statute of frauds.*" Such is not the general rule, since an in- coming partner who purchased the interest of the old partners and agreed to assume the debts is only paying his own debts incurred 83 Freeman v. Huttig Sash & Door Co. (Tex.), 153 S. W. 122; West v. Chasten, 12 Fla. 315; Griffin v. Or- man, 9 Fla. 22 ; Hapgood v. Cornwell, 48 111. 64, 95 Am. Dec. 516; Ladd v. Griswold, 9 111. 25, 46 Am. Dec. 443; Williamson v. Adams, 16 111. App. 564 ; Warren v. Farmer, 100 Ind. 593 ; Maquoketa v. Willey, 35 Iowa 323; Griffith V. Buck, 13 Md. 102; Robb V. Mudge, 14 Gray (Mass.) 534; Johnson v. Emerick, 70 Mich. 215, 38 N. W. 223; Fulton v. Hughes, 63 Miss. 61; Dimon v. Hazard, 32 N. Y. 65 ; Robb v. Stevens, 1 Clarke Ch. (N. Y.) 191; Cory v. Long, 2 Sweeney (N. Y.) 491; Rankin v. Jones, 55 N. Car. 169; In re Baker's Appeal, 21 Pa. St. 16, 59 Am. Dec. 752; Doty v. Crawford, 39 S. Car. 1, 17 S. E. Zll; Smith v. Edwards, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 106, 46 Am. Dec. 71 ; Croone v. Bivens, 2 Head (Tenn.) 339; Blackwell v. Farmers' & Mer- chants' Nat. Bank, 91 Tex. 445, 79 S. W. 518; White v. Parish, 20 Tex. 688, 12) Am. Dec. 204; Reddington v. Franey, 124 Wis. 590, 102 N. W. 1065 ; Thayer v. Humphrey, 91 Wis. 276, 64 N. W. 1007, 30 L. R. A. 549, 51 Am. St. 887; Webster v. Lawson, 12) Wis. 561, 41 N. W. 710; Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. Jr. 119. 84 Phelps V. McNeely, f£ Mo. 554, 27 Am. Rep. 378; Conroy v. Woods, 13 Cal. 626, IZ Am. Dec. 605 ; Cald- well V. Scott, 54 N. H. 414 ; Tenney v. Johnson, 43 N. H. 144. 85 Freeman v. Huttig Sash & Door Co. (Tex.), 153 S. W. 122; Baxter V. Plunkett, 4 Houst. (Del.) 450; Goodenow v. Jones, 75 111. 48; Watt V. Kirby, 15 111. 200 ; Gauss v. Hobbs, 18 Kans. 500; Mousseau v. Thebens, 19^ La. Ann. 516; Parmalee v. Wig- genhorn, 6 , Nebr. 322; Ayrault v. Chamberlin, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 83 Shamburg v. Ruggles, 83 Pa. St. 148 Babcock v. Stewart, 58 Pa. St. 179 Brooke v. Evans, 5 Watts (Pa.) 196 Poindexter v. Waddy, 6 Munf. (Va.) 418, 8 Am. Dec. 749; McLinden v. Wentworth, 51 Wis. 170, 8 N. W. 118, 192; Beale v. Mouls, 10 Q. B. 976. But compare Markham v. Ha- zen, 48 Ga. 570; Johnson v. Barry, 95 111. 483 ; McCracken v. Milhous, 7 111. App. 169; Smith v. Hood, 4 111. App. 360 ; Nichols v. Prince, 8 Al- len (Mass.) 404; Dix v. Otis, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 38; Kearney v. Snodgrass, 12 Ore. 311, 7 Pac. 309. 86Ringo V. Wing, 49 Ark. 457, 5 S. W. 787; Freeman v. Badgley, 105 Cal. 372, 38 Pac. 955; Sternburg v. Callanan, 14 Iowa 251; Shoemaker v. King, 40 Pa. St. 107. § 560 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 716 by the purchase.*^ Nor is the new firm liable for the debts of an old firm merely because one of the members of the former was also a member of the latter.^* § 560. Liability under Uniform Partnership Act of per- sons continuing business. — One of the most important changes made in the commonly accepted law by the Uniform Partnership Act relates to the liability of partners continuing a business after retirement of a partner and the assignment of his interests or admission of a new partner, without liquidation of the business. The act makes the creditors of the first or dis- solved partnership also creditors of the partnership continuing the business. The provisions of the act are as follows:'® ( 1 ) When any new partner is admitted into an existing partner- ship, or when any partner retires and assigns ( or the representa- tive of the deceased partner assigns) his rights in partnership property to two or more of the partners, or to one or more of the partners and one or more third persons, if the business is con- tinued without liquidation of the partnership affairs, creditors of the first or dissolved partnership are also creditors of the partnership so continuing the business. (2) When all but one partner retire and assign (or the representative of a deceased partner assigns) their rights in partnership property to the re- maining partner, who continues the business without liquidation 87 Bessemer Sav. Bank v. Rosen- v. Van Hook, 35 Tex. 631 ; Clasgens baum Grocery Co., 137 Ala. S30, 34 Co. v. Silber, 93 Wis. 579, 67 N. W. So. 609; Lee v. Fontaine, 10 Ala. 755, 1122. To same effect, Wear-Boogher 44 Am. Dec. 505 ; McKenzie v. Jack- Dry Goods Co. v. Kelly, 84 Miss. 236, son, 4 Ala. 230; Dickson v. Conde, 36 So. 258; Shufeldt v. Smith, 139 148 Ind. 279, 46 N. E. 998; Haggerty Mo. 367, 40 S. W. 887; Bartlett v. V. Johnston, 48 Ind. 41; Poole v. Smith, 5 Nebr. (Unof.) 337, 98 N. Hintrager,60Iowal80, 14N.W.223; W. 687; Lyon v. Clochessy, 43 Reynolds v. Lawton, 62 Hun 596, 17 Misc. 67, 86 N. Y. S. 245 ; Don Yook N. Y. S. 432, 43 N. Y. Stt 578; v. Washington Mill Co., 16 Wash. Wright V. Carman, 47 N. Y. St. 125, 459, 47 Pac. 964. 19 N. Y. S. 696; Schindler v. Euell, s^Ball v. Mashburn, 110 Ga. 285, 45 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 33, 4 Daly 553; 34 S. E. 851; Freeman v. Huttig Sash First Nat. Bank v. Eichelberger, 1 & Door Co. (Tex.), 153 S. W. 122. Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 397; McCreary 89 Uniform Partnership Act, § 41. 717 CPIANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 560 of partnership affairs, either alone or with others, creditors of the dissolved partnership are also creditors of the person or partnership so continuing the business. (3) When any partner retires or dies and the business of the dissolved partnership is continued as set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section, with the consent of the retired partners or the representative of the deceased partner, but without any assignment of his right in partnership property, rights of creditors of the dissolved part- nership and of the creditors of the person or partnership con- tinuing the business shall be as if such assignmen]t had been made. (4) When all the partners or their representatives assign their rights in partnership property to one or more third persons who promise to pay the debts and who continue the business of the dissolved partnership, creditors of the dissolved partnership are also creditors of the person or partnership continuing the business. (5) When any partner wrongfully causes a dissolu- tion and the remaining partners continue the business under the provisions of section 38 (2b), either alone or with others, and without liquidation of the partnership afifairs, creditors of the dissolved partnership are also creditors of the person or partner- ship continuing the business. (6) When a partner is expelled and the remaining partners continue the business either alone or with others, without liquidation of the partnership affairs, cred- itors of the dissolved partnership are also creditors of the person or partnership continuing the business. (7) The liability of a third person becoming a partner in the partnership continuing the business, under this section to the creditors of the dissolved partnership shall be satisfied out of partnership property only. (8) When the business of a partnership after dissolution is con- tinued under any conditions set forth in this section the creditors of the dissolved partnership, as against the separate creditors of the retiring or deceased partner or the representative of the deceased partner, have a prior right to any claim of the retired partner or the representative of the deceased partner against the person or partnership continuing the business, on account of the retired or deceased partner's interest in the dissolved part- § 561 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 718 nership or on account of any consideration promised for such interest or for his right in partnership property. (9) Nothing in this section shall be held to modify any right of creditors to set aside any assignment on the ground of fraud. (10) The use by the person or partnership continuing the business of the partnership name, or the name of a deceased partner as part thereof, shall not of itself make the individual property of the deceased partner liable for any debts contracted by such person or partnership. , § 561. Liability of incoming partner for obligations of old firm. — The Uniform Partnership Act has made a marked change in the general law as to the liability of an incoming part- ner for the debts of the old firm. It provides that : "A person admitted as a partner into an existing partnership is liable for the obligations of the partnership arising before his admission as though he had been a partner when such obligations were in- curred except that this liability shall be satisfied only out of partnership property."^" The effect of this, however, is only to make the partnership property liable for debts of the old firm, but it seems this liability would extend to any partnership prop- erty, although purchased by the new firm, and not merely to property transferred from the old firm. The general rule where the Uniform Partnership Act has not been adopted is that an incoming partner is not liable for the debts of the firm con- tracted prior to his becoming a member in the absence of an assumption of liability on his part,®^ and he becomes liable only by express agreement,'^' or where a special promise may be implied 901 'Uniform Partnership Act, § 17." Bush (Ky.) 652; Beall v. Poole, 27 91 Butler V. Henry, 48 Ark. SSI, 3 Md. 64S; Hart v. Kelley, 83 Pa. St. S. W. 878; Smith V. Millard, 77 Cal. 286; Shamburg v. Ruggles, 83 Pa. 440, 19 Pac. 824; Nix v. First Nat. St. 148; Rodgers-Wade Furniture Co. Bank, 23 Colo. Sll, 48 Pac. S22; v. Wynn (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 S. Wright V. Brosseau, 73 111. 381 ; Mel- W. 340 ; Freeman v. Huttig Sach & lor V. Lawyer, 55 111. App. 679; Door Co. (Tex.), 153 S. W. 122 Sternburg v. Callanan, 14 Iowa 251; (revg. judgment (Civ. App.) 135 S. Cross V. Burlington Nat. Bank, 17 W. 740). Kans. 336; Meador v. Hughes, 14 s^Atwood v. Lockhart, 4 McLean 719 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP S 561 from his conduct"' or he, by his conduct, becomes impliedly liable."* Neither does the purchaser of a partner's interest in an ordinary partnership become liable for firm debts."' And (U. S.) 350, Fed. Cas. No. 642; Piano Mfg. Co. v. Bernard, 2 Lea Humes v. Higman, J4S Ala. 21S, 40 (Tenn.) 358; Adkins v. Arthur, 33 So. 128; Tillis v. Folmar, 145 Ala. Tex. 431; Baptist Book Concern v. 176, 39 So. 913, 117 Am. St. 31; Ringo Carswell (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. V. Wing, 49 Ark. 457, 5 S. W. 787; 858; Oliver v. Moore (Tex.), 43 S. San Luis Obispo First Nat. Bank v. W. 812 (1897) ; Heidenheimer v. Simmons, 98 Cal. 287, 33 Pac. 197; Franklin, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. Ball V. Mashburn, 110 Ga. 285, 34 S. App. (Tex.), § 840; Hart v. Tomlin- E. 851; Bracken v. Dillon, 64 Ga. son, 2 Vt. 101; Peters v. McWill- 243, n Am. Rep. 70; Bank of Com- iams, 78 Va. 567; Poindexter v. merce v. Ada County Abstract Co., 11 Waddy, 6 Munf. (Va.) 418, 8 Am. Idaho, 756, 85 Pac. 919; Wright v. Dec. 749; Wolff v. Madden, 6 Wash. Brosseau, IZ III. 381 ; Karraker v. Ed- 514, Z2> Pac. 975 ; Reddington v. Fra- dleman, 101 III. App. 23; Hoyt v. ney, 124 Wis. 590, 102 N. W. 1065; Hasse, 80 111. App. 187; Salter v. Ed- British Home Assur. Corp. v. Pater- ward Hines Lumber Co., 17 111. App. spn (1902), 2 Ch. 404, 71 L. J. Ch. 91; Mellor v. Lawyer, 55 111. App. 872; Cripps v. Tappin, 1 Cab. & E. 679;Rohmngv. Carper, 53 Kans. 251, 13; Shirreff v. Wilks, 1 East 48, 5 36 Pac. 336; Meador v. Hughes, 14 R. R. 509; Mittleberger v. Merritt, 1 Bush (Ky.) 652; Silliman v. Short, U. C. Q. B. 330; Eng. Partn. Act 26 La. Ann. 512; Hughes v. Waldo, (1890), § 17 (i). 14 La. Ann. 348 ; Hughes v. Gross, "s Ringo v. Wing, 49 Ark. 457, 5 S. 166 Mass. 61, 43 N. E. 1031, 55 Am. W. 787; Smith v. Millard, 11 Cal. 440, St. 375, 32 L. R. A. 620; Ayres v. Gal- 19 Pac. 824; Morris v. Marqueze, 74 lup, 44 Mich. 13, S N. W. 1072; Lake Ga. 86; Bracken v. Dillon, 64 Ga. 243, V. Munford, 4 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 312; 37 Am. Rep. 70; Karraker v. Eddle- Deere v. Plant, 42 Mo. 60 ; Friedman man, 101 111. App. 23 ; Beall v. Poole, V. Engel, 93 Mo. App. 464, 67 S. W. 27 Md. 645; Dodge v. Cutrer, 100 725 ; Parmalee v. Wiggenhorn, 6 Miss. 647, 56 So. 455 ; Peters v. Mc- Nebr. 322 ; Serviss v. McDonnell, 107 Williams, 78 Va. 567. N. Y. 260, 14 N. E. 314; Fuller v. s* Rogers v. Riessner, 30 Fed. 525; Rowe, ^1 N. Y. 23 (revg. 59 Barb. Penn v. Fogler, 182 111. 16, 55 N. E. 344) ; Matter of Hoagland, 79 App. 192 (revg.. 11 111. App. 365) ; Mc- Div. 56, 79 N. Y. S. 1080; Matter of Cracken v. Milhous, 7 111. App. 169; Sheldon, 72 App. Div. 625, 76 N. Flour City Nat. Bank v. Widener, 163 Y. S. 278 (affd. 173 N. Y. 287, 65 N. N. Y. 276, 57 N. E. 471 (affg. 24 App. E. 1096) ; Morehead v. Wriston, 17, Div. 330, 48 N. Y. S. 492) ; Kearney N. Car. 398; Strickler v. Gitchel, 14 v. Snodgrass, 12 Ore. 311, 7 Pac. 309; Okla. 523, 78 Pac. 94; Kountz v. Scott y. Beale, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 559. Holthouse, 85 Pa. St. 235 ; Babcock v. »= Nix v. First Nat. Bank, 23 Colo. Stewart, 58 Pa. St. 179; Ash v. War- 511, 48 Pac. 522; Galigher v. Lock- ner, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 39; Shoemaker hart, 11 Mont. 109, 27 Pac. 446; § 562 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 720 it is usually held that when a partner enters an existing firm and no specific new agreement of partnership is drawn up, that the business is to be conducted under the terms of the old partner- ship articles.'" The; purchaser who assumes particular debts is not liable for others not known to him.®'' An incoming part- ner with knowledge may- be liable for breach of a contract or fraud in regard to a contract, though such breach or fraud oc- curred before the transfer.®' § 562. Novation — Application of payments. — In order to establish a novation of a debt of an old firm by the substitution of a debt of the continuing partners or of a new firm, there must be a valid contract between the creditor and the parties whose obligation is thus substituted.®® Such a novation is not shown merely by the creditor's assent to the assumption of firm debts by the new firm or continuing partners,^ and has not always Wright V. Kelley, 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 57; Dodson V. Downey [1901], 2 Ch. 620, 70 L. J. Ch. 854. , 86 Wilson V. Lineberger, 83 N. Car. S24; Austen v. Boys, 2 De G. & J. 626, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 719, 27 L. J. Ch. 714, 6 W. R. 792. See § 225 on continuation of firm. 8^ McGilvery v. McGilvery, 23 Idaho 116, 128 Pac. 978. 98 Forbes v. Thorpe, 209 Mass. 570, 95 N. E. 955; Kinney County Land Co. vi Cubbage (Tex. Giy. App.), 155 S. W. S91. 99 Gal. Civ. Code, § 1530. Regester V. Dodge, 6 Fed. 6, 19 Blatchf. 79, 61 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 107; Sternburg V. Callanan, 14 Iowa 251 ; Spaunhorst V. Link, 46 Mo. 197; Fagan v. Long, 30 Mo. 222; Collyer v. Moulton, 9 R. I. 90, 98 Am. Dec. 370; Frye v. Phillips (1907), 46 Wash. 190, 89 Pac. 559; Ex parte Lloyd, 1 Glyn & J. 389, 2 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 162; Gurney V. Braden, L. R. 3 Brit. Col. 474. 1 Chapin v. Brown (Gal.), 34 Pac. 525 (1893) ; Silverman v. Chase, 90 111. il ; Morrison v. Kendall, 6 Ind. App. 212, 33 N. E. 370; Frentress v. Markle, 2 G. Greene (Iowa). 553; Chase v. Vaughan, 30 Maine 412 ; Motley V. Wickoff, 113 Mich. 231, 71 N. W. 520; Mitchell v. Dobson, 42 N. Car. 34; Campbell v. Floyd, 153 Pa. St. 84, 25 Atl. 1033; Blew v. Wyatt, 5 C. & P. 397, 24 E. C. L. 623; Kir-' wan V. Kirwan, 2 Cromp. & M. 617, 3 L. J. Exch. 187, 4 Tyr. 491 ; In re Smith, L. R. 4 Ch. App. Gas. 662, 20 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 835; In re Tucker [1894], 3 Ch. 429, 63 L. J. Ch. Til; Rouse v. Bradford Banking Co. [1894], 2 Ch. 32, 63 L. J. Ch. 337, 7 R. 127, 70 L. T. 427; In re Head [1893], 3 Ch. 426, 63 L. J. Ch. 35; Benson v. Hadfield, 4 Hare 32; Eyton v. Knight,. 2 Jur. 8; Osborne v. Henderson, 18 Can. Sup. Ct. 698. See also Canadian Bank v. Marks, 19 Ont. 450. 721 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 562 been held to result where such creditor took a note of the new firm for the old debt,'' although a novation need not be estab- lished by an express contract, but may be implied from the acts of the creditor.® If debts of the old firm have been assumed by the new one the members of the new firm may require pay- ments made by the new firm to a creditor of the old firm who has continued to deal with the new one, to be applied either to the new or to the old indebtedness,* otherwise it is the right and duty of the creditor to apply the payment to the oldest items of the account.^ If there has been no assumption of debts by the 2 First Nat. Bank v. Cheney, 114 Ala. 536, 21 So. 1002; Powell v. Blow, 34 Mo. 485 ; Nightingale v. Chafee, 11 R. I. 609, 23 Am. Rep. 531 ; Lewis v. Davidson, 39 Tex. 660; Wadhams v. Page, 6 Wash. 103, 32 Pac. 1068; Spenceley v. Greenwood, 1 F. & F. 297. 3 Harris v. Lindsay, Fed, Cas. No. 6124, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 271, Fed. Cas. No. 6123, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 98; Reg- ester V. Dodge, 6 Fed. 6, 19 Blatchf. 79, 61 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 107; Venable V. Stevens, 94 Ga. 281, 21 S. E. 516; Hellman v. Schwartz, 44 111. App. 84; Rusk V. Gray, 83 Ind. 589; McNeal v. Blackburn, 7 Dana (Ky.) 170; Hoopes V. McCan, 19 La. Ann. 201 ; Consalus V. McConihe, 119 N. Y. 652,23 N. E. 1150 (affg. 2 N. Y. S. 89, 49 Hun 609, 17 N. Y. St. 538) ; Ludington v. Bell, n N. Y. 138, ZZ Am. Rep. 601; Filippini v. Stead, 4 Misc. 405, 23 N. Y. S. 1061, 53 N. Y. St. 520; Earon V. Mackey, 106 Pa. St. 452; Kauf- man V. Kaufman, 2 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 98; Frye v. Phillips (1907), 46 Wash. 190, 89 Pac. 559; Harris v. Farwell, IS Beav. 31, 15 L. J. Ch. 185, 51 Eng. Reprint 447; In re Fam- ily Endowment Soc, L. R. 5 Ch. 118, 39 L. J. Ch. 306; Rolfe v. Flower, L. R. 1 P. C. 27, 12 Jur. (N. S.) 345, 35 L. J. C. P. 13, 14 L. T. 144, 14 W. R. m-. In re Head (1894), 2 Ch. 236, 63 L. J. Ch. 549; Bilborough v. Holmes, 5 Ch. D. 255, 46 L. J. Ch. 446, 35 L. T. 75, 25 W. R. 297; Brown v. Gordon, 16 Beav. 302, 22 L. J. Ch. 65, 1 W. R. 2; Mills v. Boyd, 6 Jur. 943 ; Ex parte Oakes, 5 Jur. 757, 10 L. J. Bankr. 69 ; Ex parte Smith, 2 Mont. D. & De G. 314; Seyfang v. Mann, 25 Ont. App. 179 (modifying 27 Ont. 631) ; Watts v. Robinson, 32 U. C. Q. B. 362 ; Eng. Partn. Act (1890), § 17. * King V. Sutton, 42 Kans. 600, 22 Pac. 695; Rutherford v. Schattman, 117 N. Y. 658, 22 N. E. 1133 (affg. 1 N. Y. S. 741) ; Weaver v. White, 64 Hun 636, 19 N. Y. S. 616, 46 N. Y. St. 467; Henry v. Dietrich, 7 N. Y. S. 505. 5 Fairchild v. Holly, 10 Conn. 175 ; Schoonover v. Osborne, 108 Iowa 453, 79 N. W. 263; Allcott v. Strong, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 323; Pineiro v. Gur- ney, 60 Hun 584, 15 N. Y. S. 217, 39 N. Y. St. 469; Thurber v. Mclntire, 45 Hun 590, 9 N. Y. St. 816; Sear- ington V. Ellison, 1 Ohio Dec. (Re- print) 74, 1 West L. J. 488; Paul v. Ellison, 1 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 67, 1 West L. J. 452; Morgan v. Tarbell, 28 Vt. 498; Robbins v. Lincoln, 12 46 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 563 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 722 new firm, a creditor of both the old and the new firm can not apply money coming from one firm to a debt of the other.' § 563. Liability of retiring partner for new firm's obliga- tions. — ^A retiring partner who has given due notice of his retirement is not liable on any obligations of the new firm in- curred after his retirement/ since the members of the new firm have no power to bind him to a new obligation.® But he is liable upon any contracts entered into before his retirement, which are not consummated until afterward, and the undertaking of the new firm to assume such contracts will not discharge him as to the other party to the obligation.* A retiring partner is also liable on obligations occurring after his retirement, but Wis. 1 ; Laing v. Campbell, 36 Beav. 3, 55 Eng. Reprint 1057; Copland v. Toulmin, 7 CI. & F. 349, West 164; Clayton's Case, 1 Meriv. 572, 15 Rev. Rep. 161, 35 Eng. Reprint 781; Hooper v. Keay, 1 Q. B. D. 178, 34 L. T. Rep. (N., S.) 574. 6 Burns v Pillsbury, 17 N. H. 66; Scott V. Kent, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 257; In re Shenk's Appeal, 33 Pa. St. 371 ; St. Louis Type Foundry Co. V. Wisdom, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 695; Ea- ton V. Whitcomb, 17 Vt. 641 ; Jones V. Maund, 3 Y. & C. Exch. 347. ^Penn. Nat. Bank v. Furness, 114 U. S. 376, 5 Sup. Ct. 900, 29 L. ed. 168; Dixie Cotton Oil Co. v. Morris, 79 Ark. 113, 94 S. W. 933; Smith v. Kansas St. Imp. Co., 120 Cal. 517, 52 Pac. 811, 53 Pac. 167; Askew v. Sil- man, 95 Ga. 678, 22 S. E. 573; Young V. Qapp, 147 111. 176, 32 N. E. 187, 35 N. E. 372; Ellis v. Bronson, 40 111. 455; Violett v. Fairchild, 6 La. Ann. 193; Porter v. Baxter, 71 Minn. 195, 73 N. W. 844; Henry v. Mahone, 23 Mo. App. 83; Adams v. Albert, 155 N. Y. 356, 49 N. E. 929, 63 Am. St. 675 (revg. 87 Hun 471, 34 N. Y. SI 328, 68 N. Y. St. 479) ; Pringle v. Leverich, 97 N. Y. 181, 49 Am. Rep. 522 ; Ferrari v. Saitta, 82 Hun 613, 31 N. Y. S. 14, 63 N. Y. St. 352; Hartley V. Kirlin, 45 Pa. St. 49; Cooley v. Farmers' Co-operative Bank, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 366; Mathews v. Colburn, 1 Strobh. L. (S. Car.) 258; Commer- cial Bank v. Miller, 96 Va. 357, 31 S. E. 812 ; Hart v. Alexander, 7 C. & P. 746, 6 L. J. Exch. 129, 2 M. & W. 484, M. & H. 63; Mclver v. Humble, 16 East 169. 8 Maclntyre v. Massey, 11 Ga. App. 458, 75 S. E. 814. 9Hatchell v. Chew, 58 S. W. 816, 22 Ky. L. 738; McDonald v. Mil- laudon, 5 La. 403; Bernard v. Tor- rance, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 383; Sam- ple v. Pickard, 74 Mich. 416, 42 N. W. 54; Goodspeed v. South Bend Chilled Plow Co., 45 Mich. 237, 7 N. W. 810; Tutt v. Cloney, 62 Mo. 116; James v. Pope, 19 N. Y. 324; Briggs V. Briggs, 15 N. Y. 471 (affg. 20 Barb. 477) ; Merrill v. Blanchard, 7 App. Div. 167, 40 N. Y. S. 48, 74 N. Y. St. 661 (affd. 158 N. Y. 682, 52 N. E. 1125) ; Court v. Berlin (1897), 2 Q. B. 396, 66 L. J. Q. B. 714, 77 L. T. 293, 46 W. R. 55; Dob- 723 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 563 before notice has been given to persons so entitled.^" How- ever, a dormant partner who retires is not under the necessity of giving notice.^^ The general rule is that actual notice of dissolution or knowledge equivalent thereto is necessary to persons who formerly did business with the old firm; no- tice by publication is sufficient as to persons who never dealt with the old firm.^* The fact that the remaining partner manages the business which is carried on in the same place under the same name is not a circumstance sufficient to put upon notice one who formerly dealt with the firm/^ nor is the recording of a chattel mortgage in favor of a retiring part- nqr/* It has been held that notice to the public is essential in bin V. Foster, 1 Car. & K. 323; Oak- ford V. European &c. Steam Shipping Co., 1 Hem. & M. 182, 9 L. T. IS; Eng. Partn. Act (1890), § 17 (2). ' 10 Reinhart Grocery Co. v. Benld Mercantile Co., 176 111. App. 507; Young V. Clapp, 147 111. 176, 32 N. E. 187, 35 N. E. 372; Ellis v. Bron- son, 40 111. 455; Sprague v. Keltic Stone Co., 123 111. App. 616; Easton V. Wostenholm, 137 Fed. 524, 70 C. C. A. 108; Neal v. Smith, 116 Fed. 20, 54 C. C. A. 226; Rector v. Robins, 74 Ark. 437, 86 S. W. 667; Rose v. Coffield, 53 Md. 18, 36 Am. Rep. 389; Pomeroy v. Coons, 20 Mo. 598; Clapp V. Rogers, 12 N. Y. 283; Wardwell v. Haight, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 549; National Bank v. Nor- ton, 1 Hill JN. Y.) 572; Ver- non V. Manhattan Co., 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 183; Alexander v. Har- kins, 120 N, Car. 452, 27 S. E. 120; Wilder v. Block, 10 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 162^, 19 Cine. L. Bui. 105; Rodgers-Wade Furniture Co. v. Wynn (Tex. Civ. App), 156 S. W. 340; Thompson v. Harmon (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 1161; Miller v.. Laughlin (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 711 ; Wood V. Jefiferies (Va.), 83 S. E. 1074; Commercial Bank v. Miller, 96 Va. 357, 31 S. E. 812; Scarf v. Jar- dine, 7 App. Cas. 345, 51 L. J. Q. B. 612 ; Hart v. Alexander, 7 C. P. 746, 6 L. J. Exch. 129, 2 M. & W. 484, M. & H. 63; Parkin v. Carruthers, 3 Esp. 248, 6 Rev. Rep. 828; Reid v. Coleman, 19 Ont 93. 11 Hornaday v. Cowgill, 54 Ind. App. 631, 101 N. E. 1030; Ellis v. Bronson, 40 111. 455; Davis v. Allen, 3 N. Y. 168; McFarland v. McHugh, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 485, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 546; Benton v. Chamberlain, 23 Vt. 711 ; Commercial Bank v. Mil- ler, 96 Va. 357, 31 S. E. 812; Carter v. Whalley, 1 B. & Ad. 11, 8 L. J. K. B. (O. S.) 340. 12 Wood V. Jefferies (Va.), 83 S. E. 1074; Young v. Clapp, 147 111. 176, 32 N. E. 187, 35 N. E. 372; Sprague V. Keltic Stone Co., 123 111. App. 616. See also Rose v. Coffield, 53 Md. 18, 36 Am. Rep. 389; Clapp v. Rogers, 12 N. Y. 283; Wardwell v. Haight, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 549; National Bank V. Norton, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 572. 13 Reinhart Grocery Co. v. Benld Mercantile Co., 176 111. App. 507. 1* Simmons Hardware Co. v. Peck, 176 Mo. App. 86, 162 S. W. 1061. § 564 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 724 order to relieve a retiring partner from liability to persons who had never dealt with the old firm/" On the other hand, it is held that when a creditor did not know of certain persons' connection with the firm, and they retired before credit was extended, they are not liable for the debt, and notice is immaterial,^* and that notice is not necessary for a retiring partner to escape liability to one who dealt with the firm first after a partner's retirement, when there was nothing to induce a belief that he was still a member,^'' and that one who has previously dealt with the firm can not hold a retiring partner unless credit was extended on the faith of his membership.^^ By the Uniform Partnership Act it is only necessary that actual notice be given to persons who have extended credit to the firm.^* The general rules applicable to notice are treated more fully under the head of dissolution and the rules applicable to notice of dissolution and notice of retire- ment are substantially similar.^" A retiring partner who leaves the liquidation of firm affairs in the hands of the remaining partner, authorizes . him to employ the ordinary methods of meeting firm obligations, such as drawing checks in the firm name, but after notice to a bank not to extend credit, the retiring partner will not be bound by a note in the firm name.^'^' Under the Georgia code a retiring partner can not be bound by the act of the continuing partners in renewing or continuing a firm obli- gation.^^ § 564. Liability to retiring partner on breach of agree- ment to assume firm debts. — If the retiring partner is com- pelled to pay debts of the old firm which have been assumed by the new firm or continuing partners, he may hold the one as- i^Wood V. Jefferies (Va.),83 S. E. i9 Uniform Partnership Act, § 35 1074. (a). See Hendley v. Bittinger (Pa.), 1" Hornaday v. Cowgill, 54 Ind. 94 Atl. 831. App. 631, 101 N. E. 103a 20 See § 594 et seq. i^'Raywinkle v. Southern Coal Co. 21 First Nat. Bank of Antigo v. (Ark.), 174 S. W. 524. Larsen, 146 Wis. 653, 132 N. W. 610. 18 Simmons Hardware Co. v. Peck, 22 Maclntyre v. Massey, 11 Ga. App. 176 Mo. App. 86, 162 S. W. 1061. 458, 75 S. E. 814. 725 CHANGE OF MEMBERSHIP § 564 suming such debts for the amount he was forced to pay/^ and for necessary expenses connected with such payment.^* This right may be enforced by action at law/^ or by suit in equity.^* The assuming partner is Hable for breach of his agreement to pay firm debts by mere nonpayment, and the retiring partner may maintain a suit upon such failure to pay without having paid an)d;hing himself. ^^ Sometimes the continuing partners execute to the retiring partner a contract indemnifying him 23 Robinson v. Roos, 138 111. 550, 28 N. E. 821 ; Warbritton v. Cameron, 10 Ind. 302; Kibby v. Kimball, 63 Iowa 665, 19 N. W. 825; Brewer v. Worthington, 10 Allen (Mass.) 329; Nichols V. Prince, 8 Allen (Mass.) 404 ; Shamp v. Meyer, 20 Nebr. 223, 29 N. W. 379; Thurber v. Corbin, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 215. 2* Wright V. Sewall, 9 Rob. (La.) 128; Drake v. Porter, 13 Hun (N. Y.) 658. 25Burney v. Boone, 32 Ala. 486; Meyer v. Parsons, 129 Cal. 653, 62 Pac. 216; Dickenson v. Moore, 117 Ga.887, 45 S. E.240; Tucker v. Mur- phy, 114 Ga. 662, 40S.E.836; Teed v. Parsons, 100 111. App. 342 (revd. 202 III. 455, 66 N. E. 1044) ; Jackson v. Hart, 12 Ind. 605 ; Nichols v. Prince, 8 Allen (Mass.) 404; Scovill v. Kins- ley, 13 Gray (Mass.) 5; Berridge v. Slawson, 94 Mich. 484, 54 N. W. 278; Gardiner. V. Fargo, 58 Mich. 72, 24 N. W. 655 ; Osborn v. Osborn, 36 Mich. 48; McCarthy v. Donnelly, 90 Minn. 104, 95 N. W. 760; Meyer v. Shamp, 26 Nebr. 729, 42 N. W. 757; Huffman v. Huffman, 63 S. Car. 1, 40 S. E. 963; Allen v. Cooley, 53 S. Car. 414, 31 S. E. 634; Brazee v. Woods, 35 Tex. 302. 26 Scovill V. Kinsley, 13 Gray (Mass.) 5; Fay v. Finley, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 206; Allen v. Cooley, .53 S. Car. 77, 30 S. E. 721. But see Dyer V. Dyer, 138 Ga. 159, 74 S. E. i030, where rights of a mortgagee inter- vened. 27 Hood V. Spencer, 4 Mcl,,ean (U. S.) 168, Fed. Cas. No. 6665; Peacey V. Peacey, 27 Ala. 683 ; Hogan v. Cal- vert, 21 Ala. 194; Faust v. Burgevin, 25 Ark. 170; Lathrpp v. Atwood, 21 Conn. 117; Williams v. Boyd, 75 Ind. 286; Lee v. Davis, 70 Ind. 464; Devol V. Mcintosh, 23 Ind. 529; Mullendore V. Scott, 45 Ind. 113; Weddle v. .Stone, 12 Ind. 625 ; Tate v. Booe, 9 Ind. 13; Gage v. Lewis, 68 111. 604; Gillen V. Peters, 39 Kahs. 489, 18 Pac. 613; Griffith v. Buck, 13 Md. 102; Dorsey v. Dashiell, 1 Md. 198; Alex- ander V. McPeck, 189 Mass. 34, 74 N. E. 88 ; Farnsworth v. Boardman, 131 Mass. 115 ; Graham v. Thornton (Miss.), 9 So. 292; Rowsey v. Lynch, 61 Mo. ,560 ; Ham v. Hill, 29 Mo. 275 ; Wright V. Whiting; 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 235; Kohler v. Matlage, 72 N. Y. 259 (affg. 10 Jones & S. 247) ; Sins- heimer v. Tobias, 21 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 508; Miller v. Bailey, 19 Ore. 539, 25 Pac. 27; First Nat. Bank v. Eichelberger, 1 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 397; Jewell v. Ketchum, 63 Wis. 628, 23 N. W. 709; Edwards v. Remington, 51 Wis. 336, 8 N. W. 193; Mann v. ^tna Ins. Co., 40 Wis. 549. 564 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 72(> against paying firm debts.^* In order to recover upon a contract of indemnity, the retiring partner must have been compelled to pay firm debts or have suffered other legal hai^n/* in distinction from the rule that a contract to pay firm debts is broken upon nonpayment and a right of action then attaches.^" A contract of indemnity does not affect a retiring partner's liability to firm creditors.'^ 23 Taliaferro v. Brown, 11 Ala. 702; Griffin v. Orman, 9 Fla. 22; Gage v. Lewis, 68 111. 604; Bunton v. Dunn, 54 Maine 152; Jepson v. Hall, 24 Maine 422 ; Perry v. Spencer, 23 Mich. 89; Lothrop v. Blake, 3 Pa. St. 483; Hodges V. Strong, 10 Vt. 247; Aubin V. Holt, 2 Kay & J. 66, 25 L. J. Ch. Z(>, 4 W. R. 112; Woo(i v. Dodgson, 2 Rose 47; Kennedy v. Cassillis, 2 Swanst. 313, Z^t Eng. Reprint 635; Musson V. May, 3 Ves. & B. 194, 35 Eng. Reprint 452. 29 Lothrop V. Blake, 3 Pa. St 483 ; Sutherland v. Webster, 21 Ont. App. 228; Gray v. McMillan, 22 U. C. Q. B. 456 (distinguishing Mewburn v. Mackelcan, 19 Ont. App. 729; Leith V. Freeland, 24 U. C. Q. B. 132). 5" See ante note 27. Hood v. Spen- cer, 4 McLean (U. S.) 168, Fed. Gas. No. 6665 ; Brewer v. Worthington, 10 Allen (Mass.) 329; Hough v. Per- kins, 2 How. (Miss,) 724; Rowsey v. Lynch, 61 Mo. 560; Ham v. Hill, 29 Mo. 275 ; Coleman v. Lansing, ' 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 54, 1 Thomp. & C. 8; Wright V. Whiting, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 235; Wilson v. Stilwell, 9 Ohio St. 467, 75 Am. Dec. 477; Lothrop v. Blake, 3 Pa. St. 483; Fay v. Finley, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 206; Gray v. Will- iams, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 503; Pope V. Hays, 19 Tex. 375 ; Smith v. Teer, 21 U. C. Q. B. 412. SI Smith V. Ledyard, 49 Ala. 279; Edmondson v. Barrell, Fed. Gas. No. 4284, 2 Granch C. G. 228; Drake v. Hays, 27 La. Ann. 256; Alexander v. McPeck, 189 Mass. 34, 75 N. E. 88 (applying Rev. Laws, ch. 90, § 4) ; Tay V. Ladd, 15 Gray (Mass.) 296, 11 Am. Dec. 364; La Montagne v. Bank of New York Nat. Banking Assn., 183 N. Y. 173, 76 N. E. 33; Fagely v. Bellas, 17 Pa. St. 67; Ash V. Werner, 12 Pa. Super. Gt. 39; Mey- berg V. Steagall, 51 Tex, 351. CHAPTER XIX DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP SECTION 570. In general. 571. Nature and grounds — Uniform Partnership Act. 572. Expiration of term. 573. Express will of one partner in partnership for indefinite term. 574. Express will of all partners. 575. By expulsion of partner. 576. By express will of one partner in contravention of agreement. 577. By event making partnership un- lawful — ^War. 578. Marriage of a woman partner. 579. By death of a partner. 580. By bankruptcy. 581. Levy of attachment or execution sale. 582. By judicial decree and by opera- tion of law — Generally. 583. Dissolution for insanity. 584. Dissolution for other incapacity of partner. 585. Dissolution for conduct preju- dicially affecting carrying on of business. 586. For wilful or persistent breach of partnership agreement. 587. When further concerted action impracticable. 588. When business can only be car- ried on at loss. 589. For fraud in inception of rela- tion. 590. Annulment of partnership. SECTION 591. Dissolution by transfer of part- ner's interest. 592. Status of partnership after disso- lution. 593. Powers of partners after dissolu- tion — Generally. 594. Notice of dissolution. 595. Uniform Partnership Act as to powers after dissolution and character of notice. 596. Chai'acter of notice required and persons entitled to notice. 597. Dissolution terminates contract of agency. 598. Powers of partner to administer firm affairs. 599. Some general powers and dis- qualifications of partner after dissolution. 600. Admissions of partner after dis- solution. 601. Power over firm property. 602. Power to collect, pay, or com- promise firm debt. 603. Power to make new contracts. 604. Powers as to negotiable paper. 605. Authorization of giving of ne- gotiable paper. 606. Note given after dissolution as discharge of debt. 607. Liquidating partner. 608. Holding out as partner after dis- solution. 727 § 570 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 728 § 570. In general. — A partnership is presumed to con- tinue until its dissolution is proved/ The subject of dissolution is an extensive and important one. Any competent persons may enter into a partnership in .a moment's time, if they so desire, but it is often extremely difficult to dissolve the partnership, at least in such a manner as to be fair to all parties thereto and to third parties, and so as to avoid after effects of a disastrous nature. The question of what may constitute a dissolution of a partnership is treated under a somewhat different classification by different authors, and there is a still larger discrepancy among the various jurisdictions and courts, as the question is largely governed by statute in some jurisdictions. The various causes of dissolution are often grouped in several divisions, as dissolu- tion by act of the parties, by judicial decree, and by operation of law, but inasmuch as such a classification is somewhat unsatis- factory, owing to the overlapping in certain cases from one division into another, each cause of dissolution will be treated separate and distinct from such a general classification, though the classification of the Uniform Partnership Act will be fol- lowed so far as practicable. Half the space occupied by the provisions of the Uniform Partnership Act is devoted to the subject of dissolution, stating the causes of dissolution and va- rious rules as to the application of assets, the winding up of the business and the powers of partners. § 571. Nature and grounds — Uniform Partnership Act. — The framers of the Uniform Partnership Act, recognizing that after dissolution the partners still have liabilities as such, con- nected with winding up the business, did not treat dissolution as the termination of the relation, as some authors have called it. This act provides as to the nature and causes for dissolution : Sec. 29. "The dissolution of a partnership is the change in the relation of the partners caused by 'any partner ceasing to be 1 Cobb V. Martin, 32 Okla. 588, 123 Deposit Co. v. Simmons, 122 Pac. Pac. 422; Bowles v. Biffles (Okla.), 319, 67 Wash. 673. ISl Pac. 193 ; Alaska Banking & Safe 729 DISSOLUTION § 571 associated In the carrying on as distinguished from the winding vip of the business. Sec. 30. On dissolution the partnership is not terminated, but continues until the winding up of partnership afifairs is completed. Sec. 31. Dissolution is caused: (1) With- out violation of the agreement between the partners, (a) By the termination of the definite term or particular undertaking speci- fied in the agreement, (b) By the express will of any partner when, no definite term or particular undertaking is specified, (c) By the express will of all the partners who have not assigned their interests or suffered them to be charged for their separate debts, either before or after the termination of any specified term or particular undertaking., (d) By the expulsion of any partner from the btisiness bona fide in accordance -^^ith such a power conferred by the agreement between the partners; (2) In con- travention of the agreement between the partners, where the circumstances do not permit a dissolution under any other pro- visions of this section, by the express will of any partner at any time; (3) By any event which makes it unlawful for the busi- ness of the partnership to be carried on or for the members to carry it on in partnership; (4) By the death of any partner; (5) By the bankruptcy of any partner or the partnership; (6) By decree of court under section 32. Sec. 32. (Dissolution by Decree of Court.) (1) On application by or for a partner the court shall decree a dissolution whenever: (a) A partner has been declared a lunatic in any judicial proceeding or is shown to be of unsound mind, (b) a partner becomes in any other way incapable of performing his part of the partnership contract, (c) a partner has been guilty of such conduct as tends to affect prejudicially the carrying on of the business, (d) a partner wil- fully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agree- ment, or otherwise so conducts himself in matters relating to the partnership business that it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with him, (e) the business of the partnership can only be carried on at a loss, (f) other circumstances render a dissolution equitable. (2) On the ap- plication of the purchaser of a partner's interest under sections § 572 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 730 28 [referring to the issuance of a charging order against a part- ner's interestj or 29 : (a) After the .termination of the specified term or particular undertaking, (b) at any time if the partner- ship "was a partnership at will when the interest was assigned or when the charging order was issued." An attempt will be made here so far as practicable, to discuss the causes of dissolu- tion of partnership in the order followed in the Uniform Part- nership Act. ' § 572. Expiration of term. — Dissolution of a partnership by act of the partners in accord with their agreement is worked ipso facto by the expiration of the limited period for which the partnership was formed.^ So, also, the accomplishment of the particular transaction or venture to which the partnership was devoted terminates the relation.* The Uniform Partnership Act merely declares the general rule in this respect as to dissolu- tion.* § 573. Express will of one partner in partnership for in- definite term. — If the length of life of a partnership has not been definitely fixed, the firm exists, in general, at will and may be dissolved whenever any one of its members bona fide' so 2 Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. 119, 5 R. Minn. 408, 23 N. W. 840; Phillips v. R. 237; Phillips v. Reeder, 18 N. J. Reeder, 18 N. J. Eq. 9S; McAuley v. Eq. 95; Morrill v. Weeks, 70 N. H. Palmer, S3 Hun (N. Y.)' 635, 25' N. 178, 46 Atl. 32; Peyser v. Myers, 63 Y. St. 969, 6 N. Y. S. 402, 3 Silver- Hun 634, 18 N. Y. S. 736, 45 N. Y. nail 245 (aifd. 125 N.Y.742, 26 N. St. 413 (affd. 135 N. Y. 599, 32 N. E. 912, 4 Silvernail Ct. App. 339) ; E. 699) ; Hoflfman v. Hauptner, 135 Kennedy v. Porter, 109 N. Y. 526, 17 App. Div. 148, 119 N. Y. S. 1022; N. E. 426; Jones v. Jones, 18 Ohio Masters v. Brooks, 132 App. Div. C. C. 260, 10 Ohio C. D. 71 ; Sims v. (N. Y.) 874, 117 N. Y. S. 585; Schla- Smith, 11 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 565. And ter V. Winpenny, 75 Pa. St. 321 ; Isler compare Petrikin v. Collier, 1 Pa. St V. Baker, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 85; 247. Bank of Mobile v. Andrews, 2 Sneed * Uniform Partnership Act, § 3i (Tenn.) 535. See S 224 on dura- (1, a). tion of relation. s "The Supreme Court of Arkansas, 3 Bank of Montreal v. Page, 98 111. in Howell v. Harvey, S Ark. 270, 39 109; Spurck v. Leonard, 9 111. App. Am. Dec. 376, said this: 'As a gen- 174; Potter v. Tolbert, 113 Mich. 486, eral principle, contracts subsisting 71 N. W. 849; Bohrer v. Drake, 33 during pleasure, are naturally and 731 DISSOLUTION § 573 chooses.® "It is universally conceded that a contract of partnei"- ship containing no stipulation as to the time during which it shall continue in force does not endure for the life of the part- ners, or of either of them, nor for any longer time than their mu- tual consent, [and] may be dissolved by either partner at his own necessarily dissolvable by the mere exercise of the will of either of the parties; and this is the principle ac- cording to the civil law under ordi- nary circumstances. * * * In cases of equity, we think the true rule to be this, that to enable one partner to dissolve at will the partnership, two things must occur; first, the renun- ciation of the partnership must be in good faith, and secondly, it must not be made at an unreasonable time. This is the doctrine of the civil law.' The rule laid down in the second par- agraph of the foregoing excerpt was not the rule of the common law (see 30 Cyc. Law & Proc, p. 650 ; Meysen- burg V. Littlefield, 13S Fed. 184; Blake v. Sweeting, 121 111. 67, 12 N. E. 67; Carlton v. Cummins, 51 Ind. 478; Koenig v. Adams, 37 Kans. 52, 14 Pac. 439), and is not the rule in this state, either at law or in equity, un- less it is made so by § S47S, Rev. Codes." Freund v. Murray, 39 Mont. 539, 104 Pac. 683, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 959. See also Stitt v. Rat Portage Lumber Co., 98 Minn. 52, 107 N. W. 824. « Champlin, J., delivering the opin- ion of the court in Walker v. Whipple, 58 Mich. 476, 25 N. W. 472, says : "In this case it is conceded that the co- partnership entered into was not lim- ited by the express agreement of the parties. It was therefore determina- ble, in the absence of fraud, at the will of either party. I do not agree that a limitation may be ingrafted upon such a copartnership agreement by implication arising out of the busi- ness engaged in, or the circumstances of the case. It may be said that it is generally understood that such con- tract relations are not formed except with a view of engaging in some busi- ness which may require both time and capital to carry out the object for which the partnership was formed. It is nevertheless true that unless the term for which the partnership is to continue is limited or fixed by the agreement, either party may, at his pleasure, dissolve the relation. This is elementary law. The defendant ex- ercised his right, and the partnership was dissolved by his refusing to con- tinue the business further in com- pany with complainant. It does not concern us what his reasons or no- tions for doing so were." See also Gleeson v. Costello (Ariz.), 138 Pac. 544; First Internation- al Bank of Portal v. Brown (Minn.), 153 N. W. 522; Mul- vey v. Anderson, 187 Mo. App. 430, 173 S. W. 738; Feather- stonhaugh v. Fenwick, 17 Ves. 298, 11 R. R. 11; Peacock V. Peacock, 16 Ves. 49, 10 R. R. 138; Crawshay v. Maule, 1 Swanst. 495-508, 1 Wils. 181; How- ell v. Harvey, 5 Ark. 270, 39 Am. Dec. ZKt; Lawrence v. Robinson, 4 Colo. 567; Lapenta v. Lettieri, 72 Conn. 7>n, M Atl. 730, n Am. St. 315 ; Null V. Parsons, 145 111. App. 436; Carlton v. Cummins, 51 Ind. 478; Koenig v. 573 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 732 will at any time."^ As was said by the court in' an action brought in equity to settle the afifairs of a partnership formed by oral agreement for an indefinite time: "A partnership for an in- definite period is in law a partnership at the will of the partners, and either partner may withdraw when he pleases, and dissolve the partnership if he acts without any fraudulent purpose." The code of Louisiana makes specific provision for this contingency as follows:* "If the partnership has been contracted without any limitation of time one of the partners may dissolve the partnership by notifying his partners that he does not intend to remain any longer in the partnership, provided, nevertheless, the renunciation to the partnership be made bona fide, and it does not take place unseasonably." The desire of a partner to terminate a partnership agreement, the term of which has not been fixed, may be indicated by his meirely giving notice to the other partner or partners.^" Likewise the intention of a partner Adams, Zl Kans. 52, 14 Pac. 439; Blaker v. Sands, 29 Kans. SSI; Fletcher v. Reed, 131 Mass. 312; Whiting V. Leakin, 66 Md. 2SS, 7 Atl. 688; Whitman v. Robinson, 21 Md. 30; Fletcher v. Reed, 131 Mass. 312; Buck V. Smith, 29 Mich. 166, 18 Am. Rep. 84; Berry v. Folkes, 60 Miss. 576; Gaty v. Tyler, i7> Mo. App. 494; Freund v. Murray, 39 Mont. 539, 104 Pac. 683, 2S L. R. A. (N. S.) 959; Dobbins v. Tatem (N. J. Eq.) 25 Atl. 544; Wood v. Warner, IS N. J. Eq. 81 ; Pine v. Ormsbee, 2 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 375; Briggs v. Weid- mann Cooperage Co., 3 N. Y. S. 813, 24 N. Y. St. 300 (a£fd. 125 N. ,Y. 704, 26 N. E. 752) ; Loorya v. Kup- perman, 25 Misc. 518, 54 N. Y. S. 1005; McElvey v. 'Lewis, 76 N. Y. 373 ; Smith v. Ervin, 168 Pa. St. 271, 31 Atl. 1067; Yoos v. Doyle, 4 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 128; Heck v. McEwen, 12 Lea (Term.) 97; Green v. Waco State Bank, 78 Tex. 2, 14 S. W. 253; Rice V. Angell, IZ Tex. 350, 11 S. W. 338, 3 L. R. A. 769; McMahon v. McClernan, 10 W. Va. 419. And com- pare Beaver v. Lewis, 14 Ark. 138. ''Karrick v. Hannaman, 168 U. S. 328, 42 L. ed. 484, 18 Sup. Ct. 135. 8 Fletcher v. Reed, 131 Mass. 312 (1881). s Code La., art. 2884. ^0 "The dissolution of a partnership at will may be implied from circum- stances; but, when not the result of mutual agreement there must be no- tice by the party desiring a dissolu- tion, to his copartner, of his election to terminate the partnership, or his election must be manifested by un- equivocal acts or circumstances brought to the knowledge of the other party, which signify the exercise of the will of the firm that the part- nership be dissolved." Spears v. Willis, 151 N. Y. 443, 45 N. E. 849. Quoted in Freund v. Murray, 39 Mont. 539, 104 Pac. 683, 25 L. R. A. 733 DISSOLUTION § 574 to accomplish a dissolution of the firm may, it seems, be effected by conduct such as removing the personal effects of his associ- ates during the latter's absence from the building in which the partnership business is conducted, and refusing to permit him to longer engage in the partnership business." So, also, it has been held that where no definite provision was made as to the time during which the partnership was to continue, and no formal notice of an intention to dissolve was given prior to the bringing of suit, the partnership will be treated as being strictly at will and as dissolved fropi the. date of filing the bill/^ Where a 1 partner at will repudiates and denies the partnership, it is dis- solved from that time/^ Further a partner who has dissolved the firm is not ordinarily liable , in damages for loss resulting to his copartners from his conduct, at least when he has acted in good faith and without fraud.^* ■ § 574. Express will of all partners. — Of course, the fact that the partnership was or was not originally formed to continue for a definite period will not prevent the members of the firm from agreeing, at any time, to dissolve the relation which they then maintain.^^ Any contract, as between the parties thereto, (N. S.) 959. See further Blake v. ^^ Wiggins v. Brand, 202 Mass. 141, Sweeting, 121 111. 67, 12 N. E. 67; 88 N. E. 840. Boyd V. Tabb, 7 Ky. L. (abstract) is Gleeson v. Costello (Ariz.), 138 225 ; Avery v. Craig, 173 Mass. 110, Pac. 544. 53 N. E. 153 ; Major v. Todd, 84 Mich. i* Fletcher v. Reed, ' 131 Mass. 312 ; 85, 47 N. W. 841 ; Baldwin v. Walser, Walker v. Whipple, 58 Mich. 476, 25 41 Mo. App. 243; Beller v. Murphy, N. W. 472; Beller v. Murphy, 139 139 Mo. App. 663,. 123 S. W. 1029; Mo. App. 663, 123 S. W. 1029; Bald- Abbot V. Johnson, 32 N. H. 9 ; Skin- win v. Walser, 41 Mo. App. 243 ; ner v. Tinker, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 333; Gaty v. Tyler, 33 Mo. App. 494; Eagle V. Bucher, 6 Ohio St. 295, 67 Freund v. Murray, 39 Mont. 539, 104 Am. Dec. 342; Yoos v. Doyle, 4 Lack. Pac. 683, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 959. Leg. N. (Pa.) 128. And compare " Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. 119, 5 R. Wilson V. Davis, 1 Mont. 183. R. 237; Lichenstein v. Murphree, 9 "Solomon v. Kirkwood, 55 Mich. Ala. App. 108, 62 So. 444; Black v. 256, 21 N. W. 336; Freund v. Mur- Hunter (Cal.), 147 Pac. 463; Phelps ray, 39 Mont. 539, 104 Pac. 683, 25 v. State, 109 Ga. 115, 34 S. E. 210; L. R. A. (N. S.) 959, Richardson v. Gregory, 126 111. 166, § 574 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 734 may be terminated at any time by all the parties thereto, and contracts of partnership are not unlike other contracts in this respect.^^ This intent to dissolve need not ordinarily be expressed in words but may be implied, as for instance by discontinuance or abandonment of the partnership business,^ ^ or by sale of the whole of the partnership property and business.^^ By the Uni- form Partnership Act it seems that partners who have assigned their interest or whose interest has been charged are not neces- sary parties to an agreement among partners for a dissolution.^" While the partnership agreement as between the partners may be dissolved at any time by the consent of all, and while it may be under certain formalities dissolved as to third persons, it must be understood that a dissolution by agreement of- the partners can not injuriously affect third parties without their consent, that is, as to the liability of the members or of the partnership property for existing debts, or obligations, nor as to 'future obli- gations incurred by one or more of the partners where the third parties are entitled to notice of the dissolution, and have 'no formal notice or actual knowledge as to such dissolution. It has 18 N. E. W; Ligare v. Peacock, 109 17 N. E. 426; Bragg v, Geddes, 9Z 111. 94; Bank of Montreal v. Page, 111. 39; Hazell v. Clark, 89 Mo. App. 98 111. 109; Kelley v. Hanes, 143 111. 78. App. 1 ; Wantling v. Howarth, 65 111. i^ Richardson v. Gregory, 126 III. App. 598; Wood v. Fox's Heirs, 1 166, 18 N. E. in (affg. 27 111. App, A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 451 ; Mitchell v. 621) ; Spurck v. Leonard, 9 III. App. Murphy, 131 La. 1040, 60 So. 677; 174; Ligare v. Peacock, 109 111. 94; Simpson v. Ritchie, 110 Maine 299, Potter v. Tolbert, 113 Mich. 486, 71 86 Atl. 124; Wood v. Gault, 2 Md. N. W.849; Dobbins v. Tatem (N. J.), Ch. 433; Dille v. Parker, 204 Mass. 25 Atl. 544; Ferguson v. Baker, 116 163, 90 N. E. 520; Ferguson v. N. Y. 257 ; Green v. Waco State Bank, Baker, 116 N. Y. 257; Bushby v. 78 Tex. 2, 14 S. W. 253. And corn- Berkeley, 135 App. Div. 443, 119 N. pare Wright v. Cudahy, 168 111. 86, Y. S. 739; Frear v. Lewis, 151 N. Y. 48 N. E. 39; First Nat. Bank of Shak- S. 486; Gould v. Banks, 8 Wend. (N. opee v. Strait, 75 Minn. 396, 78 N. W. Y.) 562, 24 Am-. Dec. 90; Dupuy v. 101. Dawson (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. is Coggswell &c. Co. v. Coggswell 698. And compare Stevenson v. (N. J.), 40 Atl. 213; In re Welles, Shields, 7 La. 433 ; Truesdell v. Ba- 191 Pa. St. 239, 43 Atl. 207. ker, 2 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 351. ^ Uniform Partnership Act, § 31 " Kennedy v. Porter, 109 N. Y. 526, (1, c). 735 DISSOLUTION § 575 been seen that a partnership may be terminated by agreement of all the partners, or by one or more of them, less than all. It is also true that the relation may be terminated by the conduct of the partners without any express agreement therefor, by a sort of estoppel.^" In one case" where both parties agreed, and the evidence showed, that to all outward appearances, and in their relations to third persons, there was on a certain day, a dissolution of the partnership., and a transfer of the property purchased to one partner. Carter, J., in his opinion said : "We are of the opinion that such apparent termination of the part- nership relations of the parties should be treated as an actual dissolution among themselves, unless it is made to appear by a preponderance of the evidence that, as alleged by Wright (one of the partners), he and Cudahy (the other partner) continued to be partners secretly throughout the deal." The acts were not, perhaps, conclusive as to the dissolution, but were at least pre- sumptive thereof, and estopped the parties from denying the fact of dissolution, unless they could, by clear evidence, establish the fact that there was in fact no dissolution. § 575. By expulsion of partner. — There is no power on the part of some members of a partnership to expel a member unless it is expressly given in the partnership agreement and such power must be exercised in good faith and strictly in accordance rwith the power as granted.^^* The power must be exercised by 20Paton V. Wright, 15 How. Pr. son, 60 L. J. Ch. 482 [1891], 2 Ch. 84, (N. Y.) 481; Armstrong v. Fahne- 64 L. T. 782; Smith v. Mules, 9 Hare stock, 19 Md. 58; Green V.Waco State 556, 21 L. J. Ch. 803, 16 Jur. 261; Bank, 78 Tex. 2, 14 S. W. 253. Hart v. Clark, 6 De G., M. & G. 232, 21 Wright V. Cudahy, 168 III. 86, 48 24 L. J. Ch. 137, 3 Eq. R. 264, 3 W. N. E. 39. ' R. 147; Clarke v. Hart, 6 H. L. Cas. 21a See Lindley Partnership (8th 633; Carmichael v. Evans [1904], 1 ed.), pp. 490-493, and following cases: Ch. 486. See also Patterson v. Sil- Russell V. Russell, 49 L. J. Ch. 268, liman, 28 Pa. St. 304; Piatt v. Oli- 14 Ch. Div. 471, 42 L.. T. 112 ; Steu- ver, 3 McLean (U. S.) 27, Fed. Cas. art V. Gladstone, 10 Ch. Div. 626, 40 L. No. 11116 (affd. 3 How. 333, 11 L. T. 145, 27 W. R. 512 ; Blisset v. Dan- ed. 622) ; Kimball v. Gearhart, 12 Cal. iel, 10 Hare 493; Andrews v. Mitch- 27; Gorman v. Russell, 14 Cal. 531. ell 11905], A. C. 78: Fisher v. lack- § 576 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP ' 736 all whose concurrence is required,^^ and can not be exercised for omission of duty unless the omission was intentional,^' but a partner has no right to an opportunity to explain his conduct, unless to the other partners, if they are to decide whether expulsion is justifiable.^* Mr. Lindley says : "If a partner has been in fact wrongfully expelled and damnified it is not easy to see why an action for damages should not lie."^'' Under the definition of dissolution given in the Uniform Partnership Act, rightful expulsion of a partner would ipso facto dissolve the firm, since he ceases to be associated in carrying on the business.^^ The American cases on the subject of expulsion are very few, as will be seen from those cited. § 576. By express will of one partner in contravention of agreement. — The Uniform Partnership Act in permitting dissolution by express will of one partner in contravention of agreement at any time has followed what is probably the better rule and that supported by the weight of authority in this coun- try.^^ But the holdings are far from being in coriformity on this question. The principle that one partner may terminate at will a partnership agreement when no time was fixed for its termination has not always been applied, when the firm has come into being, unattended by any prescribed limit as to the length of its existence, for the accomplishment of a particular object; in such case, there are many holdings that dissolution prior to the achievement of the purpose of the partnership should only be for cause.^* Where a partnership has been formed to 22 Smith v.- Mules, 9 Hare 5S6, 21 L. 493, citing Catchpole v. Ambergate J. Ch. 803, 16 Jur. 261 ; Steuart v. &c. R. Co., 1 El. & Bl. Ill, and judg- Gladstone, 10 Ch. Div. 626, 40 L. T. ment of Cleasby and Pollock B. B. 145, 27 W. R. 512. in Wood v. Woad, L. R. 9 Ex. 190. 23 Smith V. Mules, 9 Hare 556, 21 ^^ Uniform Partnership Act, §§ 29, L. J. Ch. 803, 16 Jur. 261. 31 (1, d). 2* Green v. Howell (1910), 1 Ch. ^^ Uniform Partnership Act, § 31 495 ; Wood v. Woad, L. R. 9 Ex. 190 ; (2) . Cooper V. Wandsworth Board of ^s Beaver v. Lewis, 14 Ark. 138; »Vorks, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 180; Clark Burgess v. feadger, 124 111. 288, 14 V. Leach, 32 Beav. 14. N. E. 850; Walker v. Whipple, 58 25 Lindley Partnership (8 ed.), p. Mich. 476, 25 N. W. 472; Hubbell v. 737 DISSOLUTION §576 continue for a definite period, the right of a partner to dissolve at will is an open question. Some cases hold that every partner has an indefeasible right to dissolve the partnership,^* and it is held that the voluntary assignment of one partner's interest works such dissolution, though the term has not expired.®" But there are many cases denying the right to dissolve a partnership agreement before expiration of its term.®^ Even if a partner has Buhler, 43 Hun 82, 6 N. Y. St. 578; . Pearce v. Ham, 113 U. S. 585, 28 L. ed. 1067, 5 Sup. Ct. 676. And com- pare Cole V. Moxley, 12 W. Va. 730. 29 That the dissolution of such a partnership may be accomplished at will, see Solomon v. Kirkwood, 55 Mich. 256, 21 N. W. 336, in which Cooley, C. J., delivering the opinion of the court, says: "The rule on this subject is thus stated in an early New York case. The right of a parther to dissolve, it is said, 'is a right in- separably incident to every partner- ship. There can be no such thing as an indissoluble partnership. Every partner has an indefeasible right to dissolve the partnership, as to all fu- ture contracts, by publishing his own volition to that effect; and after such publication the other members of the firm have no capacity to bind him by any contract. Even where the partners covenant with each other that the partnership shall continue several years, either partner may dissolve it the next day by proclaiming his determination for this purpose; the only consequence being that he thereby subjects himself to a claim for damages for a breach of his contract. The power given by one partner to another to make joint contracts for them both is not only a revocable power, but a man can do no act to divest himself of the capacity to revoke it.' Skinner 47 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 V, Dayton, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 513, 10 Am. Dec. 286." See also Blake v. Dorgan, 1 G. Greene (Iowa) 537; Karrich v. Hannaman, 168 U. S. 328, 42 L. ed. 484, 18 Sup. Ct. 135; La- pehta V. Lettieri, 72 Conn. 377, 44 Atl. 730, 77 Am. St. 315; Swift v. Ward, 80 Iowa 700, 45 N, W. 1044, 11 L. R. A. 302; Monroe v. Conner, IS Maine 178, 32 Am. Dec. 148 ; "Walker V. Whipple, 58 Mich. 476, 25 N. W. 472 ; ' Mason v. Connell, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 381; Bagley v. Smith, 10 N. Y. 489, 19 How. Pr. 1, 61 Am. Dec. 756; In re Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Pa. St. 168, 98 Am. Dec. 255 ; Kinloch v. Hamlin, 2 Hill Eq. (S. Car.) 19, 27 Am. D^ec. 441; Green v. Waco State Bank, 78 Tex. 2, 14 S. W. 253. 30 Monroe v. Hamilton, 60 Ala. 226 ; Miller v. Brigham, 50 Cal. 615 ; Mar- quand v. New York Mfg. Co., 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 525; Conrad v. Buck,^ 21 W. Va. 396; Westbrook v. Wheel- er, 25 Ont. 559. 31 Howell V. Harvey, 5 Ark. 270, 39 Am. Dec. 376 ; Pearpoint v. Graham, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 232, Fed. Cas. No. 10877; Ross v. Cornell,. 97 Ga. 340, 22 S. E. 394; Gerard v. Gateau, 84 III. 121, 25 Am. Rep. 438; Cash v. Earnshaw, 66 111. 402 ; Berry v. Folkes, 60 Miss. 576; Hartman v. Woehr, 18 N. J. Eq. 383; Van Kuren v. Tren- ton &c. Mfg. Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 306; Ferrero "v. Buhlmeyer, 34 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 33; Smith v. Mulock, 24 N. § 576 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 738 such right he may nevertheless by his exercise thereof without cause, render himself liable in damages to his copartners.'^ "Some courts have held that a partner can not terminate such a partner- ship [one formed for a specific purpose or for a specified time] at will; but the trend of the authorities now is that it may be done, but, if it is done without legal cause, it will subject the wrongdoer to liability for resulting damages.""* "There may be cases in which equity would enjoin a dissolution for a time, when the circumstances were such as to make it specially injurious. * * * When one partner becomes dissatisfied there is com- monly no legal policy to be subserved by compelling a continu- ance of the relation, and the fact that a contract will be broken by the dissolution is no argument against the right to dissolve. Most contracts may be broken at pleasure, subject, however, to responsibility in damages. And that responsibility would exist in breaking a contract of partnership as in other cases."^* Where a partnership agreement provides that it shall be terminated "by mutual arrangement only," it is held in England that a part- nership is created for the joint lives of the partners and it can not be terminated by act of one partner."^ But in Texas a similar agreement has been construed as making the partnership deter- minable at will."® Y. Super. Ct. 569, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 360 (affd. 164 N. Y. 603, 58 N. E. 374; Bishop v. Breckles, 1 Hoff. Ch. 1088) ; Westwood v. Cole, 120 N. Y. (N. Y.) 534; Von Tagen v. Roberts, S. 884; Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johns. 2 Pearson (Pa.) 137; Hannaman v. (N. Y.) 513, 10 Am. Dec. 286; Cock- Karrick, 9 Utah 236, 33 Pac. 1039 ley v. Brucker, 54 Ohio St. 214, 44 N. (affd. 168 U. S. 328, 42 L. ed. 484, 18 E. 590; Addams v. Tutton, 39 Pa. Sup. Ct. 135) ; Cole v. Moxley, 12 W. St. 447; Mason v. Connell, 1 Whart. Va. 730; Henn v. Walsh, 2 Edw. Ch. (Pa.) 381 ; Cole v. Moxley, 12 W. Va. 129. 730. And compare Bishop v. Breck- 32 Uniform Partnership Act, § 38, les, 1 Hoff. Ch. (N. Y.) 534. 2 (a) II; Karrick v. Hannaman, 168 ssBeller v. Murphy, 139 Mo. App. U. S. 328, 42 L. ed. 484, 18 Sup. Ct. 663, 123 S. W. 1029. 135 ; Blake v. Dorgan, 1 G. Greene ^* Cooley, C. J., in Solomon v. Kirk- (lowa) 537; Monroe v. Conner, IS wood, 55 Mich. 256, 21 N. W. 336. Maine 178, 32 Am. Dec. 148; Bagley 35 Moss V. Elphick [1910], 1 K. B. V. Smith, 10 N. Y. 489, 19 How. Pr. 846, 19 Ann. Cas. 382. 1, 61 Am. Dec. 756; Hagenaers v. ^^ -y^^right v. Ross, 30 Tex. Civ. App.. Herbst, 30 App. Div. 546, 52 N. Y. S. 207, 70 S. W. 234. 739 DISSOLUTION § 577 §577. By event making partnership unlawful — War. — Again, the law may operate to dissolve a partnership when an event happens which renders business of the firm unlawful.*' It is a well grounded principle that no partnership can exist for the accomplishment of an illegal purpose. If on the one hand the purpose for which the parties joined their efforts was illegal, it can be plainly seen that no partnership is formed, al- though the liabilities of actual partners may devolve upon those persons attempting to form a partnership, as to certain third parties. On the other hand, assuming the business of the part- nership to have been legal when the partnership was formed and the business commenced, and later to become illegal, what effect would this have upon the firm? It is very generally, if not uni- versally established, that under such circumstances the firm would be immediately dissolved by the operation of the law making the business illegal. Mr. Lindley, in his work on Partnership, says : "Upon principle it is apprehended that if, by any change in the law, it becomes illegal to carry on a business, every partnership formed before making the law for the purpose of carrying on that business, must be taken to have been dissolved by the law in question. So if, the law remaining tmchanged, some event happens which renders it illegal for the members of a firm to continue to carry on their business in partnership, such' event dissolves the firm."*^ For example, until recent legislation changed the law, a sale of land in California to Japanese was legal, and a partnership, entered into and conducted exclusively for the purpose of selling land to Japanese was legal. Upon the passing of the recent statute by California, refusing the right to Japanese to purchase land, such a partnership would dissolve, providing, of course, that its objects were all for objects made illegal by the statute. To the same effect would have been the rule when a partnership was organized before the Chinese ex- clusion act was passed, for the sole aim and purpose of bringing s'' Esposito V. Bowden, 7 EI. & Bl. 1209, S W. R. 732 ; Griswold v. Wad- 763, 27 L. J. Q. B. 17, 3 Jur. (N. S.) dington, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 438. 38 Lindley Partnership, p. S84. § 577 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 740 Chinese into this country, or a partnership for the purpose of assisting runaway slaves, before such act was prohibited by law. As to the second ground given by Lindley, where the business itself is not illegal, but where the association of the partners becomes illegal, and the firm is dissolved, no better illustration can perhaps be used than a proclamation of war declared, be- tween two nations, citizens of which nations are in partnership. .There has been considerable doubt expressed, however, as to whether such a condition of war absolutely dissolves the firm, or whether the partnership is simply suspended during the term of the existence of tlie state of war. Mr. Chief Justice Spencer said,*' in referring to war as dissolving partnerships as set forth above, that : "When the objects and intentions of an union of two or more individuals to prosecute commercial business are con- sidered; when it is seen that an event has taken place without their fault, and beyond their control, which renders their respec- tive nations, and, along with them, the defendants themselves, enemies of each other; that all communication and intercourse have become unlawful ; that they can no longer co-operate in the conduct of their common business by affording each other ad- vice, and are kept hoodwinked as to the conduct of each other ; that the trade itself in which they were engaged has ceased to exist; that if they enter into any contracts, they are incapable of enforcing their performance by an appeal to the courts ; that their allegiance leads them to support opposite and conflicting .interests — I am compelled to say that the law can not be so unjust as to pronounce that a partnership so circumstanced, when all its objects and ends are prostrated, shall continue ; and, with the clearest conviction in my mind, and in analogy to the cases to which reference has been made, I have come to the conclusion that the partnership between the defendants was at least sus- pended, and I incline to the opinion that it was ipso facto dis- solved by the war, and consequently that the defendant, J. W., is 39 Griswold v. Waddington, 15 Johns. 57 (affd. 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 438). 741 DISSOLUTION § 578 not liable to this action." In one case*" it was held that the war of 1860 dissolved a copartnership existing between infants in Illinois and a person in Mississippi; but the dissolution had no regard to things past. The parties continued partners as to property actually acquired, and remained bound to account to each other therefor. In all such cases, the partnership is dis- solved by operation of law, except in such jurisdictions as hold that the relation is simply suspended, in which case the suspen- sion also occurs by operation of law.*^ The general rule is that if a war breaks out which renders the members of the partner- ship alien enemies, it operates as a dissolution of the firm." The provision of the Uniform Partnership Act, which is merely declaratory of the general law, is that a partnership is dissolved by any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the partnership to be carried on or for the members to carry it on in partnership.*^ The foregoing examples have fallen under the first alternative of this provision. The second applies where a partner becomes disqualified to continue in the business, or as a partner. Thus, in Indiana, it is declared that the election and qualification of a member of a law firm as judge dissolves the partnership,** and at common law, marriage of a woman partner made her incompetent to contract and dissolved the firm.*" § 578. l^arriage of a woman partner. — The subject of the competency of a married woman as a party to a contract of 40 Douglas Case, 14 Ct. of CI. 1. New Orleans v. Matthews, 49 N. Y. *i See § 186, on aliens as partners. 12 ; Booker v. Kirkpatrick, 26 Grat 42McAdams v. Hawes, 9 Bush (Va.) 145; Taylor v. Hutchison, 25 (Ky.) 15 ; New York Life Ins. Co. Grat. (Va.) 536, 18 Am. Rep. 699. See V. Clopton, 7 Bush (Ky.) 179, 3 Am. note, Dorsey v. Kyle, 96 Am. Dec. Rep. 290 ; Matthews v. McStea, 91 U. 629. S. 7, 23 L. ed. 188; Buchanan v. *3 Uniform Partnership Act, § 31 Curry, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 137, 10 Am. (3). Dec. 200 ; Seaman v. Waddington, 16 ** Felt v. Mitchell, 44 Ind. App. 96, Johns. (N. Y.) 510; Griswold v. Wad- 88 N. E. 723; Justice v. Lairy, 19 Ind. dington, IS Johns. 57 (affd. 16 Johns. App. 272, 49 N. E. 459, 65 Am. St. (N. Y.) 438) ; Woods v. Wilder, 43 405. N. Y. 164, 3 Am. Rep. 684; Bank of *= See post § 578. § 578 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 742 partnership was previously discussed.*® Additional discussion from the viewpoint of dissolution because of the marriage of a woman partner will follow here. Under the common law, the marriage of a woman partner worked a dissolution of the firm of which she was a member/'' and it was held that the marriage of a man and woman who are partners will dissolve the partner- ship relation.*^ Only in certain excepted cases could a married woman, at common law, enter into a contract of partnership with any person. The rule has been very generally changed by statute in this country at the present time. In Ohio, for instance, the statute is as follows: "A husband or wife may enter into any engagement or transaction with each other or with any other person, which either might if unmarried ; subject, in trans- actions between themselves, to the general rules which control the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other."*" The emancipation of woman as to property rights, and the gradual growth thereof is well shown in the law of Ohio. The law in that state originally followed the common-law rule, of (with certain minor exceptions) no right to contract. In 1884 it was provided by legislative' enactment that: "The sep- arate property of the wife shall be under her sole control and shall not be taken by any process' of law for the debts of the husband, or be in any manner conveyed or incumbered by him, and she may, in her own name, during coverture, contract to the same extent and in the same manner as if she were unmar- ried."^" Prior to this, in 1861, a statute had been passed, making the real and personal property of a married woman her separate estate. In one case^^ the court said : "That a married woman *8 See §§ 190, 191, on Married 4s Bassett v. Shepardson, 52 Mich. Women ; and Husband and Wife as 3, 17 N. W. 2,17. And compare Bur- competent parties. ney v. Savannah Grocery Co., 98 Ga. *7 Little V. Grayson, 30 Pittsb. Leg. 711, 25 S. E. 915, 58 Am. St. 342. Jour. (Pa.) 222; Little v. Hazldtt, 197 *9 0hio Code, § 7999. Pa. St. 591, 47 Atl. 855; Brown v. so Ohio Rev. Stat. 1884, § 3100. Chancellor, 61 Tex. 437. And com- " Payne v. Thornpson, 44 Ohio St pare Nerot v. Burnand, 4 Russ. 247 ; 192, 5 N. E. 654. Alexander v. Morgan, 31 Ohio St. 546. 743 DISSOLUTION § 578 had not capacity at common law to enter into a partnership with her husband will not admit of serious controversy.^^ If she be endowed with capacity to enter into a contract of copartnership with her husband in Ohio it is so by virtue of some enabling statute. * * * As the transactions involved in this con- troversy occurred prior to the legislation of 1884 (81 Ohio L. 65, 209), we are not called upon to consider or construe these enactments." It is seen by the above decision that at least until the statute of 1884, the law was well recognized in Ohio that a wife could not enter into a partnership with her husband, al- though another case^* recognizes the principle, under the act of 1861, that the wife could join in a partnership with persons other than her husband, as to her separate estate or property, but no further. The question as to whether or not the act of 1884 galve to the wife the capacity to enter into a partnership with her husband, was carefully and expressly evaded by the Supreme Court in the case^* cited above, and the point has not since been expressly decided in any reported Ohio case, insofar as the author has been able to ascertain. However, in his opin- ion, the act of 1884 did give the wife this right, and the right is even more thoroughly established in the present law cited above. In several jurisdictions it has been expressly held that a wife may be partner with her husband.*^ Does, then, the mar- riage of a woman dissolve a partnership of which she is a mem- ber? The answer is that it must depend entirely upon the rule in the particular jurisdiction, there being three classifications thereof. In the first, where the old common-law rule prevails, such a marriage to any one would dissolve the partnership. In 52 Citing 1 BI. Com. 442; Mathews 65 Scatt v. Conway, 58 N. Y. 619; Partnership, § 9; 1 Collyer Partner- Zimmerman v. Erhard, 83 N. Y. 74; ship (6th ed.), § 14; Parsons Partner- Graff v. Kinney, 15 Abb. N. Cas. 397, ship, p. 23; Brown v. Jewett, 18 N. 37 Hun (N. Y.) 405, 1 How. Pr. H. 230. (N. S.) S9; Krouskop v. Shontz, 51 53 Swasey v. Antram, 24 Ohio St. Wis. 204, 8 N. W. 241, 37 Am. Rep. 87. 817 ; Todd v. Lee, IS Wis. 365. s* Payne v. Thompson, 44 Ohio St. 192, 5 N. E. 654. 579 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 744 the second, where a wife can, in general,- enter into such a part- nership, excepting with her husband, a marriage by the woman partner with one of her copartners would dissolve the firm. In the third, where a woman may enter into a contract with any one, her marriage to a member of the firm would not work a disso- lution.^" § 579. By death of a partner. — The death of one of the partners ordinarily terminates the partnership as to all the mem- bers thereof.^^ Death of a special partner, like that of a general partner, dissolves a partnership.^^ The reasons for such dissolu- =6 See generally §§ 190, 191. "Pigott V. Bagley, M'Clel. & Y. 569, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. S09n; Bur- well V. Mandeville, 2 How. (U. S.) 560, 11 L. ed. 378; Scholefield V. Eichelberger, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 586, 8 L. ed. 793; Ruggles v. Buck- ley, 175 Fed. 57, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 541, 99 C. C. A. 73; Didlake v. Roden Grocery Co., 160 Ala. 484, 49 So. 384; Lee v. Wimberly, 102 Ala. 539, 15 So. 444; Espy v. Comer, 76 Ala. 501; Knapp v. McBride, 7 Ala. 19; Humphries v. McCraw, 5 Ark. 61; Louis v. Elfelt, 89 Cal. 547, 26 Pac. 1095 ; Gleason v. White, 34 Cal. 258; FiUey v. Phelps, 18 Conn. 294; Canfield v. Hard, 6 Conn. 180; Mul- herin v. Rice, 106 Ga. 810, 32 S. E. 865; Carter v. Lipsey, 70 Ga. 417; Andrews v. Stinson, 254 III. Ill, 98 N. E. 222, Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 927 and note (revg. judgment 164 III. App. 25); McCall v. Moss, 112 111. 493; Remick v. Emig, 42 111. 342 ; Talcott V. Dudley, 4 Scam. (III.) 427; For- rester V. Oliver, 1 Bradw. (111.) 259 (revd. 96 111. 315); Schmidt v. Archer, 113 Ind. 365, 14 N. E. 543; Cobble v. Tomlinson, 50 Ind. 550; Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland (Md.) 418; Goodburn v. Stevens, 5 Gill (Md.) 1; Marlett v. Jackman, 3 Allen (Mass.) 287; Jen- ness V. Carleton, 40 Mich. 343; Rob- erts v. Kelsey, 38 Mich. 602; Mudd V. Bast, 34 Mo. 465; Costello v. Costello, 209 N. Y. 252, 103 N. E. 148 (afifg. judgment 137 N. Y. S. 132, 152 App. Div. 280); Gratz v. Bayard, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 41 ; Potter v. Moses, 1 R. I. 430; Bank of Mobile v. Andrews, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 535; Morris v. Owen (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 227; Davis v. Christen, 15 Grat (Va.) 11. B8 Burwell v. Cawood, 2 How. (U. S.) 560, 11 L. ed. 378; Scholefield v. Eichelberger, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 586, 8 L. ed. 793 ; McKinzie v. United States, 34 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 278; Pitkin v. Pit- kin, 7 Conn. 307, 18 Am. Dec. Ill; Oliver V. Forrester, 96 111. 315 ; Nel- son V. Hayner, 66 111. 487 ; Remick v. Emig, 42 111. 342; Johnson v. Clark, 18 Kans. 157; Ellis v. Johnson, 4 Ky. L. (abstract) 991 ; Smith v. Smith, 51 La. Ann. 72, 24 So. 618; Price v. Succession of Mathews, 14 La. Ann. 11; Cane v. Battle, 3 La. Ann. 642; Hamlin v. Mansfield, 88 Maine 131, 33 Atl. 788; Knowlton v. Reed, 38 Maine 246; Williamson v. Wilson; 1 Bland (Md.) 418; Goodburn v. 745 DISSOLUTION § 579 tion are thus stated in a leading case :°° , "One of the essential elements of a contract of copartnership consists in the right which each member has to the continuance of all his associates as members of the firm. If one withdraws, the copartnership is at an end. The delectus personarum lies at the foundation of the agreement of the parties, and is one of the main considera- tions on which it rests. The personal qualities of each member of a firm enter largely into the inducements which lead parties to form a copartnership ; and if the abilities and skill, or the char- acter and credit, of any one are withdrawn, the contract be- tween them is terminated and the copartnership is dissolved. When, therefore, by the death of a member of a firm, his per- Stevens, S Gill (Md.) 1; Walker v. House, 4 Md. Ch. 39 ; Hall v. Clagett, 48 Md. 223; Dyer v. Clark, S Mete. (Mass.) 562, 39 Am. Dec. 697; Wash- burn V. Goodman, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 519; Van Kleeck v. McCabe, 87 Mich. 599, 49 N. W. 872, 24 Am. St. 182; Jenness v. Carleton, 40 Mich. 343; Roberts v. Kelsey, 38 Mich. 602; Hoard v. Clum, 31 Minn. 186, 17 N. W. 275 ; Robertshaw v. HanWaiy, 52 Miss. 713 ; Mayson's Admr. v. Beaz- ley's Admr., 27 Miss. 106; Exchange Bank v. Tracy, 11 Mo. 594; Edwards V. Thofnas, 66 Mo. 468 ; Mudd v. Bast, 34 Mo. 465 ; Beller v. Murphy, 139 Mo. App. 663, 123 S. W. 1029; Gaskill v. Adams, 83 Mo. App. 380; Greenburg V. Early, 4 Misc. 99, 30 Abb. N. Gas. 300, 23 N. Y. S. 1009, 53 N. Y. St. 130 ; Ames v. Downing, 1 Bradf . Sur. (N. Y.) 321; Dexter v. Dexter, 43 App. Div. 268, 60 N. Y. S. 371 ; Du- rant v. Pierson, 124 N. Y. 444, 26 N. E. 1095, 21 Am. St. 686, 12 L. R. A. 146; Stewart v. Robinson, 115 N. Y. 328, 22 N. E. 160, 5 L. R. A. 410; Sage V. Woodin, (£ N. Y. 578; Eg- berts V. Wood, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 517, 24 Am. Dec. 236; Griswold v. Waddington, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 57 (affd. 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 438); Cheeseman v. Wiggins, 1 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 595 ; Jacquin v. Buisson, 11 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 385; Champion v. Williams, 2 Ohio Dec. 388, 2 Ohio (N. P.) 329; In re Smith's Estate, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 131; Gratz v. Bayard, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 41; Darling's Es- tate, 7 Kulp (Pa.) 323; Potter v. Moses, 1 R. I. 430; Jones v. McMich- ael, 12 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 176; Fisher V. Tucker, 1 McCord Eq. (S. Car.) 169; Tompkins v. Tompkins, 18 S. Car. 1 ; Carroll v. Alston, 1 S. Car. 7; Bank of Mobile v. Andrews, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 535 ; Isler v. Baker, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 85 ; Landa v. Shook, 87 Tex. 608, 30 S. W. 536; Alexander's Exrs. V. Lewis, 47 Tex. 481 ; McNeish V. United States Hulless Oat Co., 57 Vt. 316; Walker v. Wait, SO Vt. 668; Tenney v. New England Protective Union, 37 Vt. 64; Davis v. Christian, 15 Gratj (Va.) 11 ; Vilas v. Farwell, 9 Wis. 460; Crawshay v. Maule, 1 Swanst. 495-520, 1 Wils. 181 ; Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. 119, 5 R. R. 237. =9 Marlett v. . Jackman, 3 Allen (Mass.) 287. § 579 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 746 sonal liability ceases and his estate is by operation of law ab- solved from all future contracts and transactions entered into in the name of the firm, it would seem to follow as a necessary consequence, that the power of the surviving copartners to bind each other by new contracts and engagements must at once cease. The copartnership would then be terminated not only as to the deceased partner and his estate, but also as to the other members of the firm. The delectus personarum would no longer exist. The contract of copartnership did not confer any power or authority on the several copartners to bind each other indi- vidually, or to act in behalf of any number of them less than the whole. The copartnership constituted the principal ; and the several copartners were agents, not of the different persons com- prising the firm, but only of all taken together and forming one body united in a community of interest for common objects. If, then, the members of the firm are held to be bound by a contract entered into by one of the copartners in the name of the firm after its dissolution by the death of a member, such liability does not arise or grow out of the agreement of copart- nership. On the contrary, it is directly adverse to the nature and spirit of the contract between the parties. No such agency was created by the formation of the copartnership. It presents the anomaly of holding a party responsible for the act of an agent after the principal — the copartnership — ^had ceased to exist, and all authority to act in its behalf had been revoked by an act of God." Even where a partnership agreement provides for the continuance of the business after the death of any one of the partners,*" it seems that, strictly speaking, the effect of such so Page V. Ratliffe, 1(> L. T. (N. ed. 404; Smith v. Ayer, 101 U. S. S.) 63; Hunter v. Dowling (189S), 320, 25 L. ed. 9SS ; Burwell v. Cawood,- 2 Ch. 223, 64 L. J. Ch. 713, 13 R. 474, 2 How. (U. S.) 560, 11 L. ed. 378; 72 L. T. 653, 43 W. R. 619; Jennings Espey v. Comer, 76 Ala. SOI ; Houston V. Jennings, 67 L. J. Ch. 190 ; Ex parte v. Stanton, 11 Ala. 412 ; Knapp v. Mc- Bevan, 10 Ves. 107; Dowse v. Gor- Bride, 7 Ala. 19; Edgar v. Cook, 4 ton (1891), A. C. 190, 60 L. J. Ch. Ala. 588; Blodgett v. American Nat. 745, 64 L. T. 809, 40 W. R. 17; In Bank, 49 Conn. 9; Butler v. American re Johnson, L. R. 15 Ch. Div. 548; Toy Co., 46 Conn. 136; Duffield v. Jones y. Walker, 103 U. S. 444, 26 L. Brainerd, 45 Conn. 424; Rand v. 747 DISSOLUTION 579 agreement upon the happening of the contingency mentioned, will be the formation of a new firm,°^ although the courts of some jurisdictions apparently take the view that it will prevent the dissolution of the partnership."^ It has been held that if a con- tinuance of the business after death of a partner is stipulated in the partnership agreement, it is binding only at the option of the deceased partner's representatives or heirs."^ But death of a partner always dissolves an ordinary partnership, unless the arti- cles of partnership provide for a continuance of the firm after Wright, 141 Ind. 226, 39 N. E. 447; Stanwood v. Owen, 14 Gray (Mass.) 195 ; Jenness v. Carlton, 40 Mich. 343 ; Roberts v. Kelsey, 38 Mich. 602 ; Mat- tison V. Farnham, 44 Minn. 95, 46 N. W. 347; Hoard v. Clum, 31 Minn. 186, 17 N. W. 275 ; Edwards v. Thomas, 66 Mo. 468 ; Scharringhauseri v. Luebsen, 52 Mo. 337; Wild v. Davenport,. 48 N. J. L. 129, 7 Atl. 295, 57 Am. Rep. 552; Stewart v. Robinson, 115 N. Y. '328, 22 N. E. 160, 163, 5 L. R. A. 410; Wilson v. Simpson, 89 N. Y. 619; Delemater v. Hepworth, 48 Hun 618, 2 N. Y. S. 310, IS N. Y. St. 833; In re Laney, SO Hun 15, 18 N. Y. St 463, 2 N. Y. S. 443 (affd. 119 N. Y. 607, 23 N. E. 1143) ; Jones v. Procter, 5 Ohio Dec. 416, 5 Ohio N. P. 315; Peters v. Campbell, 2 Ohio Dec. (Re- print) 526, 3 West. L. Month. 587; Brew V. Hastings, 196 Pa. St. 222, 46 Atl. 257, 49 Am. St. 706; Wilcox v. Derickson, 168 Pa. St. 331, 31 Atl. 1080; In re Leaf's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 505; Roessler's Estate, 5 Pa. Dist. nd; Laughlin v. Lorenz's Admr., 48 Pa. St. 275, 86 Am. Dec. 592; Carter V. Young, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 210; God- frey V. Templeton, 86 Tenn. 161, 6 S. W. 47 ; Morrow v. Morrow, 2 Tenn. Ch. 549; Alexander's Exrs. v. Lewis, 47 Tex. 481; McNeish v. United States Hulless Oat Co., 57 Vt. 316; Walker v. Wait, 50 Vt. 668 ; Tenney V. New England Protective Union, Zl Vt. 64. 61 Pitkin V. Pitkin, 7 Conn. 307, 18 Am. Dec. Ill ; Hornaday v. Cowgill, 54 Ind. App. 631, 101 N. E. 1030; Ellis V. Johnson, 4 Ky. L. (abstract) 991; Mattison v. Farnham, 44 Minn. 95, 46 N. W. 347; Hoard v. Clum, 31 Minn. 186, 17 N. W. 275 ; Brenner v. Hirsche, 69 Miss. 309, 13 So. 730; Wild V. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 129, 7 Atl. 295, 57 Am. Rep. SS2 ; Stewart v. Robinson, 115 N. Y. 328, 22 N. E. 160, 163, 5 L. R. A. 410; McGrath v. Cowen, 57 Ohio St. 385, 49 N. E. 338 ; Wilcox V. Derickson, 168 Pa. St. 331, 31 Atl. 1080. See also Andrews v. Stinson, 254 111. Ill; 98 N. E. 222, Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 927 and note. And compare Lee v. Wimberly, 102 Ala. 539, "l5 So. 444. «2 Ferris v. Van Ingen, 110 Ga. 102, 35 S. E. 347; Ratid v. Wright, 141 Ind. 226, 39 N. E. 447; Roberts v. Kel- sey, 38 Mich. 602; Edwards v. Thomas, 66 Mo. 468; Farmers' & , Traders' Sav. Inst. v. Garesche, 12 Mo. App. 584. «3 Andrews v. Stinson, 254 111. Ill, 98 N. E. 222, Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 927 and tiote. § 580 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 748 such death. In an Indiana case®* there was a contract between the members of a banking partnership, which contained the following provision: "In case of the death of any one of the partners, his or her heirs or legal representatives shall occupy the same place in the copartnership as was occupied by the part- ner; and it shall not be competent for such heirs or legal repre- sentatives to withdraw such capital until the expiration of the term of partnership." One of the partners, William H. Morri- son, died during the continuance of the agreement, the firm later' encountering reverses, and the firm passed into a receiver's hands. In adjusting the matters, the court, in its opinion thus touches upon the question under discussion, as follows : "By the death of William H. Morrison in March, 1881, however, there can be little doubt, as we think, that the law would have worked a dis- solution of the partnership, were it not for the provision to the contrary in the articles of agreement."^ By that provision Mary Morrison, widow and administratrix of William H. Morrison, took his place in the company, and the partnership was contin- ued under the board of control until March 1, 1882 (the time of the expiration of the partnership agreement.)" Mining part- nerships are an exception in this respect to the ordinary part- nership. In a California case®' the rule as to_ joint owners of mines is stated as follows : "They form what is terrned a mining partnership, which is governed by many of the rules relating to ordinary partnerships, but which has also some other rules pecu- liar to itself, one of which is that one person may convey his in- terest in the mine and business without dissolving the partner- ship." Death of a member of a joint stock company does not, ipso facto, work a dissolution."^ § 580. By bankruptcy. — Again, a partnership is dissolved by operation of law when either the firm itself or any one of its «*Rand v. Wright, 141 Ind. 226, 39 83 Am. Dec. 96 (quoted in Congden N. E. 447 (1895). v. Olds, 18 Mont. 487, 46 Pac. 261). 65 Citing Schmidt v. Archer, 113 See also Taylor v. Castle, 42 Cal. 367. Ind. 36S, 14 N. E. 543, and authorities «'' Carter v. McCIure, 98 Tenn. 109, cited. 38 S. W. 585, 36 L. R. A. 282, 60 Am. «6 Skillman v. Lachman, 23 Cal. 198, St. 842. 749 DISSOLUTION § 581 members is adjudged insolvent or a bankrupt/* In like manner an assignment for the benefit of creditors, ordinarily, it seems, accomplishes a dissolution,®* or an assignment by one partner of his interest for the benefit of his individual creditors.'^" And the continuation of the business after such adjudication or as- signment will not in all probabili-ty change the effect of either.'^ The subject of bankruptcy is of such importance in partnership law that it will be treated in a separate chapter,^^ and under the general discussion of the topic will be treated its relation to dis- solution. § 581. Levy of attachment or execution sale. — A levy of execution against one partner on his interest in the firm and the sale of such interest works a dissolution of the firm.''^ But this «8 Ex parte Ruffin, 6 Ves. 119, S R. R. 237; Fox v. Hanbury, Cowp. 449; Amsinck v. Bean, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 395, 22 L. ed. 801 ; Lacey v. Cowan, 162 Ala. S46, SO So. 281 ; McNutt v. King, 59 Ala. 597; Wells v. Ellis, 68 Cal. 243, 9 Pac. 80; Gordon v. Freeman, 11 111. 14; Talcott v. Dudley, 4 Scam. (111.) 427; Fitch v. Pryse, 4 Ky. L. (abstract) 904 ; Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland (Md.) 418; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 296; Eustis V. BoUes, 146 Mass. 413, 4 Am. St. 327, 16 N. E. 286; Atwood v. Gil- lett, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 206; Halsey v. Norton, 45 Miss. 703, 7 Am. Rep. 745; Greene v. Breck, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 11 ; Welles V. March, 30 N. Y. 344 ; Mar- quand v. New York Mfg. Co., 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 525; Havens v. Hus- sey, S Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 30; Lovins V. Laub, 85 Misc. 336, 147 N. Y. S. 304; Blackwell v. Claywell, 75 N. Car. 213; In re McKelv/s Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 409; Siegel v. Chidsey, 28 Pa. St. 279, 70 Am. Dec. 124. 63 Simmons v. Curtis, 41 Maine 373 ;' Riddle V. Whitehill, 135 U. S. 621, 34 L. ed. 283, 10 Sup. Ct. 924 ; Davis V. Megroz, 55 N. J. L. 427, 26 Atl. 1009; Ferrero v. Buhlmeyer, 34 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 33 ; Carrol v. Evans, 27 Tex. 262. ^»Saloy v. Albrecht, 17 La. Ann. 75; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 296; Mar- quand v. N. Y. Mfg. Co., 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 525; Ogden v. Arnot, 29 Hun (N. Y.) 146; Conrad v. Buck, 21 W. Va. 396; Cameron v. Stevenson, 12 U. C. C. P. 389. See note 30, ante § 576, on dissolution by express will of one partner in contravention of partnership agreement. "Atwood v. Gillett, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 206. And compare Fitch v. Pryse, 4 Ky. L. 904. T^ See post ch. 22. TSTheriot v. Michel, 28 La. Ann. 107; Sanders v. Young, 31 Miss. Ill; Morrison v. Blodgett, 8 N. H. 238, 29 Am. Dec. 6 ; Renton v. Chaplain, 9 N. J. Eq. 62; Carter v. Roland, S3 Tex. 540; Aspinall v. London &c. R. Co., 11 Hare 325, 1 W. R. 518; Habershon v. Blurton, 1 De Gex. & Sm. 121. § 582 LAW OF .PARTNERSHIP 750 rule does not hold if the levy and sale was made by collusion of one partner with his creditor in order to force a dissolution and deprive a copartner of valuable rights.'^* It has been held that where the seizure of the interest of one partner deprives the partnership of control of firm property, the partnership is dis- solved." Merely filing an attachment against partnership prop- erty,'® or mere seizure of such property under writ of attach- ment,'' will not dissolve the firm. § 582. By judicial decree and by operation of lav? — Gen- erally. — The various ways in which a partnership may be dissolved are often classified under three heads: by operation of law; by act of the partners themselves; and by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. The text-writers who follow this classification make dissolution by judicial decree one of the great divisions of the subject of dissolution with several subdi- visions. This method has not been fully observed here, owing to the fact that in such a classification numerous subdivisions overlap from one general division. Hence the subject of disso- lution by judicial decree will be treated in a very general man- ner. The same observations apply to dissolution by operation of law, as a general division. Both these methods of dissolution occur by reason of the working of the law. The difference lies mainly in this, that by operation of law the dissolution is auto- matic, the law works of its own volition or momentum, while by judicial decree the law is set in motion by order of a court. These two methods are, in a way, set off from a third method and often referred to in text-books where the dissolution occurs by reason of the acts of the parties. The diflficulty of proceeding according to the above three classifications with subdivisions thereunder, may be better realized when we consider that the partnership itself must be formed by the acts of the parties 74 Renton v. Chaplain, 9 N. J. Eq. fe Foster v. Hall, 4 Humph, 62. (Tenn.) 346. 75 Borah v. O'Neill, 116 La. 672, 41 w Barber v. Barnes, 52 Cal. 650. So. 29. Contra: Choppin v. Wil- son, S7 La. Ann. 444. ?'51 DISSOLUTION § 582 themselves, and that in very many instances the dissolution of the firm by act of law or by judicial decree is founded upon some act of the partners or part of them, and further that it is often necessary to resort to judicial decree as to whether or not there has been a dissolution, or acts which should result in dissolution, by either or both of the other two methods. By some authorities it has been held that a partnership at will may be dissolved by act of the parties, while a partnership for a definite term can only be dissolved by judicial decree.''^ Another, and probably more strongly grounded rule is that any partner may at any time terminate the partnership relation, with or without cause, subject always to the provision that should he do so without sufficient grounds, that he shall be liable in damages to the partner or partners injured/* This diversity of opinion in the dififerent jurisdictions further illustrates the difficulty of a general classification, as the same identical case might be classi- fied under one division in one state, and otherwise in an adjoin- ing state. The same diversity of opinion exists as between dis- solution by operation of law and by judicial decree. As is shown elsewhere herein, abandonment of the partnership agreement, in certain jurisdictions, ipso facto, dissolves a partnership, while in other jurisdictions there must be an order of court to produce the same result. The marriage of a woman partner, in such jurisdictions as have not departed from the common-law rule, is usually given as an example of dissolution by operation of law, and such is undoubtedly the case, yet it is submitted that this is also dissolution by the act of a party, as, in legal contemplation, at least, the woman partner knew the law, and elected to do, voluntarily, an act which she knew would dissolve the firm. This is really, it would seem, dissolution by a combination of an act of a party and operation of law. Moreover, bankruptcy of a partner is usually given as an ex- 78 Cash V. Earnshaw, 66 111. 402 ; ^^ Monroe v. Conner, IS Maine 178, Sieghortner v. Weissenborn, 20 N. J. 32 Am. Dec. 148 ; Lapenta v. Lettieri, Eq. 172 ; Bishop v. Breckles, 1 Hoff. 72 Conn. 377, 44 Atl. 730, 77 Am. St. Ch. (N. Y.) 534; Cole V. Moxley, 12 315; Mason v. Connell, 1 Whart. W. Va. 730. (Pa.) 381. § 582 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 752 ample of dissolution by operation of law. True, the law does say that bankruptcy of a partner dissolves a partnership, yet it takes a judicial decree to creat^ a state of bankruptcy, and, further, in cases of voluntary bankruptcy, the decree is based upon an act of a partner consenting thereto. Therefore, it would appear that dissolution by reason of voluntary bankruptcy arises as follows : 1, by act of a party; 2, by judicial decree ; 3, by op- eration of law, and that all three methods enter into the final dissolution. Analysis of the cases will show that a very large number of dissolved partnerships occur by reason of a com- bination of two or more of the above general classifications. The general classification is, however, not without merit, and has considerable value when applied to individual cases, as there are many cases which can come squarely within one of these three divisions, and probably all cases come within the three divisions. The difficulty appears where an attempt is made to bring each of the different causes of dissolution entirely within one of the above three divisions. Under the Uniform Partner- ship Act certain causes are given whereby a partner may on application have a dissolution decreed by a court, and those grounds for dissolution will be considered next, with reference to the existing decisions on the subject, which do not always make a decree of court necessary to work a dissolution on some of those grounds. In general, when a partnership is formed to continue for a specified time and can not be terminated at will without the risk that the dissolving partner will be liable to re- spond to his associates in damages, resort may be had to a court of equity to decree dissolution.^" soNorthen v. Tatum, 164 Ala. 368, (N. S.) 839, Ann. Cas. 1913 D, 1143 51 So. 17; Howell v. Harvey, 5 Ark. and note (revg. judgment 154 App. 270, 39 Am. Dec. 7>](s; Moran v. Mc- Div. 925, 136 N. Y. S. 81) ; Waterbury Inerney, 129 Cal. 29, 61 Pac. 575, v. Merchants' Union Exp. Co., SO 948; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 3 Dana Barb. (N. Y.) 157; Richards v. Baur- (Ky.) 239; Sieghortner v. Weissen- man, 65 N. Car. 162; Durbin v. Bar- born, 20 N. J. Eq. 172; Berolzheimer ber, 14 Ohio 311; Fleming v. Carson, V. Strauss, 7 Civ. Proc. 225, 51 N. Y. 37 Ore. 252, 62 Pac. 374; Bank of Mo- Super. Ct. 96; Barclay v. Barrie, 209 bile v. Andrews, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) N. Y. 40, 102 N. E. 602, 47 L. R. A. 535; Isler v. Baker, 6 Humph. 753 DISSOLUTION § 583 § 583. Dissolution for insanity. — Insanity does not ipso facto operate to dissolve a partnership. There must ordinarily be some act by a court of competent jurisdiction, whereby the relation is terminated. The reason is obvious. In order to constitute a valid partnership inter sese there must be a meeting of minds of the persons assuming the partnership. Each mem- ber has a right to the rational advice and aid of his copartner, in the absence of' a contract or a rule of law to the contrary. Each has the right to the protection and the care which a rea- sonable man would or could bestow. How necessary it then is for each person in the firm to be in his right mind and reason, may be seen. In an English case*^ the court laid down the following rule of law upon the subject: "It is clear upon principle that the complete incapacity of a party to an agreement to perform that which was a condition of the agreement is a ground for determining the contract. The insanity of a partner is a ground for the dissolution of the partnership because it is immediate incapacity ; but it may not in the result prove to be a ground of dissolution, for the partner may recover from his malady. When a partner, therefore, is afHicted with insanity, the continuing partner may, if he think fit, make it a ground of dissolution, but in that case I consider with Lord Kenyon that in order to make it a ground of dissolution he must obtain a decree of the court. If he does not apply to the court for a decree of dissolu- tion, it is to be considered that he is willing to wait to see whether the incapacity of his partner may not prove merely temporary. If he carry on the partnership business in the expectation that ■ his partner may recover from his insanity, so long as he con- tinues the business with that exjpectation or hope, there can be no dissolution." It can thus be seen that dissolution on the (Tenn.) 85; Swepson V. Davis (Tenn.' E. 327. See further Hoffman v. Ch.), 60 S. W. 619; Daniel v. Gil- Hauptner, 135 App. Div. (N. Y.) 148, lespie, 65 W. Va. 366, 64 S. E. 254; 119 N. Y. S. 1022; Connelley v. Cus- Wood V. Beath, 23 Wis. 254. Disso- ter, 52 Wash. 697, 100 Pac. 335. lution by contract, however, precludes »! Jones v. Noy, 2 Myl. & K. 125, action for same. Adams v. Carmony, 3 L. J. Ch. 14. 44 Ind. App. 291, 87 N. E. 708, -89 N. 48 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 583 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 754 ground of insanity may be very difficult to determine. The in- sanity must be clearly proven. The question may also arise as to the degree of mental impairment and the length of time thereof. It would be safe to say that both must be such as to render the affected partner incapable of assuming his duties to the firm. Lord Kenyon says:*^ "If I was clearly satisfied that Bennet (the alleged insane partner) was restored to a sound mind, and could afford the proper assistance to Sayer, the partnership ought not to be dissolved. * * * If he has- merely a ray of intellect, I ought not to re-engraft him in his partnership." A Louisiana case*^ held that where one party is insane, and the other member of the partnership conducts the business of the firm, without a notice that the firm is dissolved (according to the. Louisiana statute), the firm continues and there is no dissolu- tion by reason of the insanity ipso facto, regardless of the in- sanity being notorious and unmistakable. There are, however, one or two cases contrary to the above general rule, which hold that such a principle is dangerous, the theory being that an in- sane partner might, with the broad powers of agency given his copartners, be heavily involved before there could be a judicial de- cree dissolving the firm, and which would not have occurred had they had the benefit of his sane and rational advice.^* There could be little reason for fear of the contracts of the insane partner, however, especially if he were apparently insane, as his contracts could be avoided upon this ground. The following general rules may be stated: Insanity of a partner, even though adjudicated, does not ipso facto work a dissolution of the partnership.** 82 Sayer v. Bennett, 1 Cox 107. St. 112; Cresse v. Loper, 72 N. J. 83 Jurgens v. Ittman, 47 La. Ann. Eq. 784, 65 Atl. 1001 ; Barclay v. Bar- 367 (1895). See also Raymond v. rie, 209 N. Y. 40, 102 N. E. 602, 47 L. Vaughn, 128 111. 256, 21 N. E. 566, R. A. (N. S.) 839 and note, Ann. 4 L. R. A. 440, 15 Am. St. 112. Cas. 1913 D, 1143 and note; Fried- 8* Parsons Partnership, p. 362 ; Isler burgher v. Jaberg, 20 Abb. N. Cas. V. Baker, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 85. See 279, 11 N. Y. St. 718; Sander v. also Cape Sable Co's Case, 3 Bland Sander, 2 Coll. Ch. Cas. 276; Sayer (Md.) 606. V. Bennet, 1 Cox Ch. 107; Kirby v. 85 Raymond v. Vaughn, 128 111. 256, Carr, 2 Jur. 741, 8 L. J. Exch. 21 N. E. 566, 4 L. R. A. 440, 15 Am. 31, 3 Y. & C. Exch. 184, 2 Jur. 741 ; 755 DISSOLUTION § 583 Where insanity of a permanent, hopeless nature beclouds the mind of one of the members of the firm, equity may properly dis- solve the partnership.*^ Where insanity is merely of a temporary character with a prospect of recovery, the partnership will not be dissolved." As to dissolution for insanity the Uniform Partner- ship Act merely declares the general rule.*' The Uniform Part- nership Act provides that dissolution by decree of court may be Anonymous, 2 Kay & J. 441; Jones V. Noy, 2 Myl. & K. 125, 3 L. J. Ch. 14 ; Fisher v. Melles, L. R. 18 Eq. Cas. 268n; Wrexham v. Hudleston, 1 Swanst. S14n. See also Sadler v. Lee, 6 Beav. 324, 7 Jur. 476, 12 L. J. Ch. 407; Reynolds v. Austin, 4 Del. Ch. 24; Davis v. Lane, 10 N. H. 156; Griswold V. Waddington, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 57 (affd. 16 Johns. 438); Page V. Vankirk, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 282. And see the note to Breaux v. Le Blanc, SO La. Ann. 228, 23 So. 281, 69 Am. St. 403. 86 "The rule supported by the de- cided weight of authority, and an- nouncing the correct doctrine, is that the insanity of a partner does not, per se, work a dissolution of the partnership, but may constitute suffi- cient grounds to justify a court of equity in decreeing its dissolution. But this doctrine must be understood and is applied by courts of equity with appropriate limitations and re- strictions; for, while curable, tempo- rary insanity will be sufficient, upon an inquisition, to sustain an adjudi- cation of insanity in the county court, * * * yet it will not authorize a court of chancery to decree a disso- lution of a partnership, if the malady be temporary only, with a fair pros- pect of recovery within a reasonable time." Raymond v. Vaughn, 128" 111. 256, 21 N. E. 566, 4 L. R. A. 440, 15 Am. St. 112. See also Barclay V. Barrie, 209 N. Y. 40, 102 N. E. 602, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 839, Ann. Cas. 1913 D. 1143 and note (revg. judgment 154 App. Div. 925, 139 N. Y. S. 81) ; Jones v. Noy, 2 Myl. & K. 125, 3 L. J. Ch. 14; Jones V. Lloyd, L. R. 18 Eq. 265, 43 L. J. Ch. 826, 30 L. T. 487, 22 W. R. 785 ; Whitwell V. Arthur, 35 Beav. 140; Kirby v. Carr, 3 Younge & C. 184, L. J. Ex. Eq. 31, 2 Jur. 741 ; Rowland V. Evans, 30 Beav. 302 ; Waters v. Taylor, 2 Ves. & B. 299, 13 R. R. 91 Leaf V. Coles, 1 De G., M. & G. 171 Bagshaw v. Parker, 10 Beav. 532 Milne V. Bartlett, 8 L. J. Ch. 254, 3 Jur. 358; Jurgens v. Ittmann, 47 La. Ann. 367, 16 So. 952; Griswold v. Waddington, 15 Johns, (N. Y.) 57 (affd. 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 438) ; Fried- burgher v. Jaberg, 20 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 279, 11 N. Y. St. 718. 87 Barclay v. Barrie, 209 N. Y. 40, 102 N. E. 602, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 839, Ann. Cas. 1913 D, 1143 and note; Leaf v. Coles, 1 De G., M. & G. 171 ; Jones V. Lloyd, 43 L. J. Ch. 826, L. R. 18 Eq. 265, 30 L. T. 487, 22 W. R. 785 ; Jones v. Noy, 2 Myl. & K. 125 ; Sayer v. Bennett, 1 Cox 107; Patey V. Patey, 5 L. J. Ch. 198 ; Anonymous, 2 Kay & J. 441 ; Raymond v. Vaughn, 128 111. 256, 21 N. E. 566, 4 L. R. A. 440, IS Am. St. 112. *8 Uniform Partnership Act, § 32 (1, a). § 584 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 756 had on application by or for a partner. Ordinarily dissolution because of a partner's insanity is asked by a copartner, but it is held that the dissolution may be at the instance of the partner of unsound mind not so adjudicated by his next friend, the court saying:*' "If this were not the law anybody might at his will and pleasure commit waste on a lunatic's property or do damage or serious injury and annoyance to him and his property, with- out there being any remedy whatever." A dissolution for lunacy will not ordinarily be dated as from the beginning of the lunacy.*" § 584. Dissolution for other incapacity of partner. — Like- wise, it has been declared tha^ a bill for dissolution may be predicated on either the ill health or physical incapacity of a partner which prevents him from performing the duties in- cumbent on him in the business,'^ or upon his lack of requisite skill."^ In the leading American case on this subject it was said:'^ "the cases and text-writers, as well as common sense, make it apparent that 'permanent' incapacity as a ground for dissolution does not, and should not, mean incurable and per- petual disability during the life of the partner. It means in- capacity which is lasting rather than merely temporary, and the prospect of recovery from which is remote, which has continued or is reasonably certain to continue during so substantial a por- tion of the partnership period as to defeat or materially affect 89 Jones V. Lloyd, L. R. 18 Eq. 26S, 93 Barclay v. Barrie, 209 N. Y. 40, 43 L. J. Ch. 826, 30 L. T. 487, 22 W. 102 N. E. 602, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) R. 785. 839, Ann. Cas. 1913 D, 1143 (revg. 9" Sander v. Sander, 2 Coll. Ch. Cas. Barclay v. Barrie, 142 App. Div. 670, 276; Besch v. Frolich, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 127 N. Y. S. 403, in which it is held 172; Sayer v. Bennet, 1 Cox 107; that a partnership will not be dis- Anonymous, 2 Kay & J. 441. solved because one of the parties suf- 9iCasky V. Casky, 5 Ky. L. (ab- fered a paralytic stroke when there stract) 775; Whitwell v. Arthur, 35 was a probability that he would be Beav. 140; Barclay v. Barrie, 209 N. able to resume his partnership duties Y. 40, 102 N. E. 602, 47 L. R. A. (N, before the expiration of the partner- S.) 839, Ann. Cas. 1913. D, 1143 and ship term). See also Barclay v. Bar- note, rie, 64 Misc. 403, 119 N. Y. S. 463. 92 Caskey v. Casky, S Ky. L. (ab- stract) 775. 757 DISSOLUTION ;§ 585 and obstruct the purpose of the partnership. It would seem that there ought to be no doubt or difference of opinion con- cerning the proposition that when a partner has been totally in- capacitated from attending to his duties for three years and eleven months out of a partnership period of four years and eleven months, with no assurances that he will recover before the expiration of the unexpired balance of twelve months, the incapacity has been of a permanent, and not a temporary or fleet- ing character, and of a substantial, and not inconsequential, na- ture, and that the purpose of his partners in joining him with them has been materially and essentially defeated." And the court was inclined to think that, the cause having been in court for several years, until after the expiration of the partnership period, equity would demand that the dissolution be dated as of the beginning of the action, since the delay was without the plaintiff partner's fault § 585. Dissolution for conduct prejudicially affecting car- rying on of business. — The clause of the Uniform Partner- ship Act permitting dissolution to be decreed for conduct of a partner which tends prejudicially to affect the carrying on of the business,®* and the next clause permitting dissolution when- ever a partner wilfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agreement, or otherwise so conducts himself in matters relating to the partnership business that it is not reason- ably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with him,®^ are very similar to provisions of the English Partnership Act.®® While the general law has always recognized the right to a dissolution because of a partner's misconduct, it may seem at first rather difficult to distinguish between the kinds of mis- conduct mentioned in each of these clauses, there seemingly being an overlapping. However, under the first clause the ob- jectionable misconduct need not be connected with the business, 9* Uniform Partnership Act, § 32 98 English Partnership Act, § 35 (1, c). (c), (d). 95 Uniform Partnership Act, § 32 (1, d). § 586 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 758 but it must be of such a nature, with regard to the particular business of the firm, that it is calculated to injure it,*^ and Mr. Lindley says: "for instance, gambling on the stock exchange, though such gambling may in no way -be connected with the business of the firm, would probably in iriost cases be ground for dissolution.'"^ So it seems a partner has a right to a dissolu- tion if a copartner has become liable to a criminal prosecution because guilty of a fraudulent breach of trust.®' And a dentist who issued advertisements disparaging and imputing misconduct to other dentists was held guilty oi professional misconduct.^ Habitual intoxication, extravagance and dishonesty are good grounds for dissolution.^ It was said in a leading American case:' * * * "Gross misconduct, want of good faith, or criminal want of diligence, or such cause as is productive of seri- ous and permanent injury in the partnership concerns, or ren- ders it impracticable to carry on the business, is good ground for a dissolution at the suit of the injured partner. Habitual drunkenness, great extravagance, or unwarrantable negligence in conducting the business of the partnership justifies a dissolu- tion; but then it must be a clear case of positive or meditated abuse to authorize such a decree. For minor misconduct and grievances, if they require redress, the court will interfere by way of injunction, to prevent the mischief."* A dissolution may be decreed for a partner's acts which show his deliberate resolve to break up and ruin the firm business.^ § 586. For wilful or persistent breach of partnership agreement. — A dissolution may be decreed for wilful and "Lindley Partnership (8 ed.), p. i Clifford v. Timms (1908), A. C. 12 655. (affg. [1907] 2 Ch. 236). 98 Lindley Partnership (8 ed.), p. 2 Ambler v. Whipple, 20 Wall. (U. 655, citing Pearce v. Foster, 55 L. S.) 546, 23 L. ed. 403. J. Q. B. 306, 17 Q. B. D. 536, 54 L. T. s Howell v. Harvey, 5 Ark. 270, 39 664, 34 W. R. 602, 51 J. P. 213 ; Am. Dec. 376. Carmichael v. Evans [1904], 1 Ch. *See Marnet Oil & Gas Co. v. 486. Staley, 218 Fed. 45. 99 Essel V. Hayward, 30 Beav. 158, ^ Sutro v. Wagner, 23 N. J. Eq. 29 L. J. Ch. 806, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 690, 388 (affd. 24 N. J. Eq. 389). 8 W. R. 593. 759 uissoLUTioN § 586 persistent breach of the partnership articles by a partner." "A partner is under no obligation to continue a member of a part- nership when his copartner persistently and wilfully violates the essential conditions upon which the contract of the partnership rests. He is not under the necessity of remaining in the firm, and resorting to his action at law upon the partnership contract for redress."'' So dissolution has been decreed where a partner failed to contribute capital or funds as he had agreed to, when such contribution was required to successfully carry on the business.* So the abandonment or desertion of the partnership business is ground for a dissolution by decree of court." It has even been held in a few cases that abandonment works a dissolu- tion ipso facto.^* The inability of one partner to perform his obligations and to contribute his skill, diligence and labor may be ground for dissolution by decree.^^ So is the loan of firm money contrary to the partnership articles ;^^ or refusal to make monthly balances and pay differences, as agreed ;^^ or to pay over proceeds of sales as required by the partnership articles.^* It seems that dissolution may be properly decreed on account of bad faith in the matter of the partnership accounts or failure to keep them;^' or of the disposition of firm property in settle- 6 Uniform Partnership Act, § 32 v. Roane, 99 U. S. 355, 25 L. ed. 476; (1, d). See Moore v. Price, 116 Ala. Burgess v. Badger, 124 111. 288, 14 N. 247, 22 So. 531; Breaux v. Le Blanc, E. 850; Ligare v. Peacock, 109 111. 94. SO La. Ann. 228, 23 So. 281, 69 Am. i" Beaver v. Lewis, 14 Ark. 138; St. 403; Bruce v. Ross, 18 La. 341; Whitman v. Leonard, 3 Pick. Abbott V. Johnson, 32 N. H. 9; West- (Mass.) 177; Potter v. Moses, 1 R. wood V. Cole, 66 Misc. 53, 120 N. Y. L 430; Ayer v. Ayer, 41 Vt. 346. S. 884; Durbin v. Barber, 14 Ohio " Fogg v. Johnston, 27 Ala. 432, 62 311. Am. Dec. 771. TRosenstein v. Burns, 41 Fed. 841. i^Dumont v. Ruepprecht, 38 Ala. 8 Boyd V. Mynatt, 4 Ala. 79; Tur- 175. nipseed v. Goodwin, 9 Ala. 372; " Meaher v. Cox, 37 Ala. 20L Breaux v. Le Blanc, SO La. Ann. 228, " Maher v. Bull, 44 III. 97. 23 So. 281, 69 Am. St. 403 ; Hartman i^ Cheesman v. Price, 35 Beav. 142 ; V. Woehr, 18 N. J. Eq. 383 ; Brien v. Cottle v. Leitch, 35 Cal. 434 ; Adams Harriman, 1 Tenn. Ch. 467; Wood v. Shewalter, 139 Ind. 178, 38 N. E. V. Beath, 23 Wis. 254. 607; Gowan v. Jeffries, 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 9 Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. 296; Werner v. Leisen, 31 Wis. 169; (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 296; Denver Wood v. Beath, 23 Wis. 254. § 587 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 760 ment of private debts ;^^ or fraudulent conduct toward copart ners." § 587. When further concerted action impracticable. — Again, equity will administer relief to a partner whose asso- ciate so conducts himself in other ways than by breach' of the partnership agreement as to render further .concerted action im- practicable.^' This rule may be applied where there are con- stant quarrels, irreconcilable differences and personal ill-will which make co-operation irripossible.^® "But it is not considered to be the duty of the court to enter into partnership squabbles, and it will not dissolve a partnership on the ground of the ill- temper or misconduct of one or more of the partners unless the others are in effect excluded from the concern, or unless the misconduct is of such a nature as utterly to destroy the miitual confidence which must subsist between partners if they are to continue to carry on their business together."^" "That such em- " Hubbard v. Moore, 67 Vt. 532, 32 Atl. 465. i^Lisco V. Husmann, 98 Nebr. 276, 152 N. W. 383; Lovejoy v. Bailey, 214 Mass. 134, 101 N. E. 63. 18 Harrison v. Tennant, 21 Beav. 482; Watney v. Wells, 30 Beav. 56; Goodman v. Whitcomb, 1 JaC. & W. 589; Smith v. Jeyes, 4 Beav. 503; Anonymous, 2 Kay & J. 441; Rosen- stein V. Burns, 41 Fed. 841 ; Moore v. Pi ice, 116 Ala. 247, 22 So. 531; Mea- her V. Cox, Zl Ala. 201; Howell v. Harvey, S Ark. 270, 39 Am. Dec. 376; Gerard v. Gateau, 84 111. 121, 25 Am. Rep. 438; Cash v. Earnshaw, 66 111. 402; Lev. v. Karrick, 8 Iowa 150; Blake V. Dorgan, 1 G. Greene (Iowa) 537; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 3 Dana (Ky.) 239; Groth v. Payment, 79 Mich. 290, 44 N. W. 611 ; Sieghortner V. Weissenborn, 20 N. J. Eq. 172; Bishop V. Breckles, 1 Hoff. Ch. (N. Y.) 534; Flammer v. Green, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 538; Llorens v. Costa, 5 N. Y. Wkly Dig. 484; Henn v. Walsh, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 129; Berry v. Cross, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 1; Reiter v. Morton, 96 Pa. St. 229; Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Pa. St. 168, 98 Am. Dec. 255; Page v. Vankirk, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 282; Singer v. Heller, 40 Wis. 544; Werner v. Leisen, 31 Wis. 169. "Fooks v. Williams, 120 Md. 436, 87 Atl. 692; Gerard v. Gateau, 84 111. 121, 25 Am. Rep. 438; Blake v. Dor- gan, 1 G. Greene (Iowa) 537; Whit- man v. Robinson, 21 Md. 30; Philip v. Von Raven, 26 Misc. 552, 57 N. Y. S. 701; Lafond v. Deems, 1 Abb. N. Cas. 318, 52 How. Pr. 41 (revd. 81 N. Y. 507, 8 Abb. N. Cas. 344); Singer v. Heller, 40 Wis. 544; Leary V. 'Shont, 33 Beav. 582; Baxter v. West, 1 Drew & Sra. 173. 2»Lindley Partnership, 580. See also Cash , v. Earnshaw, 66 111. 402 ; Gerard v. Gateau, 84 111. 121, 25 '^.m. Rep. 438; Loomis v. McKenzie, 31 761 DISSOLUTION § 587 bittered delations may exist as would render it impracticable to conduct the business, and justify a decree dissolving the part- nership, admits of no discussion, on principle as well as upon authority. Permanent mischiefs would be the result, that could only be avoided by a severance of the partnership relations. * * * In all the cases we have examined, where the partner- ship has been dissolved on account of the unfriendly relations between the partners, it has generally been at the instance of the party who was not himself at fault, and where the estrangement was such as would prevent the successful management of the business. A party who is the author of the ill-feeling between himself and partners ought, not to be permitted to make the relation he has induced, the ground of a dissolution of the part- nership.. His conduct may have been taken with a view to that very result, and it would be inequitable to allow him advantage from his own wrongful acts. It would allow one partner, at his election, to put an end to his own deliberate contract, when the other had been guilty of no wrongful act or omission of duty. The results flowing from the premature dissolution of a partner- ship might be most disastrous to a partner who had embarked his capital in the enterprise."^^ So the partner who has caused such want of confidence that the business can not be carried on together is not entitled to a dissolution.^^ But a, partner who refuses to allow his asso- ciate to participate in the management of the common business can not, it seems, successfully resist the termination by a court Iowa 42S; Henn v. Walsh, 2 Edw. Blake v. Dorgan, 1 G. Greene (Iowa) Ch. (N. Y.) 129; Fischer v. Raab, S37; Bush v. Linthicum, 59 Md. 344; 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 87; Lafond v. Sieghortner v. Weissenborn, 20 N. J. Deems, 1 Abb. N. Cas. 318, 52 How. Eq. 172 ; Sutro v. Wagner, 23 N. J. Pr. (N. Y.) 41 (revd. 81 N. Y. 507, Eq. 388 (afifd. 24 N. J. Eq. 589) ; 8 Abb. N. Cas. 344) ; Slemmer's Ap- Watney v. Wells, 30 Beav. 56 ; Har- peal, 58 Pa. St. 168, 98 Am. Dec. 255 ; rison v. Tennant, 21 Beav. 482 ; Sloan V. Moore, 37 Pa. St. 217; An- Smith v. Jeyes, 4 Beav. 503; Waters dersen v. Andersen, 25 Beav. 190. v. Taylor, 2 Ves. & B. 299, 13 R. R. 21 Gerara v. Gateau, 84 Ill„ 121, 25 91 ; Newton v. Doran, 1 Grant Ch. Am. Rep. 438. U. C. 590. 22Meaher v. Cox, 37 Ala. 201; § 587 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 762 of equity of the existence of the firm." The same rule appHes where one partner refuses to consult the other about the busi- ness." Where a lack of harmony and agreement impair the car- rying out of the purpose for which the partnership was formed, dissolution may undoubtedly be required,'' as it also may, ap- parently, when any one of the partners insists upon ignoring the business meetings of the firm.'" On the other hand, a partner will not, it seems, be compelled to suffer the penalty of dissolu- 23 "If part of the capital of an agreed partnership has been paid, ac- cepted, and used, and the business has been commenced in the name of the firm, he is an actual partner until the partnership is legally dissolved, and a mere exclusion of such person by the others from the business of the firm by illegal acts on their part is not a legal dissolution, but is a ground for an application to a court of equity for a dissolution upon his part." Hartman v. Woehr, 18 N. J. Eq. 383. See also Einstein v. Schnebly, 89 Fed. 540; Gillett V. Higgins, 142 Ala. 444, 38 So. 664, 4 Am. Cas. 459 and note ; Gorman v. Russell, 14 Cal. 531 ; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 3 Dana (Ky.) 239; Beller v. Murphy, 139 Mo. App. 663, 123 S. W. 1029; Nathan v. Ba- con, 75 N. J. Eq. 401, 72 Atl. 359; Hartman v. Woehr, 18 N. J. Eq. 383 ; V/ilcox V. Pratt, 52 Hun 340, 5 N. Y. S. 361, 23 N. Y. St. 686 (afifd. 125 N. Y. 688, 3 Silvernail Ct. App. 199, 25 N. E. 1091) ; Candee v. Baker, 131 App. Div. 641, 116 N. Y. S. 55; Gowan v. Jeffries, 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 296; Holder v. Shelby (Tex. Civ. App.), 118 S. W. 590; Werner 'v. Leisen, 31 Wis. 169. And compare Hewitt V. Hayes, 204 Mass. 586, 90 N. E. 985, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 514; Karrick v. 'Hannaman, 168 U. S. 328, 42 L. ed. 484, 18 Sup. Ct. 135; Smith V. Pagan, 17 Cal. 178; Major v. Todd, 84 Mich. 85, 47 N. W. 841 ; Groth v. Payment, 79 Mich. 290, 44 N. W. 611; Wilcox V. Pratt, 52 Hun 340, 5 N. Y. S. 361, 23 N. Y. St. 686 (affd. 125 N. Y. 688, 3 Silv. Ct App. 199, 25 N. E. 1091) ; Roberts v. Eberhart, 1 Kay 148, 23 L. J. Ch. 201, 2 W. R. 125 ; Goodman v. Whitcomb, 1 Jac. & W. 589. 2* "If, as alleged, the defendant is insolvent, and has taken possession of the partnership's property and con- verted the same to his own use, and refused to consult or allow the plain- tiff to participate in the management of the firm's business, it is a sufficient ground to dissolve the partnership, and to entitle the plaintiff to the set- tlement thereof." Havner v. Ste- phens, 22 Ky. L. 498, 58 S. W. 372. See also Leary v. Shont, 33 Beav. 582; Waters v. Taylor, 2 Ves. & B. 299, 13 R. R. 91. 25Meaher v. Cox, 37 Ala. 201; Pease v. Hewitt, 31 Beav. 22, 8- Jur. (N. S.) 1166, 7 L. T. 11, 10 W. R. 535; Baxter v. West, 1 Drew & Sm. 173; Moore v. Price, 116 Ala. 247, 22 So. 531 ; Null v, Par- sons, 145 111. App. 436; Sutro v. Wagner, 23 N. J. Eq. 388 (affd. 24 N. J. Eq. 589) ; Philipp v. Von Raven, 26 Misc. 552, 57 N. Y. S. 701. 215 De Berenger v. Hamel, 7 Jar. Byth. (2d ed.) 25. 763 DISSOLUTION § 588 tion by reason of a mere error of judgment," or because of con- duct toward some of the customers of the firm which may be deserving of severe criticism, but which involves no permanent injury to the partnership interest.^^ It thus appears that, gen- erally speaking, any circumstance which makes practically im- possible the continuation of the partnership or the attainment of its purpose, is sufficient to warrant its dissolution.^* § 588. When business can only be carried on at loss. — Dissolution may also be decreed on the fact that loss only will accompany the prosecution of the business should the same be continued until the arrival of the time anteriorly determined upon as that at which the partnership relation was tO' cease.^" A partner "is at liberty to withdraw himself and his capital from the concern whenever it becomes reasonably certain that the busi- ness can no longer be carried on at a profit, whether through the misconduct of his copartner or from a failure of the business itself." He is not "required to continue in the firm until the partnership expires by limitation of time, but is at liberty at once to ask for a dissolution and a winding up of the affairs of the partnership."^^ The law is well and clearly settled affirmatively as to the right of a court to dissolve a partnership where certain matters have made the continuance of the partnership impossible or disadvantageous to the partners. When the partners enter the relation, they do so in contemplation of a profit thereby. If, then, it be clearly shown that a profit can not be made, a court will, upon proper application and showing order a dissolu- 27 Cash V. Earnshaw,.66 111. 402. son v. Deese, 35 Ga. 84; Sebastian 28 Gerard v. Gateau, 84 111. 121, 25 v. Booneville Academy Co., 22 Ky. L. Am. Rep. 438. 186, 56 S. W. 810; McBurnie v. Sem- 29 "The court will require a strong pie, 14 Ky. L. 30, 19 S. W. 183. case to be made, and it is laid down so See Jennings v. Baddeley, 3 Kay as a general principle, a court of & J. 78, 3 Jur. (N. S.) 108; Wilson equity has no jurisdiction to declare v. Church, 13 Ch. Div. 1; Sieghortner a separation between partners for v. Weissenborn, 20 N. J. Eq. 172; trifling causes or temporary griev- Holladay v. Elliott, 8 Ore. 84; Heck ances, involving no permanent mis- v. McEwen, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 97. chiefs." Gerard v. Gateau, 84 111. 121, 3i Rosenstein v. Burns, 41 Fed. 841. 25 Am. Rep. 438. See further Jack- § 588 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 764 tion of the firm.^^ One example is where a partnership is formed wholly for the express purpose of promoting a certain patent, which proves a total failure.^^ It is likewise held that, in a case where, in order to make the business profitable, there must be money advanced by the partners, and one or both are either unwilling or unable, the partnership may be dissolved.^* In an- other, case^' it is held that whenever the conditions of a partner- ship are incapable of being filled, or the fruits arising from it can not be properly enjoyed, a good cause for renunciation is furnished. A New York case^" holds that a dissolution will be decreed where the whole partnership scheme is found ,to be visionary, impracticable, or founded upon erroneous principles. It might be inquired why the matter should be brought into court, instead of the parties dissolving the firm by mutual con- sent. This question may be answered by saying that one of the partners, by reason of personal enmity, or otherwise, might re- fuse to dissolve the firm by mutual consent, and cases may be conceived where the withdrawal by one, without the consent of the other, might give rise to an action for damages, while a dissolution by judicial decree, .for the above grounds will not, by reason alone thereof, give any such right of action. The rule would be modified if the condition of the firm should be shown to be due to the fault of one or more of the members, less than all. In such a case the offending party might be liable to his partner for damages for his wrong, but, as is plainly seen, his liability does not grow from the dissolution of the firm, but for his wrongful actions from which the dissolution results. 32 Jennings v. Baddeley, 3 Kay & Holladay v. Elliott, 8 Ore. 85 ; Brien J. 78, 3 Jur. (N. S.) 108; Harrison v. Harriman, 1 Tenn. Ch. 467. V. Tennant, 21 Beav. 482; Bailey v. 33 Baring v. Dix, 1 Cox 213, 1 R. Ford, 13 Sim. 495, 12 L. J. Ch. 482 ; R. 23. Rosenstein v. Burns, 135 U. S. 449, 34 -Weissenborn v. Sieghortner, 21 41 Fed. 841, 34 L. ed. 193; Brown N.J. Eq. 483. V. Hicks, 8 Fed. 155 ; Meaher v. Cox, 35 Howell v. Harvey, 5 Ark. 270, 39 37 Ala. 201 ; Dunn v.' McNaught, 38 Am. Dec. 376. Ga. 179 ; Jackson v. Deese, 35 Ga. 84 ; 3? Lafond v. Deems, 52 How. Pr. Moies V. O'Neill, 23 N. J. Eq. 207; (N. Y.) 41, 1 Abb. N. Cas. 318. 765 , DISSOLUTION § 589 § 589. For fraud in inception of relation. — ^The Uniform Partnership Act permits dissolution when other circumstances than those named which have been previously treated, render it equitable.^'' This, under the general law, the court will un- doubtedly do when it appears that the party seeking release was induced to become a partner by means of fraud or deceit,^^ or, at the option of the complainant, it will where there has been no ratification of the partnership agreement after the fraud was discovered,** decree a rescission of the same and require the de- fendants to place their associate in statu quo.** § 590. Annulment of partnership. — The question of the annulment of partnerships is here treated, not as a form of dis- solution, but as analogous thereto. The difference consists in this : that dissolution refers to the severing of a relation, while annulment is simply the finding of a court that no such rela- tion has existed. The one includes future relations, the other refers to all firm connections. Thus, it may be said that there is, in fact, no such thing possible as the annulment of a partnership, as the term itself implies that there never has been any partner- ship. Perhaps the logical term would be annulment of an ap- parent partnership. The distinction ' between true partnerships ^''Uniform Partnership Act, § 32 son v. Cunningham, 92 Mo. 131, 5 S. (1, f). W. 12; Harlow v. La Brum, 82 Hun 38 "If he has been induced to enter 292, 64 N. Y. St. 72, 31 N. Y. S. 487 into the partnership contract through (afifd. 151 N. Y. 278, 45 N. E. 859) ; the deceit of his copartner, he may Jones v. Weir, 217 Pa. 321, 10 Ann. withdraw whenever the fraud prac- Cas. 692. ticed upon him becomes known." He ^9 St_ jghn v. Hendrickson, 81 Ind. is not "required to continue in the 350. And compare Hunter v. White- firm until the partnership expires by head, 42 Mo. 524. limitation of time, but is at liberty *° Newbigging v. Adam, 34 Ch. Div. at once to ask for a dissolution and a 582 ; Mycock v. Beatson, 13 Ch. Div. winding up of the affairs of the part- 384, 49 L. J. Ch. 127, 42 L. T. 141, 28 nership." Rosenstein v. Burns, 41 W. R. 319; Pillans v. Harkness, Fed. 841. See further Howell v. Colles 442; Rawlins v. Wickham, 3 Harvey, 5 Ark. 270, 39 Am. Dec. 376; De G. & J. 304; Howell v. Harvey, 5 Oteri v. Soalzo, 145 U. S. 578, 36 L. Ark. 270, 39 Am. Dec. 376; Richards ed. 824, 12 Sup. Ct. 895; Hynes v. v. Todd, 127 Mass. 167." See post Stewart, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 429 ; Gib- § 776 on rescission. § 590 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 766 inter sese and partnership liability as to others must be kept in mind, in order to get the full import of this subject. According to the principles heretofore discussed, there can be no annul- ment of partnership liability inter aUos, unless the third parties, who .have obtained rights against the firm, have done so with knowledge of the true condition of affairs, or otherwise have not acted in a bona-fide manner. As to an apparent partnership, however, between the parties themselves, or as to third parties, in some instances, who have knowledge of the true conditions between the partners there may be an annulment which will make the apparent partnership void ab initio, and which will leave all such parties without any rights against the apparent firm. The rule is well stated in a Massachusetts case" in which case Richards, by alteration of books, and in other ways, fraudu- lently induced Todd to enter the firm. The court, in its opinion held that : "The effect of Todd's election to avoid the contract for the fraud practiced on him is that, as between the parties, there has never existed any copartnership. * * * It is also clear that as Todd, by holding himself out as a member of a firm, rendered himself liable to the creditors of such apparent firm, Richards should, in order to place him in statu quo, in- demnify him against the claims of such creditors." The usual ground of annulment of the contract is fraud or misrepresenta- tion.*^ Owing, perhaps, to the difficulties which have been sug- gested courts have hesitated in annuling partnerships except upon 41 Richards v. Todd, 127 Mass. 167. N. Y. S. 372; Kimmins v. Wilson, 8 *2 See Richards v. Todd, 127 Mass. W. Va. 584 ; Newbigging v. Adam, 167 ; Oteri v. Scalzo, 145 U. S. 578, 34 Ch. Div. 582 ; Jennings v. Brough- 588, 12 Sup. Ct. 895, 36 L. ed. 824; ton, 17 Beav. 234 (affd. 5 DeG., M. & Perry v. Hale, 143 Mass. 540, 10 N. E. G. 125) ; Hamil v. Stokes, 4 Price 174 ; Smith v. Everett, 126 Mass. 304 ; 161 ; Andrews v. Garstin, 10 C. Hynes v. Stewart, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) B. (N. S.) 444; Stainbank v. 429 ; Gibson v. Cunningham, 92 Mo. Fernley, 9 Sim. 556 ; Rawlins v. Wick- 131, 5 S. W. 12; Hunter v. White- ham, 1 Giff. 355, 3 DeG. & J. 304; head, 42 Mo. 524; Harlow v. La Colt v. Woollaston, 2 P. Wms. 154; Brum, 151 N. Y. 278, 45 N. E. 859; Green v. Barrett, 1 Sim. 45; Pillans More V. Rand, 60 N." Y. 208 ; Hoi- v. Harkness, Colles 442 ; Redgrave v. lister v. Simonson, 36 App. Div. 63, 55 Hurd, 20 Ch. Div. 1. 767 DISSOLUTION § 591 strong proof and ample grounds/^ Moreover, the usual rules of ratification and of estoppel apply, and a partner who becomes cognizant of the fraudulent nature of the partnership contract, and thereafter recognizes it as valid, can not have the partner- ship annulled, and the ratification will be ab initio/* The Uni- form Partnership Act provides for damages and indemnity to one who is entitled to rescind a partnership contract because of fraud and misrepresentation in its inception and for liens on firm property and subrogation to creditors' rights in order to secure a partner who has paid out money because of such fraud/^ § 591. Dissolution by transfer of partner's interest. — As regards the effect of the transfer of one partner's interest, the Uniform Partnership Act, while clarifying the rules of law gen- erally, is not supported in all respects by the decisions. Under • its provisions the transfer of a partner's interest, either by vohm- tary or forced sale, does not automatically work a dissolution, but a purchaser of a partner's interest, who is otherwise enti- tled merely to receive the profits to which the assigning partner would have been entitled, may,' at the expiration of the specified partnership term or particular undertaking, or at any time if the partnership was at will when assigned or charged, apply to court for a decree of dissolution.*' Under the law. in states where this act has not been adopted, a transfer of a partner's interest does not always work a dissolution, but it seems that the reason for this is usually that there is an agreement to the contrary. In a New York case*^ one partner made an assign- ment of all his property, including his interest in the partner- ship. In an action growing out of this assignment, the court said : "It does not seem to be disputed by either party to .this controversy that the act of Beadle in assigning his whole prop- *3 Gerard v. Gateau, 84 III. 121. *^ Uniform Partnership Act, § 39. ** Andriessen's Appeal, 123 Pa. St. *« Uniform Partnership Act, §§ 27, 303, 16 Atl. 840; St. John v. Hend- 28, 32 (2). rickson, 81 Ind. 350; Evans v. Mont- « Qgden v. Arnot, 29 Hun (N. Y.) gomery, SO Iowa 325; Jennings v. 146 (1883). Broughton, 17 Beav. 234 (affd. 5 DeG., M. & G, 126). § 591 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 768 erty, including, therefore, whatever might belong to him in the partnership, worked a dissolution of the partnership. This must be so, because one partner can not against the will of the other, introduce a new member into the partnership."*^ The court further held that the right of closing up the business of the firm belonged to the remaining partner, subject, of course, to the control of the court. In another case*' holding the same prin- ciple, an exception is added that where the assignment is from one partner to another, there is not, ipso facto, a dissolution of the partnership. "Whether it shall so operate depends on its terms, and the intention of the parties, as from these it may be collected. If the withdrawal of the assignor from the partner- ship is contemplated, — if there is a termination of his authority and duty as a partner, and as between him and the assignee, ex- emption from liabiHty for the future transactions which may be had by the assignee, in the prosecution of the original under- taking, it is as to them a dissolution.'" But when the assignment is intended as a mere security for a debt, and is to operate only on the share of the net profits of the assignor, on a settlement of the partnership transactions, at the expiration of the partner- ship, and he remains bound to all duties as partner — ^bound to contribute time, labor, and skill to the prosecution of the com- mon undertaking, — it will not operate a dissolution, not even as between the partners themselves."" It should not be under- stood that there can not be an assignment of interest by one partner to a third party without closing the business, as the re- maining partner may accept the assignee of his withdrawing partner into partnership, but this in itself creates a new part- nership, with the business of the old one, which is itself dis- solved. Moreover, if there were a stipulation in the partnership agreement that a partner could transfer his interest or a part thereof to a third party, and that the third party would be ac- *8 Citing Marquand v. New York soQting Parsons Partnership, 400. Manf. Co., 17 Johns. (N. Y.) S2S ; " Citing Taft v. Buffum, 14 Pick. Story Partnership, 307. (Mass.) 322, and Buford v. Neely, 2 " Monroe v. Hamilton, 60 Ala. 226 Dev. (N. Car.) 481. (1877). 769 DISSOLUTION § 591 cepted as a partner by the other members, the contract would govern, and the assignment would not work a dissolution of the partnership. As expressed in one case : "It is said that an as- signment of a partner's interest works a dissolution of the firm, and many authorities are cited to sustain this proposition. The reason for the rule is that a partner can not introduce a new member into the firm without the consent of the other members, nor make them members of another firm; but there is no rule of law which forbids a partnership, with the consent of all its members, to admit a new member, and when members so taken in are recognized and treated by all as partners, and the busi- ness is continued with them under the original agreement, this is sufficient to make them partners, and does not work a dissolu- tion of the firm."°^ But as a general rule, any change in the membership of a firm operates as a dissolution of the same and the formation of a new partnership.^^ And by the weight of authority, the transfer of a partner's interest works a dissolu- tion of the partnership, ipso facto, if a partnership at will and furnishes ground for dissolution by decree on application of a partner or the purchaser where the partnership was for a fixed term,°* except, perhaps, when such transfer is contemplated by s2Gorder v. Pankonin, 83 Nebr. 1 R. I. 430; Bank of Mobile v. An- 204, 119 N. W. 449, 131 Am. St. 629. drews, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) S3S ; Euless 53 Webb V. Butler (Ala.), 68 So. v. Tomlinson (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. 369; Hatchett v. Blanton, 72 Ala. 423; W. S34; Mensing v. Atchison (Tex. Zimmerman v. Harding, 33 S. Ct. 387, Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 509; Shedd v. 227 U. S. 489, 57 L. ed. 608; Ross v. Bank of Brattleboro, 32 Vt. 709; Pe- Cornell, 45 Cal. 133 ; McCall v. Moss, ters v. McWilliams, 78 Va. 567. See 112 111. 493; Blake v. Sweeting, 121 ante §§ 224, 550. And compare Rice v. 111. 67, 12 N. E. 67; White v. White, Maddox, 9 N. Y. S. 524, 16 Daly 156, 5 Gill (Md.) 359; Arnold v. Brown, 30N. Y. St. 550. Apparently, however, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. a change in the name of the firm with- 296; Houghton v. Bradley, 113 Mich, out any change in the membership 599, 71 N. W. 1112; Allen v. Logan, thereof does not work a dissolution 96 Mo. 591, 10 S. W. 149; Mudd v. of the partnership. Billingsley v. Bast, 34 Mo. 465; Henry v. Mahone, Dawson, 27 Iowa 210; Rowe v. Sim- 23 Mo. App. 83; Hutchinson v. mons, 113 Cal. 688, 45 Pac. 983; Gill Sperry, 158 App. Div. 704, 143 N. Y. v. Ferris, 82 Mo. 156. S. 876 (revg. judgment 140 N. Y. S. =* In re Suprenant, 217 Fed. 470; 220, 79 Misc. 523) ; Potter v. Moses, Karrick v. Hannaman, 168 U. S. 328, 49— Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 § 591 LAW GF PARTNERSHIP 770 18 S. Ct. 135, 42 L. ed. 484; Fourth Nat. Bank v. New Orleans &c. R. Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 624, 20 L. ed. 82; Chapman v. Hughes, 104 Gal. 302, 37 Pac. 1048, 38 Pac. 109; Schurtz v. Romer, 82 Cal. 474, 23 Pac. 118; Miller V. Brigham, 50 Cal. 615 ; Brad- ley V. Harkness, 26 Cal. 69 ; Schleicher V. Walker, 28 Fla. 680, 10 So. 33; Phelps V. State, 109 Ga. 115, 34 S. E. 210; Edens v. Williams, 36 111. 252; Clark V. Carr, 45 111. App. 469 ; Sum- merlot v. Hamilton, 121 Ind. 87, 22 N. E. 973 ; Barkley v. Tapp, 87 Ind. 25 ; Love v. Payne, 7i Ind. 80, 38 Am. Rep. Ill; Reece v. Hoyt, 4 Ind. 169; Chase V. Scott, 33 Iowa 309; Mc- Adams' Exrs. v. Hawes, 9 Bush (Ky.) 15 ; Conwell v. Sandidge, 5 Dana (Ky.) 210; Spaunhorst v. Link, 46 Mo. 197; Freeman v. Hemenway, 75 Mo. App. 611 ; Tennent v. Guenther, 31 Mo. App. 429; Schlicher v. Vogel, 61 N. J. Eq. 158, 47 Atl. 448 (affd. 65 N. J. Eq. 404, 54 Atl. 1125) ; Renton V. Chaplain, 9 N. J. Eq. 62 ; Mechan- ics' Bank v. Godwin, 5 N. J. Eq. 334 ; De Manderfield v. Field, 7 N. Mex. 17, 32 Pac. 146; Cpmstock v. Bu- chanan, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 127 (affd. 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 146, and note); Mumford v. McKay, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 442, 24 Am. Dec. 34; Marquand v. New York Mfg. Co., 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 525; Sistare v. Gushing, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 503; Filers Music House v. Reine, 65 Ore. 598, 133 Pac. 788; Swoope V. Wakefield, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 342; Wilson v. Waugh, 101 Pa. St. 233; In re Horton's Appeal, 13 Pa. St. 67; Power v. Kirk, 1 Pittsb. (Pa.) 510; Cochran v. Perry, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 262; Heck v. McEwen, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 97; Babb v. Mosby, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 105; Schuster v. Fren- denthal, 74 Tex. S3, 11 S. W. 1051; Watson V. McKinnon, 73 Tex. 210, 11 S. W. 197; Moore v. Steele, 67 Tex. 435, 3 S. W. 448 ; Carroll' v. Evans, 27 Tex. 262 ; Sherk v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 832; Sanchez v. Goldfrank (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 204; Kellar v. Self, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 393, 24 S. W. 578; Schneider v. De Smith, 2 Posey Unrep. Gas. (Tex.) 317; Sandberg V. Scougale, 75 Wash. 313, 134 Pac. 1051; Heath v. Sansom, 4 B. & Ad. 172. See Waller v. Davis, 59 Iowa 103, 12 N. W. 798; Wiggin v. Good- win, 63 Maine 389; Taft v. Buffum, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 322; Davis v. Me- groz, 55 N. J. L. 427, 26 Atl. 1009; Rogers V. Nichols, 20 Tex. 719. And compare Cody v. Cody, 31 Ga. 619; State V. Quick, 10 Iowa 451 ; Russell V. Leland, 12 Allen (Mass.) 349; Rus- sell V. White, 63 Mich. 409, 29 N. W. 865. This, however, does not appar- ently hold good as to mining partner- ships. Settembre v. Putnam, 30 Cal. 490; Bissell v. Foss, 114 U. S. 252, 29 L. ed. 126, S Sup. Ct. 851; Skillman V. Lachman, 23 Cal. 198, 83 Am. Dec. 96; Harris v. Lloyd, 11 Mont. 390, 28 Pac. 736, 28 Am. St. 475. "A com- mercial partnership is dissolved when one of the partners disposes of his interest, but a mining partnership, which results from the operation of a mine by some of the joint owners with the consent of the others, is not dissolved by the conveyance by one of these owners of his interest in the mine or the lease to a stranger; but the grantor then ceases to be a member of the copartnership, and the stranger becomes a partner in his place. The delectus personae which is an essential element of an ordi- nary partnership is not an indispensa- ble attribute of a mining partner- 771 DISSOLUTION § 592 the partnership agreement,^^ but while in some cases it has been held that the formation of a corporation which takes over the business and all the assets of the firm works a dissolution of the partnership, the authorities do not, at first glance, speak as with one voice upon this subject.^^ § 592. Status of partnership after dissolution. — That the partnership continues even after dissolution for the purpose of settling its affairs, is so firmly settled that the citation in full of the numerous authorities holding to that effect is practically unnecessary.^^ It has been well said that: "Whenever a part- ship." Loy V. Alston, 172 Fed. 90. See also Bentley v. Brossard, 33 Utah 396, 94 Pac. 736. ^= Heck V. McEwen, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 97; Ferrero v. Buhlmeyer, 34 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 33. 8^ In a well-considered note ap- pended to Seufert v. Gille, 230 Mo. 453, 131 S. W. 102, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 471, it is said : "Dissolution of Partnership by Reason of Forma- tion of Corporation. The question indicated by the foregoing title has received a negative answer in some cases and a positive answer in others, but this is due not so much to dif- ferences of opinion with respect to the state of the law as variations in state of fact. It is probably safe to say that the mere formation of a corporation does not necessarily ter- minate the partnership which it suc- ceeds, and that whether it does or not depends on the additional and peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, in deter- mining this question it is important to observe whether the partners them- selves intended the partnership should be dissolved, or whether the firm did in fact cease to do business and was succeeded in all things by the cor- poration. These and other facts and circumstances go to effect the result in the particular case. This ques- tion of the dissolution of a firm by the formation of a corporation has sometimes arisen in cases where no rights of third persons, like creditors, have intervened, and the circum- stances of some cases have been held to indicate a dissolution while the cir- cumstances in other cases have been held to negative it." See further Cape Sable Co.'s Case, 3 Bland Ch. (Md,) 606; Francklyn v. Sprague, 121 U. S. 215, 30 L. ed. 936, 7 Sup. Ct. 951; Coggswell &c. Co. V. Coggswell (N. J. Eq.), 40 Atl. 213; Hennessy v. Griggs, 1 N. Dak. 52, 44 N. W. 1010. And compare Whitely v. Bradley, 13 Cal. App. 720, 110 Pac. 596; Pearce v. Sutherland, 164 Fed. 609, 90 C. C. A. 519; Watkins v. Delahunty, 133 App. Div. (N. Y.) 422, 117 N. Y. S. 885; Ruettell v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 16 N. Dak. 546, 113 N. W. 1029; Metz v. Commercial Bank, 45 S. Car. 216, 23 S. E. 13. This subject will be more fully treated in a subsequent chapter on change of partnership into corporation. ^'' "I am satisfied that notwithstand- ing the dissolution of the partner- § 592 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 771 nership is dissolved the object of the association is terminated, and nothing i-emains to be done except the arrangement of the affairs of the partnership; and until they are settled, as between the parties, the partnership may be said to continue. Engage- ments may be contracted which can not be fulfilled during its existence, exposed as partnerships are to sudden and extraor- dinary terminations. For the purpose, therefore, of making ship, yet, for the purpose of fulfilling engagements made during its exist- ence, it had a limited existence le- gally, and subsisted for such purpose, even after the act of dissolution by the parties." Johnson v. Totten, 3 Cal. 343, 58 Am. Dec. 412. "Upon a dissolution, each partner becomes chargeable with all the debts and claims he owes or is accountable for to the partnership, with all interest accruing upon the same debts and claims." McCoy v. Crosfield, 54 Ore. 591, 104 Pac. 423. "At dissolution, the powers of the partners over the part- nership assets continue only so far as is necessary for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the part- nership." Nathan v. Bacon, 75 N. J. Eq. 401, 72 Atl. 359. All the part- ners are still bound after dissolu- tion for the complete execution of a contract made during the existence of the partnership. Burdett v. Hay- man, 63 W. Va. SIS, 60 S. E. 497, IS L. R. A. (N. S.) 1019, 129 Am. St. 1014; Peacock v. Peacock, 16 Ves. Jr. 49-57; Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 351, 7 L. ed. 174; Lock- wood V. Comstock, Fed. Cas. No. 8449, 4 McLean (U. S.) 383; Barringer v. Sneed, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 201, 20 Am. Dec. 74; Burr v. Williams, 20 Ark. 171; Whiting v. Farrand, 1 Conn. 60; Smyth v. Har- vie, 31 111. 62, 83 Am. Dec. 202 ; Need- ham V. Wright, 140 Ind. 190, 39 N. E. SIO; Kemp v. Coffin, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 190; Isenhart v. Hazen, 10 Kans. App. 577, 63 Pac. 451 ; Combs V. Boswell, 1 Dana (Ky.) 473; Van- cleave V. Nelson, 49 La. Ann. 621, 21 So. 734; Perrin v. Keene, 19 Maine 355, 36 Am. Dec. 759; Seldner v. Mt. Jackson Nat. Bank, 66 Md. 488, 8 Atl. 262, 59 Am. Rep. 190; Marlett v. Jackman, 3 Allen (Mass.) 287; Oliver V. Olmstead, 112 Mich. 483, 70 N. W. 1036; Barton v. Love joy, 56 Minn. 380, 57 N. W. 935, 45 Am. St. 482; Bank of Port Gibson v. Baugh, 9 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 290; Allen v. Logan, 96 Mo. 591, 10 S. W. 149; Hutchins V. Gilman, 9 N. H. 359; Baldwin v. Johnson, 1 N. J. Eq. 441; Gray v. Green, 142 N. Y. 316, Z7 N. E. 124, 40 Am. St. 596; Feigley v. Whitaker, 22 Ohio St. 606, 10 Am. Rep. 778; Jack V. McLanahan, 191 Pa. St. 631, 43 Atl. 356; Galliott v. Planters' & Mechanics' Bank, 1 McMul. (S. Car.) 209, 36 Am. Dec. 256; Anderson v. N6rton, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 14, 54 Am. Rep. 400; Baptist Book Concern v. Carswell (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 858; Torrey v. Baxter, 13 Vt. 452; Rootes V. Wellford, 4 Munf. (Va.) 215, 6 Am. Dec. 510 ; Roots v. Mason City Salt & Mining Co., 27 W. Va. 483 ; Lange v. Kennedy, 20 Wis. 279. See Wilder v. Morris, 7 Bush (Ky.) 420. And compare Stephens v. Or- man, 10 Fla. 9. See also 3 Elliott Ev., § 2572. 773 DISSOLUTION § 593 good outstanding engagements the partnership must in legal con- templation have a continuance, although, as between the parties themselves, it is actually determined." °^ Dissolution of a firm does not abrogate firm contracts nor change the liability of the partners to third persons on firm contracts." Under the Uni- form Partnership Act the relationship of partners may be said to continue after dissolution so far as necessary to wind up the business and complete transactions begun, except that there may be under some circumstances a partnership liability to persons who have no notice of the dissolution, and all the partners may be liable for acts of a partner who has no notice of dissolution by act of a partner, or death or bankruptcy of a partner.^" § 593. Powers of partners after dissolution — Generally. — Generally, dissolution terminates all the implied powers of a partner to bind copartners by virtue of their mutual agency in the firm business,®^ except those incident to the completion of transactions begun and the winding up of the business."^ And further than this as to persons having notice of the dissolution BsLevy v. Cadet, 17 Serg. & R. 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 279; Stirnermaun (Pa.) 126, 17 Am. Dec. 650. v. Cowing, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 275; BSHohnadel v. Ellsworth, 154 111. Allison v. Davidson, 17 N. Car. 79; App. 484 ; Axton v. Kentucky Bot- Benham v. Gray, 5 C. B. 138, 17 L. J. tiers' Supply Co., 159 Ky. 51, 166 S. C. P. 50, 57 E. C. L. 138; Clave v. W. 776; In re Suprenant, 217 Fed. Bickerdike, 5 Quebec Pr. 391. 470; Curtis v. Sexton, 252 Mo. 221, e^ Uniform Partnership Act, § 33; 159 S. W. 512; Strickland v. Strick- Scott v. Atlanta Wood & Iron Nov- land, 95 S. Car. 492, 79 S. E. 520; elty Works, 12' Ga. App. 216, 1^ S. ■Bagley v. Brack (Tex. Civ. App.), E. 1082 ; Brewster v. Hardeman, Dud- 154 S. W. 247. ley (Ga.) 138; Schlau v. Enzen- 60 Uniform Partnership Act, §§ 29, bacher, 265 111. 626, 107 N. E. 107; 33, 34, 35. Ketchum v. Larkin, 88 Iowa 215, 55 «i Bower v. Douglass, 25 Ga. 714; N. W. 472; Seldner v. Mt. Jackson Brewster v. Hardeman, Dudley (Ga.) Nat. Bank, 66 Md. 488, 8 Atl. 262, 59 138; Buard v. Lemee, 12 Rob. (La.) Am. Rep. 190; Holloway v. Turner, 243; Commercial Bank v. Perry, 10 61 Md. 217; Buxton v. Edwards, 134 Rob. (La.) 61, 43 Am. Dec. 168; Pe- Mass. 567; McArthur v. Oliver, 53 ters V. Gardere, 8 La. 565 ; Bank of Mich. 305, 19 N. W. 5 ; Marietta &c. Port Gibson v. Baugh, 9 Sm. & M. R. Co. v. Mowry, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 79; (Miss.) 290; Hutchins v. Gilman, 9 Ayer v. Ayer, 41 Vt. 346; Torrey v. N. H. 359; Gansevoort v. Kennedy, Baxter, 13 Vt. 452; King v. Smith, 593 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 774 one partner can only bind his copartner by express authority.'^ Therefore, it has been said on good authority that the termina- tion of a partnership changes the former general agency of each of the members of the dissolved firm into a special one/* "Be- fore the partnership is dissolved, each member is the agent of the others, and the partnership will be bound by any contract made by a partner within the scope of the partnership business. After the death of one of the partners has dissolved the partnership, this general agency is changed by operation of law to a special agency. That agency is limited to selling the goods of the part- nership, collecting the assets, paying the debts, and doing other acts which are necessary or proper to close and wind up the business. The surviving partner or partners have no right or authority after the dissolution to make any new contract to bind 4 C. & P. 108, 19 E. C. L. 430; Butch- art V. Dresser, 10 Hare 453. ^3 Stephens v. Orman, 10 Fla. 9 ; Smith V. Dennison, 101 111. 531 ; Dunlap V. Limes, 49 Iowa 177; Mark V. Bowers, 4 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 95; Leserman v. Bernheimer, 113 N. Y. 39, 20 N. E. 869; Bowler v. Huston, 30 Grat (Va.) 266, 32 Am. Rep. 673 ; Smith V. Winter, 8 L. J. Exch. 34, 4 M. & W. 454. ^* "After the dissolution of the partnership, neither partner has au- thority, without special mandate so to do, to bind his former partners, either in the renewal of a partnership debt, the imposition of a new obligation on it, or to in any manner vary the form or character of the obligation already existing." Bank of Monroe V. Drew Inv. Co., 126 La. 1028, S3 So. 129, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 255, and note. "It is the rule that each part- ner is the agent of the partnership, within the scope of the partnership business. * * * Such agency ceases upon dissolution of the copartnership, where notice thereof is given. * * * One member of a partnership after dissolution can not bind the partnership except so far as neces- sary for winding up its business. 1 Lindley on Partnership (2d ed.), p. 525, star pp. 218, 219. The rule is stated at star pages 218 and 219, 1 Lindley on Partnership, as follows : 'Other cases, which have been already referred to, clearly show that after the dissolution of an ordinary part- nership, no one aware of the dissolu- tion is entitled on any ground of implied agency to hold the members of the late firm responsible for acts done by each other subsequently to the dissolution; and every one must feel the force of Lord Kenyon's ob- servation in Abel v. Sutton, that, if the contrary doctrine were to pre- vail, a man could never know when he was to be at peace and freed, from all concerns of the partnership.'" Harris v. Zier, 43 Wash. 573, 86 Pac. 928. And compare People v. Devlin, 63 Misc. (N. Y.) 363, 118 N. Y. S. 478. 775 DISSOLUTION § 594 the partnership assets."*^ But as to third persons who have no notice of the dissolution, the powers of a partner to bind the firm remain the same as before dissolution.'® §594. Notice of dissolution. — One important subject in partnership law is the giving of notice of the dissolution of a partnership. Each partner is, as a general rule, the general agent for the firm as to all matters within the apparent scope of the firm business, the firm is liable to bona-fide third persons for such acts of one or more of the partners, and each partner is personally liable for all firm debts. This agency and liability continue as long as the partnership exists, and third parties have a right to consider it in existence until they have knowledge, actual or constructive, that the relation has ceased. Thus, "if a partnership is dissolved, or one of the known members retires from the firm, until the dissolution or retirement is duly notified, the power of each to bind the rest remains in full force, al- though as between the partners themselves a dissolution or a retirement is a revocation of the. authority of each to act for the others."*' Such notice is not always held necessary in a case *s Bass Dry Goods Co. v. Granite Ind. 469 ; Price v. Towsey, 3 City Mfg. Co., 116 Ga. 176, 42 S. E. Litt. (Ky.) 423, 14 Am. Dec. 415. 81; Hall v. Heck, 92 Mich. 458, ssSee post § 594. "The rule is 52 N. W. 749; Stoddard Mfg. Co. well settled that where a partner- v. Krause, 27 Nebr. 83, 42 N. W. 913 ; ship is dissolved, or one or more of Ketcham v. Clark, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) its members retires from the firm, 144, 5 Am. Dec. 197; Shamburg v. without giving notice to the party Ruggles, 83 Pa. St. 148; Anderson with whom the partnership is deal- v. Clayton, 39 Utah 343, 117 Pac. ing, the power of each member to 41. See also Lucas v. Bank of Da- bind the firm remains in full force, rien, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 280; Grady y. although, as between themselves, a Robinson, 28 Ala. 289; Pyron v. dissolution or retirement is a revoca- Ruohs, 120 Ga. 1060, 48 S. E. 434 ; tion of the authority of each to act Bredhoff v. Lepman, 181 111. App. 247 ; for the others." Easton v. Wosten- Iddings v. Pierson, 100 Ind. 418; holm, 137 Fed. 524. Humphrey v. Mattox, 19 Ky. L. 1053, e^Lindley Partnership, *214; Uni- 42 S. W. 1100; Nevens v. Bulger, 93 form Partnership Act, § 35. See Maine 502, 45 Atl. 503; Howe v. further Stewart v. Sonneborn, 51 Thayer, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 91 ; Elkin- Ala. 126; Holland v. Long, 57 ton v. Booth, 143 Mass. 479, 10 N. E. Ga. 36; Strecker v. Conn, 90 460; Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. § 594 LAW CF PARTNERSHIP 776 where a partnership is dissolved by operation of law, since it is said every one is bound to take notice of such dissolution be- cause of its general notoriety, and this rule has been applied in case of death of a partner,** marriage of a feme sole partner,** bankruptcy," or war.''^ The same rules as to partnership liability after dissolution to persons without notice apply when one part- ner has sold his interest and retired from the firm. It seems that where a person has actual knowledge, formal notice is un- necessary.''^ Conversely, a person who, when dealing with a partner, had no knowledge that a partnership had ever existed, is not entitled to notice of dissolution.'"' If no valid partnership Co. V. Hubert (Mich.), 141 N. W. 600; Chamberlain v. Dow, 10 Mich. 319.; Comfort v. Ly- nam, 67 Mo. App. 668; Deer- ing V. Flanders, 49 N. H. 225; Union Nat Bank v. Dean, 154 App. Div. 869, 139 N. Y. S. 835; Bynum V. Clark, 125 N. Car. 352, 34 S. E. 438; Easton v. Ellis, 1 Handy (Ohio) 70, 12 Ohio Dec. 32 ; Taylor v. Young, 3 Watts (Pa.) 339; Robinson v. Floyd, 159 Pa. St. 165, 28 Atl. 258, 33 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 409; An- derson V. Clayton, 39 Utah, 343, 117 Pac. 41; Dickinson v. Dickinson, 25 Grat. (Va.) 321 ; Egholm v. Williams, 81 Wash. 609, 143 Pac. 152. And compare Price v. Succession of Mathews, 14 La. Ann. 11; Planters' Bank v. St. John, 1 Woods (U. S.) 585, Fed. Cas. No. 11208; Puritan Trust Co. V. Coffey, 180 Mass. 510, 62 N. E. 970; Eustis v. Bolles, 146 Mass. 413, 16 N. E. 286, 4 Am. St. 327; Griswold v. Wadding- ton, IS Johns. 57 (affd. 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 438). See Jeter v. Burgwyn, 113 N. Car. 157, 18 S. E. 113. See also as to necessity and nature of such notice to relieve a retiring partner from further liability, 3 Elliott Ev., § 2574. ^8 National Union Bank v. Hol- lingsworth, 135 N. Car. 556, 47 S. E. 618; Bass Dry Goods Co. v. Granite City Mfg. Co., 116 Ga. 176, 42 S. E. 415; Price v. Mathews, 14 La. Ann. 11. 88 The rule requiring notice to third parties has been held not to obtain where the dissolution has been worked by the marriage of a feme sole partner or by the death of one of the members of the firm. Little V. Hazlett, 197 Pa. 591, 47 Atl. 855. TO Uniform Partnership Act, § 35 b (2) ; Eustis v. Bolles, 146 Mass. 413, 16 N. E. 286, 4 Am. St. 327. ''I Griswold v. Waddington, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 438 (affg. IS Johns. 57). 72 Union Nat. Bank of Franklin- ville V. Dean, 154 App. Div. 869, 139 N. Y. S. 835; Miller v. Pfeiffer, 168 Ind. 219, 80 N. E. 409. See also Holtgreve v. Wintker, 85 111. 470; Ach V. Barnes, 107 Ky. 219, 53 S. W. 293, 21 Ky. L. 893; Young v. Tib- bitts, 32 Wis. 79. , 73 First International Bank of Por- tal v. Brown, 130 Minn. 210, 153 N. W. 522; Chamberlain v. Dow, 10 Mich. 319; Swigert v. Aspden, 52 Minn. 565, 54 N. W. 738; Wright v. 777 DISSOLUTION § 595 ever existed, notice of dissolution may be unnecessary.''* A dor- mant partner need not give notice of dissolution of a firm or retirement from it in order to escape further liability/^ unless his connection has become known, and then persons who have dealt with him are entitled to notice.'* § 595. Uniform Partnership Act as to powers after disso- lution and character of notice. — The law generally recognizes a difference in the character of notice required to be given to creditors of the firm or those who have had dealings with it and to the world at large. In this respect and as to powers after dissolution the Uniform Partnership Act provides : "After dis- solution a partner can bind the partnership except as provided in paragraph (3), (a) by any act appropriate for winding up partnership affairs or completing transactions unfinished at dis- solution; (b) by any transaction which would bind the partner- ship if dissolution had not taken place provided the other party Fonda, 44 Mo. App. 634; Bloch v. Price, 24 Mo. App. 14; Blanks v. Halfin (Tex. Civ. AppO, 30 S. W. 941 (1895). 7* Chamberlain v. Dow, 10 Mich. 319; Jeter v. Burgwyn, 113 N. Car. 157, 18 S. E. 113, 75 Hornaday v. Cowgill, 54 Ind. App. 631, 101 N. E. 1030 ; Oppenheimer v. Clemmons, 18 Fed. 886; Bigelow v. Elliot, 1 Cliff. (U. S.) 28, Fed. Cas. No. 1399; Austin v. Appling, 88 Ga. 54, 13 S. E. 955; Nussbaumer v. Becker, 87 111. 281, 29 Am. Rep. 53; Pitkin V. Benfer, 50 Kans. 108, 31 Pac. 695, 34 Am. St. 110; Lieb v. Craddock, 87 Ky. 525, 9 S. W. 838, 10 Ky. L. 570 ; Magill v. Merrie, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 168; Scott v. Colmesnil, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 416; Elwards v. McFall, 5 La. Ann: 167; Lacaze v. Sejour, 10 Rob. (La.) 444; Gros- venor v. Loyd, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 19; Kelley v. Hurlburt, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 534; Gorman v. Davis &c. Co., 118 N. Car. 370, 24 S. E. 770; Deford V. Reynolds, 36 Pa. St. 325; Vac- caro V. Toof, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 194; Baptist Book Concern v. Carswell (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 858 (1898) ; Reynolds v. Bowley, L. R. 2 Q. B. 474; Heath v. Sansom, 4 B. & Ad. 172 ; Darling v. Magnan, 12 U. C. Q. B. 471; Carter v. Whalley, 1 B. & Ad. 11; Eng. Partnership Act (1890), § 36 (3). 76 Park v. Wooten, 35 Ala. 242; Warren v. Ball, 37 111. 76; Cregler V. Durham, 9 Ind. 375 ; Elmira Iron & Steel Rolling Mill Co. v. Harris, 124 N. Y. 280, 26 N. E. 541, 3 Sil- vermail Ct. App. 351 ; Davis v. Al- len, 3 N. Y. 168; Rowland v. Estes, 190 Pa. St. Ill, 42 Atl. 528; Brown V. Foster, 41 S. CSr. 118, 19 S. E. 299; Milmo Nat. Bank v. Bergstrom, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 151, 20 S. W. 836; Farrar v. Deflinne, 1 C. & K. 580. § 595 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 778 to the transaction: (I) had extended credit to the partnership prior to dissolution and had no knowledge or notice of the dis- solution; or (II) though he had not so extended credit, had nevertheless known of the partnership prior to dissolution, and having no knowledge or notice of dissolution, the fact of disso- lution had not been advertised in a newspaper of general circula- tion in the place (or in each place if more than one), at which the partnership business was regularly carried on. (2) The lia- bility of a partner under paragraph (lb) shall be satisfied out of partnership assets alone when such partner had been prior to dissolution : (a) unknown as a partner to the persons with whom the contract is made; and (b) so far unknown and inactive in partnership affairs that the business reputation of the partnership could not be said to have been in any degree due to his connec- tion with it. (3) The partnership is in no case bound by any act of a partner after dissolution: (a) where the partnership is dissolved because it is unlawful to carry on the business, unless the act is appropriate for winding up partnership affairs; or, (b) where the partner has become bankrupt; or (c) where the part- ner has no authority to wind up partnership affairs, except by a transaction with one who (I) had extended credit to the part- nership prior to dissolution and had no knowledge or notice of his want of authority; or (II) had not extended credit to the partnership prior to dissolution, and, having no knowledge or notice of his want of authority, the fact of his want of authority has not been published as provided in paragraph (Ibll). (4) Nothing in this section shall affect the liability under section 16 of any person who after dissolution represents himself or consents to another representing him as a partner in a partner- ship engaged in carrying on business."^^ This section of the act as originally drafted and as adopted in Wisconsin and Penn- sylvania, was afterward rewritten, it being thought that, under the draft as written there was a remote possibility that a secret and inactive partner might be bound to a person who extended 77 Uniform Partnership Act, § 35 as rewritten. 779 DISSOLUTION § 596 credit to the partnership after dissolution unless notice had been given or published and a bare possibility that if notice of disso- lution had not been published a person who extended credit to the partnership after dissolution might hold all the partners, though he never heard of the partnership before dissolution.''^ By this act knowledge and notice are thus defined: A person has "knowledge" of a fact within the meaning of this act not only when he has actual knowledge thereof, but also when he has knowledge of such other facts as in the circumstances show bad faith. A person has "notice" of a fact within the meaning of this act when the person who claims the benefit of the notice : (a) states the fact to such person, or (b) delivers through the mail, or by other means of communication, a written statement of the fact to such person or to a proper person at his place of business or residence.'"' This act provides for actual notice only to those who have extended credit on the faith of the partner- ship and thus is in conflict with most of the holdings. § 596. Character of notice required and persons entitled to notice. — Under the general law :*" "The familiar and well- settled rule is that a dissolution of the copartnership by act of the parties, whether a complete discontinuance of the concern, or the retirement of a single partner, or addition of a member, does not affect the outside world, unless proper notice is given; 7^29 Harv. L. Rev. 312. The fol- no knowledge or notice of the dis- lowing were the provisions of this solution; or such third person, not section as to notice before rewrit- having had business relations with ing : "If the partnership is not dis- the partnership by which a credit was solved because it has become unlawful extended to the partnership, has no to carry on the business, a partner knowledge or notice of the dissolu- can not after dissolution bind the tion, and the fact of dissolution has partnership to third persons by any not been advertised in a newspaper of act which is not necessary to wind general circulation of the place (or up the partnership affairs or to com- of each place if more than one) at plete transactions then unfinished, un- which the partnership business was less such third person, having had regularly carried on." relations with the partnership by ^9 Uniform Partnership Act, § 3. which a credit was extended upon so pjnney, J., in Thayer v. Goss, 91 the faith of the partnership, has had Wis. 90, 64 N. W. 312 (1895). § 596 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 780 that actual notice must be brought home to former customers, or those who are creditors by having dealt With it, but notice by publication is sufficient as to all others."*^ As to the actual no- tice or notice in fact required to be given to those formerly hav- ing dealings with the firm, it is immaterial by what means such notice is brought to the knowledge of the patrons or in what form it was given, so that such patrons get the information either directly or through some legitimate means of communica- tion.*^ It is not sufficient to charge such a person with notice that he had means and opportunity to learn of the dissolution.** Mere publication in a newspaper of notice of dissolution is al- most universally held insufficient as to parties who have had prior dealings with the firm,** even though the person sought 81 Citing Bates Partnership, 606; 1 470; Uhl v. Bingaman, 78 Ind. 365; Lindley Partnership, 221. See also Gross v. Breckenridge Bank (Ky.), Neal V. Smith, 116 Fed. 20, 54 C. C. A. 90 S. W. 5, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 800 226; Union Nat. Bank of Franklin- and note; Robertson Lumber Co. v. ville V. Dean, 154 App. Div. 869, 139 Anderson, 96 Minn. 527, 105 N. W. N. Y. S. 835; Lichenstein v. Mur- 972; Gage v. Rogers, 51 Mo. App. phree (Ala. App.), 62 So. 444; Gross 428; National Shoe &c. Bank v. V. Breckenridge Bank (Ky.), 90 S. Herz, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 260 (affd. 89 W. 5, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 800; Nev- N. Y. 629) ; Bank of Monongahela ens V. Bulger, 93 Maine 502, 45 Atl. Valley v. Weston, 159 N. Y. 201, 54 503; Vietor v. Spalding, 202 Mass. N. E. 40, 45 L. R. A. 547; Davis v. 234, 88 N. E. 846; Simmons Hdw. Keyes, 38 N. Y. 94; Ellison v. Sex- Co. V. Peck, 176 Mo. App. 86, 162 ton, 105 N. Car. 356, 11 S. E. 180, 18 S. W. 1061. Am. St. 907; Irby v. Vining, 2 Me- ss Miller V. Pfeifler, 168 Ind. 219, Cord L. (S. Car.) 379; Martin v. 80 N. E. 409; Bowman v. Blanton, Walton, 1 McCo" d L. (S. Car.) 16; 141 Ky. 407, 132 S. W. 1041; Cen- Williams v. Connor, 14 S. Car. 621; tral Nat. Bank v. Frye, 148 Mass. Prentiss v. Sinclair, 5 Vt. 149, 26 Am. 498, 20 N. E. 325; Holt v. Allen- Dec. 288; Young v. Tibbitts, 32 Wis. brand, 52 Hun 217, 4 N. Y. S. 922, 79; Henry C. Werner Co. v. Calhoun, 22 N. Y. St. 925 ; Coddington v. Hunt, 55 W. Va. 246, 46 S. E. 1024. 6 Hill (N. Y.) 595; Laird v. Ivens, sa Gross v. Breckenridge Bank 45 Tex. 621. See also Kehoe v. Car- (Ky.), 90 S. W. 5, 4 L. R. A. (N. ville, 84 Iowa 415, 51 N. W. 166; S.) 800. Hall V. Jones, 56 Ala. 493 ; Hunt 84 Bush v. W. A. McCarty Co., 127 V. Colorado Milling &c. Co., 1 Colo. Ga. 308, 56 S. E. 430, 9 Ann. Cas. App. 120, 27 Pac. 873; Danforth v. 240 and note; Richards v. Butler, Hertel, 3 Pennew. (Del.) 57, 49 Atl. 65 Ga. 593; Page v. Brant, 18 111. 168; Holtgreve v. Wintker, 85 111. 37; Denman v. Dosson, 19 La. Ann. 781 DISSOLUTION § 596 to be charged with notice is a subscriber to the paper in which the notice was published. ^° Nor is merely the mailing of notices to patrons, without proof of receipt, sufficient,*^ although if no- tices were placed in the mails properly addressed, a rebuttable presumption of fact arises that they were received in due course.*^ A change in the firm name as used in signs, letterheads and else- where, if it clearly indicates the retirement of a partner, may be notice of such fact.*^ Notice to an agent of one who has been a customer of the firm is usually sufficient** if within the scope 9; Skannel v. Taylor, 12 La. Ann. ITh; Brashear v. Dwight, 2 La. Ann. 403; Rose v. Coffield, S3 Md. 18, 36 Am. Rep. 389; Boyd v. McCann, 10 Md. 118; Sibley v. Parsons, 93 Mich. 538, ^Z N. W. 786; Pope v. Risley, 23 Mo. 185 ; Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 701, 16 Am. Dec. 471; Na- tional Bank v. Norton, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 572; Austin v. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571, 25 Am. Rep. 246; Commonwealth Bank V. Mudgett, 44 N. Y. 514 (affg. 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 663); Ellison v. Sexton, 105 N. Car. 356, 11 S. E. 180, 18 Am. St. 907; Scheiffelin v. Stevens, 60 N. Car. 106, 84 Am. Dec. 355; Robinson v. Floyd, 159 Pa. St. 165, 28 Atl. 258, 33 W. N. C. (Pa.) 409; Little v. Clark, 36 Pa. St. 114; Watkinson v. Bank of Pennsylvania, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 482, 34 Am. Dec. 521; White v. Murphy,. 3 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 369; Haynes v. Carter, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 7, 27, Am. Rep. 747; Gilbough V. Stahl Bldg. Co., 16 Tex, Civ. App. 448, 41 S. W. 535; Ami- down V. Osgood, 24 Vt. 278, 58 Am. Dec. 171; Henry C. Werner Co. v. Calhoun, 55 W. Va. 246, 46 S. E. 1024; Gilchrist v. Brande, 58 Wis. 184, IS N. W. 817. ssTreadwell v. Wells, 4 Cal. 260; Reilly v. Smith, 16 La. Ann. 31 ; Rose V. Coffield, S3 Md. 18, 36 Am. Rep. 389; ZoUar v. Janvrin, 47 N. H. 324; Vernon v. Manhattan Co., 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 524 (affd. 22 Wend. (N^ Y.) ,183) ; Hutchins v. Bank of Ten- nessee, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 418 ; Wood v. Jefferies (Va.), 83 S. E. 1074. 86 Meyer v. Krohn, 114 111. 574, 2 N. E. 495 ; Kenney v. Altvater, 11 Pa. St. 34; Haynes v. Carter, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 7.' 87 Meyer v. Krohn, 114 111. 574, 2 N. E. 495; Austin v. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571, 25 Am. Rep. 246. 88 Barfoot v. Goodall, 3 Campb. 147; American Linen Thread Co. v. Wortendyke, 24 N. Y. 550; Holt v. AUenbrand, 52 Hun (N. Y.) 217, 4 N. Y. S. 922; Kirby v. Hewitt, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 607. See also Henry C. Werner Co. v. Calhoun, 55 W. Va. 246, 46 S. E. 1024. 89 Page v. Brant, 18 111. Zl ; Hunt V. Colorado Milling &c. Co., 1 Colo. App. 120, 27 Pac. 873 ; Miller v. Pfeif- fer, 168 Ind. 219, 80 N. E. 409; Ach v. Barnes, 107 Ky. 219, 53 S. W. 293, 21 Ky. L. 893; Tobias v. Wierck, 30 App. Div. 486, 52 N. Y. S. 312 (affg. 163 N. Y. 584, 57 N. E. 1126) ; Cox V. Pearce, 112 N. Y. 637, 20 N. E. 566, 3 L. R. A. 563; Bonnet v. Tips Hardware Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 59 S. W. 59 (1900). § 596 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 782 of his authority,"" although not communicated by the agent to the principal."^ The fact that one purchases from an entire stranger doing business for himself in the firm's place of busi- ness is sufficient notice of a sale to the stranger by the old partners."^ General notoriety of the dissolution is evidence from which notice can be inferred/^ but it depends on the circum- stances as to whether sufficient notoriety is shown,"* and it has been held insufficient where no published or personal notice was given.°^ The requirements of notice by publication if not regu- lated by statute, are complied with where the notice is published in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality where the partnership had its place of business in such a manner as fairly to inform the public of the dissolution."" Where notice has been properly given the mutual agency of each partner to bind the soNeal V. Smith, 116 Fed. 20, 54 C. C. A. 226; Marsh v. Wheeler, 11 Conn. 449, 59 Atl. 410, 107 Am. St. 40. 91 Westinghouse Electric &c. Co. v. Hubert, 175 Mich. 568, 141 N. W. 600, Ann. Cas. 1915 A, 1099n; Straus V. Sparrow, 148 N. Car. 309, 62 S. E. 308; Jenkins Bros. Shoe Co. v. Ren- frew, 151 N. Car. 323, 66 S. E. 212, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 231. Compare 'Mims V. Brook, 3 Ga. App. 247; United Dressed Beef Co. v. Burrell, 140 App. Div. 131, 124 N. Y. S. 1072. 82 Clapp V. Upson, 12 Wis. 492. 93 Mauldin v. Mobile Branch Bank, 2 Ala. 502; Brashear v. Dwight, 2 La. Ann. 403 ; Gage v. Rogers, 51 Mo. App. 428; Holdane v. Butterworth, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 1; Brown v. Fos- ter, 41 S. Car. 118, 19 S. E. 299. 9* Humes v. O'Bryan, 74 Ala. 64; Mauldin v. Mobile Branch Bank, 2 Ala. 502; Lucas v. Bank of Darien, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 280; Roof v. Morrisson, 37 111. App. 37; Hammond v. Aiken, 3 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 119; Southwick V. Allen, 11 Vt. 75. 95 Martin v. Searles, 28 Conn. 43; Lyon V. Johnson, 28 Conn. 1 ; Pitcher v. Barrows, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 361, 28 Am. Dec. 306. 96 Mauldin v. Mobile Branch Bank, 2 Ala. 502 ; Lucas v. Bank of Darien, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 280 ; Mowatt v. How- land, 3 Day (Conn.) 353; Bush v. McCarty Co., 127 Ga. 308, 56 S. E. 430, 9 Ann. Cas. 240n. See also Askew V. Silman, 95 Ga. 678, 22 S. E. 573; Shurlds v. Tilson, 2 McLean (U. S.) 458, Fed. Cas. No. 12, 827; Backus V. Taylor, 84 Ind. 503 ; Solo- mon V. Kirkwood, 55 Mich. 256, 21 N. W. 336; Polk v. Oliver, 56 Miss. 566; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Weston, 162 N. Y. 113, 56 N. E. 494 (revg. 19 App. Div. 627, 45 N. Y. S. 1136, and following Monongahela Valley Bank v. Weston, 159 N. Y. 201, 54 N. E. 40, 45 L. R. A. 547) ; Graves V. Merry, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 701, 16 Am. Dec. 471; Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 300, 3 Am. Dec. 422; Watkinson v. Bank of Pennsylvania, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 482, 34 Am. Dec. 521 ; Galliott V. Planters' and Mechanics' 783 DISSOLUTION § 596 other by contracts is terminated." That part of the rule as ordinarily stated and the texts upholding it which relate to actual notice to "customers" has been construed in a Georgia case which holds actual notice is necessary to creditors only, and contains otherwise a good exposition of the principles governing notice/^ It was said : "the court, in certain instructions to the jury, which are complained of by the plaintiff in error, charged them, in effect, that if the plaintiff was a 'customer' of the firm, she would be enti- tled to actual notice of the dissolution. We think the court erred in so charging. In order to. relieve an ostensible partner from liability for debts contracted in the partnership name subse- quently to his withdrawal from the firm, the dissolution must be made known 'to creditors and to the world,' but it is not necessary that the notice should be actual or personal except as to creditors. Although it is often said in text-books and de- cisions that actual notice or knowledge of the dissolution must be brought home to former 'customers' of the firm, this language has reference only to creditors. * * * A customer, in, the sense in which the term was used in this case, — that is to say, one whose dealings with the partnership have been confined to the purchase of its goods, — is entitled only to such notice as should be given to 'the world.' " Continuing, as to what notice should be given to the public at large, the court said: "As to the notice which should be given to 'the world,' no inflexible Bank, 1 McMul. (S. Car.) 209, 36 Am. Davis v. Keyes, .38 N. Y. 94; Pineiro Dec. 256; Simonds v. Strong, 24 Vt. v. Gurney, 60 Hun 584, 15 N. Y. S. 642; Prentiss V. Sinclair, SVt. 149, 26 217, 39 N. Y. St. 469; Brisban v. Am. Dec. 288; Young v.' Tibbitts, .32 Boyd, 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 17; Bain Wis. 79; Wright v. Pulham, 2 Chit. v. Wilson, 10 Ohio St. 14; Harris v. 121, 18 Rev. Rep. 784; Godfrey v. Zier, 43 Wash. 573, 86 Pac. 928 ; Jones Turnbull, 1 Esp. 371; Gorham v. v. Lloyd, L. R. 18 Eq. 265; Benham v. Thompson, 1 Peake 42, 3 Rev. Rep. Gray, 5 C. B. 138; Willis v. Dyson, 650. 1 Stark. 164, 2 E. C. L. 70. See also "T Kennedy V. Bohannon, 11 B. Mon. Kelly v. Murphy, 70 Cal. 560, 12 Pac. (Ky.) 118; Monroe v. Conner, IS 467; Filippini v. Stead, 4 Misc. 405, Maine 178, 32 Am. Dec. 148; Good- 23 N. Y. S. 1061. speed V. Wiard Plow Co., 45 Mich. as Askew v. Silman, 95 Ga. 678, 22 322, 7 N. W. 902; Osborn v. Wood, S. E. 573 (1895). 125 Mo. App. 250, 102 S. W. 580; § 596 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 784 rule can be laid down. Publication in a public gazette circu- lated in the locality in which the business of the partnership has been conducted, if such publication is fair and reasonable as to its terms and the number of times it is made, is usually sufficient notice to the world.'* An editorial notice, not signed by any member of the firm may be as effectual for this purpose as an advertisement purporting to issue by authority of the partners over their signature.^ * * * Whether this is so or not is generally a question for the jury. * * * 'j^ jg ^ot an abso- lute, inflexible rule that there must be a publication in a news- , paper to protect a retiring partner. Any means of fairly publish- ing the fact of such dissolution as widely as possible, in order to put the public on its guard, — as by advertisement, public no- tice in the manner usual in the community, the withdrawal of the exterior indications of the partnership, — are proper to be considered on the question of notice.'^ It should be left to the jury to say whether the retired partner made a reasonable and bona-fide effort to acquaint the public with the fact of his re- tirement, and whether, on the other hand, the creditor, with the means and opportunity afforded him, knew, or ought to have known, of the fact. Even in the absence of any showing that notice of the dissolution was given, the fact that a considerable time elapsed between the dissolution and the contracting of the debt has been deemed sufficient to render the creditor chargeable with notice. * * * There is some question as to whether the jury may infer notice from general notoriety of the disso- lution.^ We think, however, that the evidence excluded by the court below in this case, as to the general notoriety of Askew's withdrawal from the partnership, although such notoriety may not of itself have been sufficient to charge the plaintiff with no- tice of the fact, ought to have been allowed to go to the jury, to 89 Citing Ewing v. Trippe, 73 Ga. 2 Quoting from Lovejoy v. Spaf- 776; Parsons' Partnership (4th ed.), ford, 93 U. S. 430, 23 L. ed. 851. § 317 and notes. s Citing Bates Partnership, § 622 1 Citing Solomon v. Kirkwood, SS and cases cited. Mich. 2S6, 21 N. W. 336; Young v. Tibbitts, 32 Wis. 79. 785 DISSOLUTION § 596 be considered by them for what it was worth, in connection with the other evidence bearing on the question of notice." Does the fact that a withdrawing partner allows the remaining partners to continue to use his name as part of the firm name of itself amount to a representation that he is still a partner therein?* In an English case decided in 1892, it was held that it does not amount to such a representation. In that case, the creditor suing had condticted no business with the old firm. The new firm continued to use the old firm name, which included the name of the withdrawing partner, but notified their bankers and their principal creditors of the dissolution. Kay, L. J., in his opinion, said: "Does the fact that John Frazer permitted his' brother to carry on the business under the old firm name amount to the representation by him to the bank that he, John Frazer, was a partner in the firm? I think Newsome v. Coles, 2 Camp. 617, shows that it does not." This statement should, perhaps, be qualified somewhat, to conform to American law. It is un- doubtedly true that such a use of a withdrawing partner's nanie would not be conclusive against him, yet it would be submitted to the jury, for what it is worth, coupled with other facts, and it would probably be necessary for the withdrawing partner to show that the creditor either knew or should have known that he was no longer connected with the firm, to make the withdrawal a defense. It is a question of fact for the jury whether a pre- vious customer had notice of dissolution of a partnership,^ and the burden of proving notice is on the partner seeking to escape liability.^ *In re Frazier, 2 Q. B. 633. 299; Martin v. Walton, 1 McCord L. sShurlds v. Tilson, 2 McLean (U. (S. Car.) 16; Henry C. Werner Co. S.) 4S8, Fed. Cas. No. 12827; Maul- v. Calhoun, 55 W. Va. 246, 46 S. E. din V. Branch Bank, 2 Ala. 502; Dan- 1024; Young v. Tibbitts, 32 Wis. 79. forth V. Hertel, 3 Pennewell (Del.) See also Roberts v. Spencer, 123 57, 49 Atl. 168; Meyer v. Krohn, 114 Mass. 397; Pitcher v. Barrows, 17 111. 574, 2 N. E. 495 ; Robertson Lum- Pick (Mass.) 361, 28 Am. Dec. 306. ber Co. v. Anderson, 96 Minn. 527, «Dellapiazza y. Foley, 112 Cal. 380, 105 N. W. 972; Osborn v. Wood, 125 44 Pac. 727; Birckhead v. De Forest, Mo. App. 250, 102 S. W. 580; Brown 120 Fed. 645, 57 C. C. A. 107; Moore V. Foster, 41 S. Car. 118, 19 S. E. v. Duckett, 91 G^. 752, 17 S. E. 50— Row. ON Partn.— Vol. 1 § 597 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 786 § 597. Dissolution terminates contract of agency. — The dissolution of a partnership authorized to act as an agent re- vokes the agency.^ This rule applies whether the dissolution is by death or otherwise and whatever the character of the agency.® The reason for the rule is that "it is a general rule of the com- mon law that an authority by a principal to two persons to do an act is joint, and the act must be concurred in by both. * * * When a firm is appointed to an agency, this rule would neces- sarily be modified to the extent that either member of the firrn could do any act within the scope of the agency, the same as he could perform any other partnership act. By appointing a part- nership firm it would be implied that the authority was joint and several. But, upon dissolution of the firm, such an agency would cease. This is the necessary result of the principles al- luded to. The principal would not be bound by the act of a surviving member of a firm, because he had never appointed him to act, nor agreed to be responsible for his acts; and the latter could incur no obligation against the deceased member or his representatives."" Merely a change in a firm's name without a change in personnel will not affect its authority as agent.^" But 1037 ; Pursley V. Ramsey, 31 Ga. 403 ; v. Littlefield, 135 Fed. 184; Rowe Dixon Nat. Bank. v. Spielmann, 35 v. Rand, 111 Ind. 206, 12 N. E. 377; III. App. 184; Strecker v. Conn, 90 Johnson v. Wilcox, 25 Ind. 182; Hol- Ind. 469; Uhl v. Harvey, 78 Ind. 26; bert v. Keller, 161 Iowa 723, 142 N. Dwff V. Baker, 78 Iowa 642, 43 N. W. 962; Angle v. Mississippi & M. W. 463; Mitchum v. Bank of Ken- R. Co., 9 Iowa 487; Wheaton v. Cad- tucky, 9 Dana (Ky.) 166; Grinnan iliac Automobile Co., 143 Mich. 21, V. Baton Rouge Mills Co., 7 La. Ann. 106 N. W. 399; Salisbury v. Bris- 638 ; Reading Braid Co. v. Stewart, bane, 61 N. Y. 617 ; Thomas v. Gwyn, 20 Misc. 86, 45 N. Y. S. 69 (affg. 131 N. Car. 460, 42 S. E. 904; Lar- 19 Misc. 431, 43 N. Y. S. 1129); son v. Newman (N. Dak.), 121 N- Ellison V. Sexton, 105 N. Car. 356, 11 W. 202, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 849 S. E. 180, 18 Am. St. 907; New- note; Robson v. Drummond, 2 Barn, comet V. Brotzman, 69 Pa. St. IBS ; & Ad. 303. Southwick V. Allen, 11 Vt. 75. » See cases cited in preceding note. '■ Schlau V. Enzenbacher, 265 111. s Martine v. International L. Ins. 626, 107 N. E. 107, L. R. A. 1915 C, SoC, S3 N. Y. 339, 13 Am. Rep. 529. 576; Hartford R Ins. Co. v. Wil- i* Billingsley v. Dawson, 27 Iowa cox, 57 111. 180; Davidson v. Pro- 210. vost, 35 111. App. 126; Meysenburg 787 DISSOLUTION § 598 the authority of a surviving partner to act as agent may come from ratification/^ One Arkansas case seems contrary to the general rule in holding that, where a client had contracted with a firm of attorneys for the services of one particular at- torney at a stipulated fee, after his death the surviving partner could render the services and recover their value/^ § 598. Powers of partner to administer firm affairs. — Where a partnership is dissolved by death the surviving part- ner or partners have the right, and are under the duty to wind up the firm business, and are entitled to exclusive possession of the firm assets.^* If a partner or partners are bankrupt or in- solvent, the insolvent partner or partners have the right to wind up the business.^* In other cases, except where dissolution is caused by the wrongdoing of one partner, or there is an agree- 11 1/avidson v. Provost, 35 111. App. 126. 12 Smith V. Hill, 13 Ark. 173. "Campbell v. Floyd, 153 Pa. St. 84, 25 Atl. 1033; Wickliffe v. Eve, 17 How. (U. S.) 468, 15 L. ed. 163; McGorray v. O'Connor, 87 Fed. 586, 31 C. C. A. 114; Bischoffsheim v. Baltzer, 20 Fed. 890; Kenton Fur- nace R. &c. Co. V. McAlpin, S Fed. 1Z7 ; Andrews v. Brown, 21 Ala. 437, 56 Am. Dec. 252; Adams v. Ward, 26 Ark. 135 ; Marlatt v. Scant- land, 19 Ark. 443 ; McKay v. Joy, 70 Cal. 581, 11 Peg. 832; People v. Hill, 16 Cal. 113; Gray v. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616; Filley v. Phelps, 18 Conn. 294; Price V. Hicks, 14 Fla. 565; Terri- tory V. Redding, 1 Fla. 242; Gard- ner V. Gumming, Ga. Dec. 1 ; Com- mercial Nat. Bank v. Proctor, 98 111. 558; Miller v. Jones, 39 111. 54; Needham v. Wright, 140 Ind. 190, 39 N. E. 510; Holland v. Fuller, 13 Ind. 195; Starr v. Case, 59 Iowa 491, 13 N. W. 645 ; Pfeffer v. Steiner, 27 Mich. 537; Barry v. Briggs, 22 Mich. 201 ; Robertshaw v. Hanway, 52 Miss. 713; Hanway v. Robert- shaw, 49 Miss. 758 ; Holman v. Nance, 84 Mo. 674; Judy v. St. Louis Ice Mfg. &c. Co., 60 Mo. App. 114; Loewenstein v. Loewenstein, 114 App. Div. 65, 99 N. Y. S. 730; Murray v. Mumford, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 441; Enck v. Gerding, 67 Ohio St. 245, 65 N. E. 880; In re Shipe's Ap- peal, 114 Pa. St. 205, 6 Atl. 103; Hawkins v. Capron, 17 R. I. 679, 24 Atl. 466; Gant v. Reed, 24 Tex. 46, 76 Am. Dec. 94; In re Auerbach, 23 Utah 529, 65 Pac. 488; Stearns v. Houghton, 38 Vt. 583 ; Dyer v. Morse, 10 Wash. 492, 39 Pac. 138, 28 L. R. A. 89; Knox v. Gye, L. R. 5 H. L. 656, 42 L. J. Ch. 234. 1* Bankruptcy Act, § 5; U. S. Bankr. L. (1898), § 5 (h) ; Eng. Partnership Act (1890), § 38. See also Vetterlein v. Barnes, 6 Fed. 693 ; Ex parte Owen, L. R. 13 Q. B. Div. 113; Luckie v. Forsyth, 3 J. & L. 388. Compare Hubbard v. Guild, 8 N. Y. Super. Ct. 662. § 599 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 788 ment or order of court leaving to one partner the power of liquidating the firm assets each partner is entitled to take part in winding up firm affairs.^^ By the Uniform Partnership Act, "unless otherwise agreed, the partners who have not wrong- fully dissolved the partnership or the legal representative of the last surviving partner, not bankrupt, has the right to wind up the partnership affairs : provided, however, that any partner, his legal representatives or his assigns, upon cause shown, may obtain winding up by the court."^^ It is provided also that the part- nership is in no case bound by acts of a bankrupt partner.^^ It is not uncommon for partners to provide by agreement that one partner shall take the firm assets as owner and that he shall assume firm debts, and such arrangement is binding between the partners,'^* though not on third parties who have not consented to such arrangement.^' § 599. Some general powers and disqualifications of part- ner after dissolution. — A partner after dissolution may use the firm name if not in such a manner as to render other part- ners liable,^" but he has no implied power to use it so as to bind other partners." After dissolution, partners have the power,^^ 15 Granger v. McGilvra, 24 111. v. Ray, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 79 [afifg. 22 152; Skannel v. Taylor, 12 La. Ann. Ont. App. 12 (revg. 24 Ont. 497)]; 11Z; Davis v. Briggs, 39 Maine 304; Bresse v. Griffith, 24 Ont. 492. Ellicott V. Nichols, 7 Gill (Md.) 85, 20 Cronly v. Bank of Kentucky, 18 48 Am. Dec. 546; Hilton y. Van- B. Mon. (Ky.) 405; First ' Commer- derbilt, 82 N. Y. 591; Ruffner v. cial Bank v. Talbert, 103 Mich. 625, Hewitt, 7 W. Va. 585; Eng. Part- 61 N. W. 888, 50 Am. St. 385; Bank nership Act. (1890), § 39. of Mobile v. Andrews, 2 Sneed 16 Uniform Partnership Act, § 2,1. (Tenn.) 535. 17 Uniform Partnership Act, § 35 21 Holbrook v. Nesbitt, 163 Mass. (2). 120, 39 N. E. 794; Burchell v. Wilde "Mafflyn v. Hathaway, 106 Mass. (1900), 1 Ch. 551, 69 L. J. Ch. 314, 414; Young v. Clute, 12 Nev. 31. 82 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 576; Levy v. "Bedford V. Deakin, 2 B. & Aid. Walker, 10 Ch. D. 436; Chappell v. 210, 2 Stark. 178, 3 E. C. L. 366; Griffith, 50 J. P. 86, 53 L. T. (N. S.) Lacy V. McNeale, 4- D. & R. 7, 16 E. 459 ; Aikins v. Piper, IS Grant Ch. C. L. . 185 ; Featherstone v. Hunt, 2 (U. C.) 581. D. & R. 233, 1 B. & C. 113, 1 L. J. K. ^^Dew v. Pearson, 73 Wash. 602, B. (O. S.) 49, 8 E. C. L. 49; Isbester 132 Pac. 412; Sandberg v. Scougale, 789 DISSOLUTION § 599 and are under the duty to perform existing firm contracts.^^ Third persons are not relieved from Hability on their existing contracts with the firm,^* unless it is expressly so agreed, or may be implied by law.^° It has been seen that the agency o^ a part- nership is terminated by dissolution.^" A continuing guaranty to a firm of an account of a customer or patron is terminated by change in the membership of such firm, except as to goods sold, or credits extended, before dissolution/'' Confession of 75 Wash. 313, 134 Pac. 1051 ; Davis Bing. (N. Cas.) 296, 4 Jur. 105, 9 L. V. Sowell, n Ala. 262; Western J. P. C. 194. Stage Co. V. Walker, 2 Iowa 504, 65 2* Dew v. Pearson, 73 Wash. 602, Am. Dec. 789; White v. Kearney, 2 132 Pac. 412; Roehm v. Horst, 91 La. Ann. 639; Feig.e v. Babcock, 111 Fed. 345, 33 C. C. A. 550 (affd. 178 Mich. 538, 70 N. W. 7; Holmes v. U. S. I., 20 Sup. Ct. 780, 44 L. ed. Shands, 27 Miss. 40; Bryant V. Haw- 953); Smith v. Hill, 13 Ark. 173; kins, 47 Mo. 410; Dean v. McFaul, Turk v. Nicholson, 30 Iowa 407; 23 Mo. 76; Powell v. Roberts, 116 Campbellsville Lumber Co. v. Brad- Mo. App. 629, 92 S. W. 752 ; French lee, 96 Ky. 494, 29 S. W. 313, 16 Ky. V. Griffin, 104 N. Car. 141, 10 S. E. L. 572 ; Palmer v. Sawyer, 114 Mass. 166 ; Robertson v. Wood, 10 Kulp. 1 ; Swobe v. New Omaha Thomson- (Pa.) 76; Ault v. Goodrich, 4 Russ. Houston Electric Light Co., 39 Nebr. 430, 28 Rev. Rep. 151 ; Crawshay v. 586, 58 N. W. 181 ; McCraney v. Mc- Collins, 2 Russ. 325, 26 Rev. Rep. 83; Cool, 19 Ont. 470 (affd. in 18 Ont. Eng. Partnership Act (1890), §§ 38, App. 217). 39. See also Bryant v. Hawkins, 47 25 Roberts v. Kelsey, 38 Mich. 602 ; Mo. 410. Wheaton v. Cadillac Automobile Co., 23 Fail V. McRee, 36 Ala. 61; Whit- 143 Mich. 21, 106 N. W. 399; Hurl- ing V. Farrand, 1 Conn. 60; Jack- but v. Post, 14 N. Y. Super. Ct. 28; sonville &c R. &c. Co. v. Warri- Holmes v. Caldwell, 8 Rich. L. (S. ner, 35 Fla. 197, 16 So. 898; Ar- Car.) 247; Fulton v. Thompson, 18 nold v. Hart, 176 111. 442, 52 N. E. Tex. 278; Tasker v. Shepherd, 6 H. 936 (affg. 75 111. App. 165); Dick- & N. 575, 30 L. J. Exch. 207; Dou- son V. Indianapolis Cotton Mfg. Co., gall v. Ockerman, 9 U. C. Q. B. 354. 63 Ind. 9 ; Ayres v. Chicago &c. R. 26 Holbert v. Keller, 161 Iowa 723, Co., 52 Iowa 478, 3 N. W. 522; Mu- 142 N. W. 962. See ante §§ 592, 593. tual Bldg. &c. Assoc, v. Fidelity 27 Lyon v. Plum, 75 N. J. L. 883, &c. Co. of Maryland, 50 La. Ann. 69 Atl. 209, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 291, 23 So. 405 ; Nickerson v. Russell, 1231 note, 127 Am. St. 858. See 172 Mass. 584, S3 N. E. 141 ; Hughes generally the following cases : Grant V. Gross, 166 Mass. 61, 43 N. E. v. Nayior, 4 Cranch U. S. 224, 2 L. 1031, 55 Am. St. 375, 32 L. R. A. ed. 603 ; Crane Co. v. Specht, 39 Nebr. 620; Booker v. Kirkpatrick, 26 Grat. 123, 57 N. W. lOlS, 42 Am. St. 562; (Va.) 145; Anderson v. Weston, 6 People v. Backus, 117 N. Y. 196, 22 600 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 790 judgment for a firm debt by one partner after dissolution will not bind other partners.^' Nor after dissolution except by death can a partner make a valid assignment for benefit of creditors.^' So far as within the scope of his authority, the members of a partnership are liable for wrongful acts of a partner after dis- solution,'" nor are they relieved from liability for wrongful acts of partners before dissolution, for which they would have been liable had the firm continued.'^ § 600. Admissions of partner after dissolution. — Dissolu- tion likewise seems to preclude a member of the late firm from making a new promise to stop the running of the statute of lim- itations,'^ and from binding his copartners by an admission of N. E. 759; City Nat. Bank v. Phelps, 97 N. Y. 44, 49 Am. Rep. 513 ; Penoyer V. Watson, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 100; Taylor v. Wetmore, 10 Ohio, 490; Smith V. Montgomery, 3 Tex. 199; Myers v. Edge, 7 T. R. 250; Strange V. Lee, 3 East 484; Pemberton v- Oakes, 4 Russ. 154; Cosgrave Brew- ing &c. Co. V. Starrs, 5 Ont. Rep. 189; Dry'v. Davy, 10 Ad. & El. 30, 3 Jur. 315. 2s Mitchel V. Rich, 1 Ala. 228; Con- ery v. Rotchford, 30 La. Ann. 692; Morgan v. Richardson, 16 Mo. 409, 57 Am. Dec. 235 ; Lambert v. Con- verse, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 265; Mair v. Beck (Pa.), 2 Atl. 218, 1 Sad. 360. 29 Deckert v. Filbert, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 454; Kellogg v. Cayce, 84 Tex. 213, 19 S. W. 388. 30 Smith V. Jameson, 1 Peake 213, 5 T. R. 601. See also Powell v. Rob- erts, 116 Mo. App. 629, 92 S. W. 752. 31 In re Hughes, 15 Quebec Super. Ct. 225; Roberts v. Adams, 8 Port. (Ala.) 297, 33 Am. Dec. 291 ; Brown v. Higginbotham, 5 Leigh (Va.) 583, 27 Am. Dec. 618. 82 See ante § 467. Tate v. Clem- ents, 16 Fla. 339, 26 Am. Rep. 709; Bell V. Morrison, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 351, 7 L. ed. 174 ; Mayberry v. Willoughby, 5 Nebr. 368, 25 Am. Rep. 491 ; Shoe- maker V. Benedict, 11 N. Y. 176, 62 Am. Dec. 95; Van Keuren v. Parme- lee, 2 N. Y. 523, 51 Am. Dec. 322; Kerper v. Wood, 48 Ohio St. 613, 29 N. E. 501, 15 L. R. A. 656n; Jack v. McLanahan, 191 Pa. St. 631, 43 Atl. 356; Bush v. Stowell, 71 Pa. St. 208, 10 Am. Rep. 694; Reppert v. Colvin, 48 Pa. St. 248; Levy v. Cadet, 17 Serg. 6 R. (Pa.) 126, 17 Am. Dec. 650; Davis V. Poland, 92 Va. 225, 23 S. E. 292. Compare Forbes v. Gar- field, 32 Hun (N. Y.) 389; Clement V. Clement, 69 Wis. 599, 35 N. W. 17, 2 Am. St. 760. Contra : Beardsley V. Hall, 36 Conn. 270, 4 Am. Rep. 74; Cady v. Shepherd, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 400, 22 Am. Dec. 379; Vinal V. BurriU, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 401; Merritt v. Day, 38 N. J. L. 32, 2a Am. Rep. 362 ; Mills v. Hyde, 19 Vt. 59, 46 Am. Dec. 177; Wheelock v. Doolittle, 18 Vt. 440, 46 Am. Dec. 163. 791 DISSOLUTION 600 liability.^* On this latter point, however, the cases are not in harmony. Some of them hold that admissions of a partner after dissolution are entirely incompetent against the other part- ners, mutual agency having ceased.^* The other rule is that admissions made by one partner after dissolution in winding up the business concerning an engagement made before dissolution, are binding on the copartners, the theory being that the original joint interest in the obligations before dissolution is a sufficient foundation to render the admissions of one of those jointly bound competent against the others so bound,^^ but even under this rule, the fact of partnership must first be proved.^® The Uniform Part- ^^ See ante § 468. As a general rule the power of a partner to make admissions binding upon the firm ceases after dissolution. Burdett v. Greer, 63 W. Va. SIS,' 60 S. E. 497, IS L. R. A. (N. S.) 1019n, 129 Am. St. 1014. See further Barringer v. Sneed, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 201, 20 Am. Dec. 74 ; Burns v. McKenzie, 23 Cal. 101; Barnes v. Nor'thern Trust Co., 169 111. 112, 48 N. E. 31; Hamilton V. Summers, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 11, S4 Am. Dec. S09; Herrick v. Conant, 4 La. Ann. 276; Clarke v. Jones, 1 Rob. (La.) 78; Atwood v. Gillett, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 206; National Bank of Com- merce V. Meader, 40 Minn. 325, 41 N. W. 1043; Flowers v. Helm, 29 Mo. 324; Pope v. Risley, 23 Mo. 18S; Brady's Admr. v. Hill, 1 Mo. 31S, 13 Am. Dec. S03 ; Vergennes Bank v. Cameron, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 143; Hart V. Woodrufif, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 510; Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 300, 3 Am. Dec. 422; Hackley v. Patrick, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 536; Smith V. Ludlow, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 267; Hopkins v. Banks. 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 650; Walden v. Sherburne, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 409; Brisban v. Boyd, 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 17; Hart v. Wood- ruff, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 510; Mercer V. Sayre, Anth. N. P. (N. Y.) 119 (2d ed. 162) ; Meggett v. Finney, 4 Strob. (S. Car.) 220; Chardon v. Oli- phant, 3 Brev. (S. Car.) 183, 6 Am. Dec. 572; White v. Union Ins. Co., 1 Nott & McC. (S. Car.) 556, 9 Am. Dec. 726; Berryhill's Exrs. v. Mc- Kee's Exrs., 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 31 ; Bispham v. Patterson, 2 McLean (U. S.) 87, Fed. Cas. No. 1441. And compare Wood v. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 104; Schoneman v. Fegley, 7 Pa. St. 433. See also 3 Elliott Ev., § 2573. 3* Baker v. Stackpoole, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 420, 18 Am. Dec. 508; Hart v. Woodruff, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 510; Pringle v. Leverich, 97 N. Y. 181, 49 Am. Rep. 522; Mackintosh v. Kim- ball, 101 App. Div. 494, 92 N. Y. S. 132; Wallis v. Randall, 81 N. Y. 164. 35 Wood V. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 104 ; Bispham v. Patterson, 2 McLean (U. S.) 87, Fed. Cas. No. 1441 ; Parker v. Merril, 6 Greenl. (Maine) 41. 38 Boor V. Lowery, 103 Ind. 468, 3 N. E. 151, S3 Am. Rep. 519; Cady V. Shepherd, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 400, 22 Am. Dec. 379; AUcott v. Strong, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 323 ; Pennoyer v. David, 8 Mich. 407; Willis v. Hill, 2 Dev. & B. L. (N. Car.) 231. § 601 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 792 nership Act provides that "an admission or representation made by any partner concerning partnership affairs within his authority as conferred by this act is evidence against the partnership,"*^ and since the right to wind up firm affairs was given by this act it seems that the undoubted intention was to make admissions of a partner engaged in winding up firm business after dissolution, competent against the other members of the firm. § 601. Power over firm property. — Partners on dissolu- tion, save for death, may, by agreement, give control of the firm property to one member/* Whenever a partner's interest is transferred voluntarily, or at execution sale, or to a trustee in bankruptcy, the remaining partners have the control and disposi- tion of the firm property.*^ In cases of dissolution for other causes each partner who has not wrongfully caused dissolution has an equal right to the control and disposition of firm property, but only for the purpose of winding up the business and distrib- uting the proceeds/" Such powers may be modified by agree- S7 Uniform Partnership Act, § 11. Trojan Button-Fastener Co., 56 Hun ssGaisell v. Johnston, 68 Wash. 648, 10 N. Y. S. 91, 31 N. Y. St. 374; 470, 123 Pac. 783; Johnston V. Gaisell, Fraser v. Kershaw, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 68 Wash. 700, 123 Pac. 784; Stanton 880. V. Lewis, 26 Conn. 444; Renfrow v. *" Uniform Partnership Act, § 37; Pearce, 68 111. 125 ; Baldwin v. John- Karrick v. Hannaman, 168 U. S. 328, son, 1 N. J. Eq. 441; Smith v. Pros- 18 Sup. Ct. 135, 42 L. ed. 484; La- key, 177 N. Y. 526, 69 N. E. 1131 penta v. Lettieri, 72 Conn. 2,11, 44 (revg. 82 App. Div. 19, 81 N. Y. S. Atl. 730, 11 Am. St. 315; Bach v. 424, and affg. 39 Misc. 385, 79 N. Y. State Ins. Co., 64 Iowa 595, 21 N. W. S. 851) ; Smith v. Underhill, 64 Hun 99; Hogendobler v. Lyon, 12 Kans. 639, 19 N. Y. S. 249, 47 N. Y. St. 23; 276; Claiborne v. Creditors, 18 La. Weston V. Watts, 55 Hun 608, 8 N. 501 ; Phillips v. Reeder, 18 N. J. Eq. Y. S. 633, 29 N. Y. St. 289 (affd. 121 95; Bennett v. Buchan, 61 N. Y. 222 N. Y. 678, 24 N. E. 1095) ; Jones v. (affg. 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 578, 5 Abb. Jones, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 71, 18 Ohio Pr. (N. S.) 412) ; Castle v. Marks, Cir. Ct. 260; Nixon v. Champion, 4 50 App. Div. 320, 6Z N. Y. S. 1039; Leg. Gaz. (Pa.) 73, 29 Leg. Int. !(>•, Kennett v. Hopkins, 20 Misc. 259, 45 Mygatt V. McClure, 3 Head (Tenn.) N. Y. S. 797 (affd. 40 App. Div. 367, 495; Hetterman Bros. Co. v. Young, 57 N. Y. S. 961) ; Van Doren v. Hor- Ch. App. (Tenn.), 52 S. W. 532. ton, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 7; Noonan v. ssReece v. Hoyt, 4 Ind. 169; Chase McNab, 30 Wis. 277; Fisher v. Mc- V. Scott, ZZ Iowa 309; Macdonald v. Phee, 28 Nova Scotia 523; Murphy 793 DISSOLUTION § 601 merit" and must not be exercised so as to prejudice the rights of creditors or of other partners/^ but in a manner to conserve the interests of all the partners.*^ If a partner after dissolution re- tains the proceeds- from the sale of firm property for more than a reasonable time he may be chargeable with interest,*'' and if one partner carries on the business after dissolution he must account for profits to his copartners/^ A partner after dissolu- tion can not transfer firm property to pay his individual debts unless firm creditors are paid and the copartners have consented.*® A sale or transfer of firm property to raise money to pay debts is valid/^ such as assigning a book account for full value.** But no partner, after dissolution, any more than at any other time, can assign the firm property generally for the benefit of cred- itors.^" Partners have no right to partition of firm real estate so long as firm debts are not paid.^^ One partner may convey the equitable title to firm realty if necessary to pay firm debts. V. Yeomans, 29 U. C. C. P. 421. Com- pare Hockin v. Whellams, 6 Mani- toba 521. *i Phillips V. Reeder, 18 N. J. Eq. 95. *2 Claiborne v. Creditors, 18 La. 501. *^ Rassaert v. Mensch, 17 Cal. App. 637, 120 Pac. 1072 ; Breyfogle v. Bow- man, 157 Ky. 62, 162 S. W. 787. ** Randolph v. Inman, 172 111. 575, 50 N. E. 104; Buckley v. Kelly, 70 Conn. 411, 39 Atl. 601. *' Karrick v. Hannaitian, 168 U. S. 328, 18 Sup. Ct. 135, 42 L. ed. 484. *6 Cannon v. Lindsey, 85 Ala. 198, 3 So. 676, 7 Am. St. 38 ; McLanahan v. EUery, 3 Mason (U. S.) 269, Fed. Cas. No. 8869; Curry v. Burnett, 36 Ind. 102; Geortner v. Canajoharie, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 625; Treadwell v. Williams, 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 649; Cor- win V. Suydam, 24 Ohio St. 209; Crossman v. Shears, 3 Ont. App. 583. *7Bach V. State Ins. Co., 64 Iowa 595, 21 N. W. 99; Milliken v. Loring, 37 Maine 408; Morse v. Bellows, 7 N. H. 549, 28 Am. Dec. 372; Thursby V. Lidgerwood, 69 N. Y. 198; Rob- bins V. Fuller, 24 N. Y. 570. 48 Fourth Nat. Bank v. Flach, 2 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 443. ^° Stanton v. Lewis, 26 Conn. 444 ; Kellar v. Self, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 393, 24 S. W. 578; Paton v. Wright, 15 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 481; Egberts v. Wood, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 517, 24 Am. Dec. 236. 51 Moran v. Mclnerney, 129 Cal. 29, 61 Pac. 575, 948; Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 30 Pac. 605, 16 L. R. A. 745, 29 Am. St. 133 ; Coward v. Clan- ton, 79 Cal. 23, 21 Pac. 359; Lyman V. Lyman, 2 Paine (U. S.) 11, Fed. Cas. No. 8628 ; Pennybacker v. Leary, 65 Iowa 220, 21 N. W. 575 ; Molineaux V. Raynolds, 54 N. J. Eq. 559, 35 Atl. 536; Mendenhall v. Benbow, 84 N. Car. 646; Haeberly's Appeal, 191 Pa. St. 239, 43 Atl. 207 ; Kruschke v. Ste- fan, 83 Wis. 373, 53 N. W. 679. 602 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 794 since firm realty is considered as personalty for the purpose of paying debts.°^ § 602. Power to collect, pay, or compromise firm debt. — It is each partner's right and duty to collect firm debts after dis- solution, and give receipts for them.^^ By agreement this right and duty may be conferred on one partner only.°* Such partner must use due diligence and must account for the moneys taken in/^ He has no power to deduct individual debts of his own from firm debts,^^ nor to take in satisfaction notes payable to himself,"^ or property other than money,°® or subject the other partners to a new obligation in their settlement."® Each part- ner has the same right and duty to pay firm debts which he has B2 Shanks v. Klein, 104 U. S. 18, 26 L. ed. 635 ; Dupuy v. Leaven- worth, 17 Cal. 262 ; Burchinell v. Koon, 8 Colo. App. 463, 46 Pac. 932 ; McKee v. Covalt, 71 Kans. 772, 81 Pac. 475 ; State v. Neal, 29 Wash. 391, 69 Pac. 1103; Myers v. Myers, 61 L. T. (N. S.) 757; Langlois v. Dubray, 17 Quebec Super. Ct. 328. ssHeartt v. Walsh, 75 III. 200; Major V. Hawkes, 12 III. 298; Gor- don V. Freeman, 11 111. 14; Hansen V. Miller, 44 111. App. 550 (aflfd. 145 111. S38, 32 N. E. 548) ; Wilder v. Mor- ris, 7 Bush (Ky.) 420; Gannett v. Cunningham, 34 Maine 56; Gillilan V. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 41 N. Y. 376; Robbins v. Fuller, 24 N. Y. 570; Huntington v. Potter, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 300; Ward v. Barber, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 423; McRae v. Mc- Kenzie, 22 N. Car. 232; Feigley v. Whitaker, 22 Ohio St. 606, 10 Am. Rep. 778; Lamb v. Saltus, 3 Brev. (S. Car.) 130; Ayer v. Ayer, 41 Vt. 346. ^*Hawn V. Seventy-Six Land &c. Co., 74 Cal. 418, 16 Pac. 196; Mc- Dowell V. North, 24 Ind. App. 435, 55 N. E. 789; Manning v. Brickell, 3 N. Car. 133 ; Esterly v. Bressler, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 455. ssMetcalf v. Fouts, 27 111. 110; Hanna v. McLaughlin, 158 Ind. 292, 63 N. E. 475; Chretien v. Giron, 115 La. 24, 38 So. 881 ; Phelan v. Hutch- ison, 62 N. Car. 116, 93 Am. Dec. 602; Kennett v. Hopkins, 20 Misc. 259, 45 N. Y. S. 797 (affd. 40 App. Div. 367, 57 N. Y. S. 961) ; Burstall v. Baptist, 21 Wkly. Rep. 485. 58 Brunson v. McLendon, 98 Ala. 568, 13 So. 523 ; Cannon v. Lindsey, 85 Aa. 198, 3 So. 676, 7 Am. St. 38; Lees v. Laforest, 14 Beav. 250, 51 Eng. Reprint 283; fritchard v. Dra- per, 1 Russ. & M. 191. " Granger v. McGilvra, 24 111. 152 ; Lemiette v. Starr, 66 Mich. 539, 33 N. W. 832. 68 Kirk V. Hiatt, 2 Ind. 322; Kutz v. Naugle, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 179. =9Rootes v. Wellford, 4 Munf. (Va.) 215, 6 Am. Dec. 510; Niemann V. Niemann, 43 Ch. D. 198. 795 DISSOLUTION § 603 to collect them.®° But where one partner has assumed the firm debts, the creditors have riot lost their right to enforce their claims against the other partners.®^ If by agreement one partner is given power to liquidate firm affairs, none of the others have power to compromise firm debts."^ Nor has a partner who has surrendered to the other members of a partnership his interest in a partnership claim, authorization to settle it.°^ Unless one partner is given such power, each has equal power in the col- lection or payment of debts and many honest compromises or releases by a partner after dissolution have been sustained by the courts.** § 603. Power to make new contracts. — The rule is uni- versal that a partner has no implied authority to bind his co- partners to new contracts after dissolution."^ Nor does a part- ner who by agreement is given the power to liquidate firm af- 60 Barnes v. Northern Trust Co., 169 III. 112, 48 N. E. 31 (afifg. 66 111. App. 282) ; Woody v. Haworth, 24 Ind. App. 634, 57 N. E. 272; Hanks V. Flynn, 108 Iowa 16S, 78 N. W. 839; Woodworth v. Downer, 13 Vt. 522, 37 Am. Dec. 611. Gi See ante § 557 et seq., on change of membership where subject of as- sumption was more fully discussed; Fowler v. Coker, 107 Ga. 817, 33 S. E. 661; Weirick v. Graves, 73 111. App. 266; McLoughlin v. Bieber, 41 App. Div. 561, 58 N. Y. S. 790; Rowand v. Eraser, 1 Rich. Law (S. Car.) 325. 62 Roberts v. Strang, 38 Ala. 566, 82 Am. Dec. 729; Hodge v. Whitall, 15 La. 503; Chace v. Higgins, 1 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 229; Burhans V. Burhans, 48 Hun 619, 1 N. Y. S. 37, 16 N. Y. St. 520; Gram v. Cad- well, S Cow. (N. Y.) 489. 63 Scott V. Atlanta Wood & Iron Novelty Works, 12 Ga. App. 216, 76 S. E. 1082. 6* Scott V. Atlanta Wood & Iron Novelty Works, 12 Ga. App. 216, 76 S. E. 1082; Nickels v. Mooring, 16 Fla. 76; Gordon v. Albert, 168 Mass. ISO, 46 N. E. 423 ; Bass v. Taylor, 34 Miss. 342; Napier v. McLeod, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 120; Sims v. Smith, 11 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 565; Union Bank v. Hall, Harp. (S. Car.) 245; Weir Plow Co. v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 38 (1893); Thrall v.- Seward, 37 Vt. 573; Brayley v. Goff, 40 Iowa 76. 65 Louisiana Purchase Exposition Co. v. Mueller (Mo. App.), 155 S. W. 881 ; Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 351, 7 L. ed. 174; Lockwood v. Comstock, 4 McLean (U. S.) 383, Fed. Cas. No. 8449; Wilson v. Tor- bert, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 296, 21 Am. Dec. 632; First International Bank of Por- tal V. Brown, 130 Minn. 210, 153 N. W. 522; Grafton v. Paine, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 255 (appeal dismissed 168 U. S. 704, 18 S. Ct. 942, 42 L. ed. 1212) ; McGee v. Potts, 87 Ga. 615, 13 603 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 796 fairs have authority to create new liabilities/" except in a few jurisdictions.*' In the course of settling firm affairs, however, some obligations may naturally arise out of dealings previous to the dissolution by which the partners will be bound, such as liability to a surety, on an appeal bond for appea| from a judg- ment against the firm, who was compelled to pay the judgment,"* or liability for an excess of money paid to one partner on a firm debt,"' or liability, for compensation, for driving logs inter- mingled with another's logs,'" or for compensation to an ac- countant who was engaged by one partner to audit the firm books.'^ One partner may do what is necessary to complete S. E. 746; Milwaukee Harvester Co. V. Newell, 65 111. App. 612; Hayden V. Cretcher, 75 Ind. 108; Gard v. Clark, 29 Iowa 189; Montague v. Reakert, 6 Bush (Ky.) 393; Bacon V. Hutchings, 5 Bush (Ky.) 595; Richard v. Monton, 109 La. 465, 33 So. 563; Clarke v. Jones, 1 Rob. (La.) 78; Lane v. Tyler, 49 Maine 252; EUicott v. Nichols, 7 Gill (Md.) 85, 48 Am. Dec. 546; Boyle v. Mus- ser, 77 Minn. 153, 79 N. W. 664; Os- born V. Wood, 125 Mo. App. 250, 102 S. W. 580; Bennett v. Buchan, 61 N. Y. 222 (aflfg. S3 Barb. (N. Y.) 578, S Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 412); Payne v. Smith, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 104; Kirby V. Hewitt, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 607; Sut- ton V. Dillaye, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 529; Roots V. Kilbreth, 10 Ohio Dec. 20, 18 Wkly. L. Bui. 58; Beaumont v. Sharpless, 45 Pa. Super. Ct. 575 ; At- lantic Refining Co. v. Mengel, 6 Pa. Dist. 223 ; Veale v. Hassan, 3 McCord (S. Car.) 278; White v. Union Ins. Co., 1 Nott & McC. (S. Car.) 556, 9 Am. Dec. 726 ; Williams v. Whitmore, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 262; Jones' Case, 1 Overt. (Tenn.) 455 ; Lee v. Stowe, 57 Tex. 444; Haddock v. Crocheron, 32 Tex. 276, 5 Am. Rep. 244; Baptist Book Concern v. Carswell (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 858 (1898) ; Com- mercial Nat. Bank of Salt Lake City v. Brinton (Utah), 145 Pac. 42; Pratt V. Page, 32 Vt. 13 ; Harris v. Zier, 43 Wash. 573, 86 Pac. 928; McDonald V. McKeen, 28 Nova Scotia 329. 66 Chase v. Kendall, 6 Ind. 304; Hamilton v. Seaman, 1 Ind. 185, Smith 129; Perrin v. Keene, 19 Maine 355, 36 Am. Dec. 759; Hurst V. Hill, 8 Md. 399, 63 Am. Dec. 705 ; Gilmore v. Ham, 142 N. Y. 1, 36 N. E. 826, 40 Am. St. 554; Palmer v. Dodge, 4 Ohio St. 21, 62 Am. Dec. 271; Speake v. White, 14 Tex. 364; Woodson v. Wood, 84 Va. 478, 5 S. E. 277. 6'' Prudhomme v. Henry, 5 La. Ann. 700; Jack v. McLanahan, 191 Pa. St. 631, 43 Atl. 356; Garretson v. Brown, 185 Pa. St. 447, 40 Atl. 293; Brown V. Clark, 14 Pa. St. 469; In re Davis, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 530, 34 Am. Dec. 574. 68 Gard V. Clark, 29 Iowa 189. 68 Williams v. Whitmore, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 262. ™ Boyle v. Musser, 77 Minn. 153, 79 N. W. 664. '^ Lichenstein v. Murphree (Ala. App.), 62 So. 444. 797 DISSOLUTION § 604 transactions and contracts unfinished at the time of dissolution.''^ He may charge the partners for expenses reasonably incurred in preserving firm property/^ § 604. Powers as to negotiable paper. — Following notice of dissolution a partner can not, in general, in the absence of any element of ratification or estoppel, issue negotiable paper, even in settlement of a debt of the firm,^* even of a renewal char- 72 Page V. Wolcott, IS Gray (Mass.) 536; Asbestos Mfg. & Supply Co. V. Lennig-Rapple Engineering Co., 26 Cal. App. 177, 146 Pac. 188; West- ern Stage Co. V. Walker, 2 Iowa 504, 65 Am. Dec. 789; Rust v. Chisolm, 57 Md. Zl(s ; Hplmes v. Shands, 27 Miss. 40; Armstrong v. Henley, 182 Mo. App. 320, 170 S. W. 402. 73 Conrad v. Buck, 21 W. Va. 396. 7*Lockwood V. Comstock, 4 Mc- Lean (U. S.) 383, Fed. Cas. No. 8449; Draper v. Bissell, 3 McLean (U. S.) 275, Fed. Cas. No. 4068; Fraser v. Wolcott, 4 McLean (U. S.) 365, Fed. Cas. No. 5065. See Cunningham v. Bragg, 7>7 Ala. 436 ; Burr v. Williams, 20 Ark. 171 ; Curry v. White, 51 Cal. 530; New Haven County Bank v. Mitchell, IS Conn. 206; First Nat. Bank v. Ells, 68 Ga. 192 ; Humphries V. Chastain, S Ga. 166, 48 Am. Dec. 247; Bank of Montreal v. Page, 98 111. 109; Floyd v. Miller, 61 Ind. 224; Van Valkenburg v. Bradley, 14 Iowa 108; Linn v. Valz, 11 Ky. L. 846; Mul- lins V. Simpkinson, 10 Ky. L. (ab- stract) 280; Bank of Monroe v. Drew Inv. Co., 126 La. 1028, ^2, So. 129, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 255n; Commercial Bank v. Perry, 10 Rob. (La.) 61, 43 Am. Dec. 168 ; Dodd v. Bishop, 30 La. Ann. 1178 ; Perrin v. Keene, 19 Maine 355, 36 Am. Dec. 759; Ecker v. First Nat. Bank, 59 Md. 291 ; Hurst v. Hill, 8 Md. 399, &i Am. Dec. 705; Potter v. Tolbert, 113 Mich. 486, 71 N. W. 849; Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn. 396; Maxey v. Strong, 53 Miss. 280; Seu- fert V. GiUe, 230 Mo. 453, 131 S. W. 102, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 471n; Fel- lows V. Wyman, 33 N. H. 351 ; Farm- ers' &c. Bank v. Green, 30 N. J. L. 316; Lusk v. Smith, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 570, 4 How. Pr. 418; Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 701, 16 Am. Dec. 471; Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 300, 3 Am. Dec. 422; Mitchell v. Ostrom, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 520; National Bank v. Nor- ton, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 572; Bristol v. Sprague, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 423 ; Payne v. Slate, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 634 (affd. 29 N. Y. 146) ; . Gardner v. Conn, 34 Ohio St. 187; McCowin v. Cubbison, 72 Pa. St. 358; GalHott v. Planters' & Mechanics' Bank, -1 McMul. (S. Car.) 209, 36 Am. Dec. 256; Heckheimer v. Allen, 89 S. Car. 452, 71 S. E. 1033 ; Isler v. Baker, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 85; Funck v. Heintze (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 417; Woodworth v. Downer, 13 Vt. 522, 37 Am. Dec. 611 ; Commercial Bank v. Miller, 96 Va. 357, 31 S. E. 812; Roots v. Mason City Salt & Mining Co., 27 W. Va. 483. And compare Jones v. Thorn, 2 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 463; Temple v. Seaver, il Gush. (Mass.) 314; Gould V. Horner, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 601; Robinson v. Taylor, 4 Pa. St. 242; Myers v. Huggins, 1 Strob. (S. ^§ 604 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 798 acter/^ in the firm name so as to bind his former associates, nor can he bind them by indors'ing such paper.'* If after the dissolu- tion of a firm by the retirement of one of the partners, a bill or note is re-executed in the firm name by the remaining partner or partners in the usual course of business, the retiring partner can not set up in defense to an action thereon by a holder for value and without notice, the fact that the firm has" been dis- solved, since the authority and obligation of the partners con- tinue until legal notice of the dissolution has been given. "^ "When a partnership has once existed, the presumption is that it still exists until its dissolution is made known, and, until this is done, the public have the right to presume on its continued existence, and when a former member contracts a debt in its Car.) 473; White v. Tudor, 24 Tex. 639, 76 Am. Dec. 126. See also 3 Elliott Ev., § 2572. •^5 Brown V. Bamberger, 110 Ala. 342, 20 So. 114; Bank of Monroe v. Drew Inv. Co., 126 La. 1028, S3 So. 129, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 25Sn ; Lumberman's Bank v. Pratt, 51 Maine 563; Moore v. Lackman, 52 Mo. 323; Wilson v. Forder, 20 Ohio St. 89, S Am. Rep. 627; Foltz V. Pourie, 2 Desaus. (S. Car.) 40 Brown v. Chancellor, 61 Texas 437; Lange v. Kennedy, 20 Wis. 279. 76 Dean v. Savage, 28 Conn. 359; Bogereau v. Gueringer, 14 La. Ann. 478; Carr v. Woods, 11 Rob. (La.) 95; Rudy v. Harding, 6 Rob. (La.) 70; Nott V. Douming, 6 La. 684, 26 Am. Dec. 491; Poignand v. Liver- more, 5 Mart. (N. S.) (La.) 324; Walker v. McMicken, 9 Mart. (O. S.) (La.) 192; Lumbermen's Bank V. Pratt, 51 Maine 563; Parker v. Macomber, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 505; Mc- Daniel v. Wood, 7 Mo. 543; Fellows V. Wyman, 33 N. H. 351 ; Sanford v. Mickles, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 224; Rice V. Goodenow, Tapp. (Ohio) 94; White V. Union Ins. Co., 1 Nott & McC. (S. Car.) 556, 9 Am. Dec. 726; Dickerson v. Wheeler, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 51; Tarver v. Evansville Furniture Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 66, 48 S. W. 199; Woodson v. Wood, 84 Va. 478, 5 S. E. 277; Abel v. Sutton, 3 Esp. 108, 6 Rev. Rep. 818; Kilgour V. Finlyson, 1 H. Bl. 155. " Marsh v. Wheeler, 11 Conn. 449, 59 Atl. 410, 107 Am. St. 40; Ewing V. Trippe, 73, Ga. lid; Holtgreve v. Wintker, 85 111. 470; Stall v. Cassa- dy, 57 Ind. 284 ; Merrit v. Pollys, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 355; Goddard v. Pratt, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 412; Wagner v. Freschl, 56 N. H. 495; Buffalo City Bank v. Howard, 35 N. Y. 500; Van Eps V. Dillaye, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 244; Hammond v. Aiken, 3 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 119; Davis v. Willis, 47 Tex. 154; Clement v. Clement, 69 Wis. 599, 35 N. W. 17, 2 Am. St. 760. Com- pare Gale v. Miller, 54 N. Y. 536; Woodford V. Dorwin, 3 Vt. 82, 21 Am. Dec. 573; Parker v. Southern Ruralist Co. (Ga. App.), 83 S. E. 158; Horton v. Smith, 12 Ga. App. 232, 11 S. E. 9. 799 DISSOLUTION I 605 name, to allow a retired member to escape liability from its pay- ment would be to allow the perpetration of a fraud. * * * Until notice of the dissolution of a firm is given, the public, who has no such knowledge, may treat the firm as in existence, and . a note given by one member of such firm is binding upon all the other members, notwithstanding such dissolution."^^ So where, after the dissolution of a partnership, a note is given by one of the members in the firm name in payment of a firm debt to one who has had no notice of the dissolution, the firm will be held lia- ble thereon.''* But there can, it seems, be no recovery against a firm on a note given by one of the partners in the firm name after dissolution where the payee knew that it was given for the prat- ner's private debt, and afso knew or, what amounts to the same thing, was chargeable with notice of the dissolution.*" § 605. Authorization of giving of negotiable paper. — Au- thority to bind the firm by issuing or indorsing negotiable paper after dissolution may be given by the other partners, either before or after dissolution.*^ It is generally held such authority mu«t TsEwing V. Trippe, 73 Ga. lid. A. (N. S.) 471; Knaus v. Givens, 110 79 Long V. Garnett, 59 Tex. 229; Mo. 58, 19 S. W. S3S; Osborn v. Bluff City Lumber Co. v. Bank of Wood, 125 Mo. App. 250, 102 S. W. Clarksville, 95 Ark. 1, 128 S. W. 58; 580; Holt v. Simmons, 16 Mo. App. Burr V. Williams, 20 Ark. 171; Bur- 97; Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) son V. Stone, 135 Ga. 115, 68 S. E. 701, 16 Am. Deo. 471; Bristol v. 1038; Mims v. Brook, 3 Ga. App. Sprague, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 423; 247, 59 S. E. 711; Hicks v. Russell, Johanning v. Wilson, 86 N. Y. S. 7; 72 111. 230; Jansen v. Grimshaw, 26 Chemung Canal Bank v. Bradner, 44 111. App. 287 (affd. 125 111. 468, 17 N. N. Y. 680; Anderson v. Weston, 6 E. 850) ; Iddings v. Pierson, 100 Ind. Bing. N. Cas. 296, 4 Jur. 105, 9 L. 418; Buchanan v. Buckler, 8 Ky. L. J. C. P. 194, 8 Scott 583; Lamb v. (abstract) 617; Nott v. Douming, 6 Singleton, 2 Brev. (S. Car.) 490; La. 684, 26 Am. Dec. 491 ; Lowe v. Clement v. Clement, 69 Wis. 599, 35 Penny, 7 La. Ann. 356; Taylor v. Hill, N. W. 17, 2 Am. St. 760. 36 Md. 494; Whitman v. Leonard, 3 ^"Lansing v. Gaine, 2 Johns. (N. Pick. (Mass.) 177; Pitcher v. Bar- Y.) 300, 3 Am. Dec. 422. rows, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 361, 28 Am. si Brown v. Bamberger, 110 Ala. Dec. 306; Pecker v. Hall, 14 Allen 342, 20 So. 114; Burr v. Williams, (Mass.) 532; Hall V. Heck, 92 Mich. 20 Ark. 171; New Haven County 458, 52 N. W. 749; Seufert v. Gile, Bank v. Mitchell, 15 Conn. 206; Bank 230 Mo. 453, 131 S. W. 102, 31 L. R. of Montreal .v. Page, 98 111. 109; § 605 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 800 be express,'^ although it has also been held that it may be in- ferred from circumstances.^^ General authority to a partner to settle or liquidate firm affairs after dissolution does not give him power to issue or renew notes and bind the firm.^* The con- Hamilton V. Seaman, 1 Ind. 185, Smith 129; Conklin v. Oghorn, 7 Ind. 553; Van Valkenburg v. Bradley, 14 Iowa 108; Carr v. Woods, 11 Rob. (La.) 95; Johnson v. Marsh, 2 La. Ann. 772 ; Lowe v. Penny, 7 La. Ann. 356; Durkee v. Price, 11 La. Ann. 333; Meyer v. Atkins, 29 La. Ann. 586; Rudy v. Harding, 6 Rob. (La.) 70; Perrin v. Keene, 19 Maine 355, 36 Am. Dec. 759; Eaton v. Taylor, 10 Mass. 54; First Commercial Bank V. Talbert, 103 Mich. 625, 61 N. W. 888, SO Am. St. 385 ; Richardson v. Moies, 31 Mo. 430; Long v. Story, 10 Mo. 636; Williston v. Camp, 9 Mont. 88, 22 Pac. 501; Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 701, 16 Am. Dec. 471 ; National Bank v. Norton, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 572; Lusk v. Smith, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 570, 4 How. Pr. 418; Palmer v. Dodge, 4 Ohio St. 21, 62 Am. Dec. 271; Haven v. Goodel, 1 Disney (Ohio) 26, 12 Ohio Dec. 465; White v. Union Ins. Co., 1 Nott & McC. (S. Car.) 556, 9 Am. Dec. 726; Myers v. Huggins, 1 Strob. (S. Car.) 473 ; Martin v. Kirk, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 529; Fowler v. Richardson, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 508; McElroy v. Melear, 7 Coldw. (Tenn.) 140; White v. Tudor, 24 Tex. 639, Id Am. Dec. 126; Brown v. Chancellor, 61 Tex. 437; Douglass v. Hall, 22 Vt. 451. ^2 Brown v. Bamberger, 110 Ala. 342, 20 So. 114; Burr v. Williams, 20 Ark. 171; New Haven County Bank V. Mitchell, 15 Conn. 206; Rudy v. Harding, 6 Rob. (La.) 70; Carr v. Woods, 11 Rob. (La.) 95; Johnson V. Marsh, 2 La. Ann. 772; Lowe v. Penny, 7 La. Ann. 356; Durkee v. Price, 11 La. Ann. 333; Meyer v. At- kins^ 29 La. Ann. 586 ; Long v. Story, 10 Mo. 636; National Bank v. Nor- ton, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 572. 83 Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 701, 16 Am. Dec. 471. 8*Lockwood V. Comstock, 4 Mc- Lean (U. S.) 383, Fed. Cas. No. 8449 ; Hamilton v. Seaman, 1 Ind. 185, Smith 129; Van Valkenburg v. Brad- ley, 14 Iowa 108 (overruling Kemp v. Coffin, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 190) ; Palmer v. Dodge, 4 Ohio St. 21, 62 Am. Dec. 271 ; White v. Union Ins. Co., 1 Nott & McC; (S. Car.) 556, 9 Am. Dec. 726; Hatton v. Stewart, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 233; White v. Tudor, 24 Tex. 639, 1(, Am. Dec. 126; Brown v. Chancellor, 61 Tex. 437. See also Perrin v. Keene, 19 Maine 355, 36 Am. Dec. 759; Myatts v. Bell, 41 Ala. 222; Conklin v. Ogborn, 7 Ind. 553; Bank of Montreal v. Page, 98 111. 109; Pot- ter V. Tolbert, 113 Mich. 486, 71 N. W. 849; Long v. Story, 10 Mo. 636; Lusk V. Smith, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 570, 4 How. Pr. 418; Galliott v. Planters Bank, 1 McMul. (S. Car.) 209, 36 Am. Dec. 256; McElroy v. Melear, 7 Coldw. (Tenn.) 140; Fowler v. Richardson, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 508; Martin v. Kirk, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 529; Parker v. Cousins, 2 Grat. (Va.) 372, 44 Am. Dec. 388. "The third and last contention of the learned counsel for the bank is that, conceding that the firm was dissolved, and that the bank knew it, the note was still good, because 801 DISSOLUTION 605 trary rule, however, has been asserted in Pennsylvania.^" In a Wis- consin case where one partner retired from the firm and notified the plaintiff bank not to loan any more money to the partnership, according to their regular method of doing business the obliga- tions incurred between November IS and December 1 were paid by check on December IS, and the remaining partner issued firm checks for firm obligations between December 1 and Decem- ber IS, which would have overdrawn the account if he had not borrowed $400 from the bank on a note given in the firm name, and it was held the retiring partner was liable on this note, for the reason that since he acquiesced in the liquidation by his co- partner, and was liable on the indebtedness for which the checks were drawn by his partner, therefore, the recovery on the hote was substantially on the original indebtedness, and the partni. was not harmed by a recovery nominally on the note.*® This case in its holding approximates the old Pennsylvania rule. The giving or indorsing of negotiable paper in the firm name by a partner after dissolution may be ratified by the other partners." Blanks was authorized to make it in his capacity as liquidator. We think not. He had no other authority, as liquidator, than such as was con- ferred on him, expressly or impliedly, by his copartners, and that did not include the authority to bind them by the giving of a note." Bank of Monroe v. Drew Inv. Co., 126 La. 1028, 53 So. 129, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 2SS. See also Houser v. Irvine, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 345, 38 Am. Dec. 768. Contra: Meyran v. Abel, 189 Pa. St. 215, 42 Atl. 122, 69 Am. St. 806. 85 Meyran v. Abel, 189 Pa. St. 215, 42 Atl. 122, 69 Am. St. 806; Sieg- fried V. Ludwig, 102 Pa. St. 547; Lloyd V. Thomas, 79 Pa. St. 68; Ward V. Tyler, 52 Pa. St. 393 ; Rob- inson v. Taylor, 4 Pa. St. 242 ; Petri- kin V. Collier, 1 Pa. St. 247; Houser v. Irvine, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 345, 51 — Row. ON Partn. — Vol. 1 38 Am. Dec. 768; In re Davis' Estate, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 530, 34 Am. Dec. 574. 88Antigo V. Larsen (Wis.), 132 N. W. 610. 87 Silas v. Adams, 92 Ga. 350, 17 S. E. 280; Easter v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 57 111. 215 ; Whitworth v. Bal- lard, 56 Ind. 279; Murray v. Ayer, 16 R. I. 665, 19 Atl. 241. See also Draper v. Bissel, 3 McLean (U. S.) 275, Fed. Cas.' No. 4068; Sanborn v, Stark, 31 Fed. 18; Brown v. Bam berger, 110 Ala. 342, 20 So. 114 Roberts v. Barrow, 53 Ga. 314 Chamberlain v. Stone, 24 Ga. 310 Carter v. Pomeroy, 30 Ind. 438 Conklin v. Ogborn, 7 Ind. 553; Van Valkenburg v. Bradley, 14 Iowa 108 (overruling Kemp v. Coffin, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 190) ; Fowle v. Har- rington, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 146; Eaton V. Taylor, 10 Mass. 54; Randolph § 606 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 802 Such ratification may take place by consenting to the note/* either at the time of its execution/" or afterward/" by an express promise to pay it/^ by an express adoption of the note,"^ or by making a payment on it/^ but not by mere recognition of the debt.'* It is often held that a partner after dissolution may in- dorse firm paper without recourse, in selling it as part of the firm property."' § 606. Note given after dissolution as discharge of debt. — Notes given in the firm name after dissolution, in the absence of agreement, do not discharge the original debt."® The same rule applies to the note of one partner talcen after dissolution of the firm, and neither the original debt nor the hability of the maker of the note on such debt is discharged by the note, in the absence of agreement."'^ Unless there is an agreement to that V. Peck, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 138; Wil- son V. Forder, 20 Ohio St. 89, S Am. Rep. 627; Hatton v. Stewart, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 233; McElroy v. Melear, 7 Coldw. (Tenn.) 140. 88 Sanborn v. Stark, 31 Fed. 18; Randolph v. Peck, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 138. ^^ Brown v. Bamberger, 110 Ala. 342, 20 So. 114. so Silas V. Adams, 92 Ga. 350, 17 S. E. 280. '^ Chamberlain v. Stone, 24 Ga. 310; Wilson v. Forder, 20 Ohio St. 89, S Am. Rep. 627 ; Waite v. Foster, 33 Maine 424. 52 Carter v. Pomeroy, 30 Ind. 438; Whitworth v. Ballard, 56 Ind. 279. 53 Eaton V. Taylor, 10 Mass. 54. 9*Conklin v. Ogborn, 7 Ind. 553. 95Milliken v. Loring, 37 Maine 408; Temple v. Seaver, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 314; Parker v. Macomber, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 505; Lewis v. Reilly, 1 Q. B. 349. ""First Nat. Bank v. Newton, 10 Colo. 161, 14 Pac. 428; Rayburn v. Day, 27 111. 46; McConnell v. Stet- tinius, 7 111. 707; Turnbow v. Broach, 75 Ky. 455; Perrin v. Keene, 19 Maine 355, 36 Am. Dec. 759 ; Parham Sewing Machine Co. v. Brock, 113 ■Mass. 194; Goodspeed v. South Bend Chilled Plow Co., 45 Mich. 237, 7 N. W. 810; Vernam v. Harris, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 451, 3Thomp. & C. 483; Gardner v. Conn, 34 Ohio St. 187; Parker v. Cousins, 2 Grat. (Va.) 372, 44 Am. Dec. 388. "^Anderson v. Henshaw, 2 Day (Conn.) 272; Leabo v. Goode, 67 Mo. 126; Powell v. Blow, 34 Mo. 485; Yarnell v. Anderson, 14 Mo. 619; Fry V. Patterson, 49 N. J. L. 612; 10 Atl. 390; Smith v. Rogers, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 340; Herring v. Sanger, 3 Johns. Gas. (N. Y.) 71; Waydell v. Luer, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 410; Luding- ton V. Bell, 77 N. Y. 138, 33 Am. Rep. 601 (revg. 11 Jones & S. 557) ; First Nat. Bank v. Green, 40 Ohio St. 431; Keating v. Sherlock, 13 Ohio Dec. 536, 1 Gin. S. Ct. 257; Kean v. Dufresne, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 803 DISSOLUTION § 607 effect, the note of a surviving partner does not discharge a firm debt.®* And a note of one partner or in the firm name taken without knowledge of the dissolution of a partnership, will not discharge the original debt.°* § 607. Liquidating partner. — ^The inherent general agency of a member of a going partnership^ becomes in a liquidating, as in a surviving partner,^ a limited and restricted one,* an express delegation being necessary in order that he may possess authority in excess of that commonly reposing in each of the one-time 233 ; Mason v. Wickersham, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 100; In re Davis' Estat- 5 Whart. (Pa.) S30, 34 Am. Dec. 574; Nightingale v. Chafee, 11 R. I. 609, 23 Am. Rep. 531; White v. Boone, 71 Tex. 712, 12 S. W. 51; Seward v. L'Estrange, 36 Tex. 295 ; White V. Tudor, 24 Tex. 639, 76 Am. Dec. 126; Rosseau v CuU, 14 Vt. 83; Evans v. Drummond, 4 Esp. 89; Thompson v. Percival, 5 Barn. & Ad. 925, 3 Nev. & M. 167, 3 L. J. K. B. (N. S.) 98, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 728; Bedford v. Deakin, 2 Barn. & Aid. 210, 2 Starkie 178. 88 In re Clap, 2 Lowell (U. S.) 226, Fed. Cas. No. 2784; Thompson v. Briggs, 28 N. H. 40; Titus v. Todd, 25 N. J. Eq. 458; National Bank v. Bigler, 83 N. Y. 51 ; Mebane v. Spen- cer, 28 N. Car. 423 ; Leach v. Church, IS Ohio St. 169; Collier v. Leech, 29 Pa. St. 404. °9 Norton v. Paragon Oil Can Co., 98 Ga. 468, 25 S. E. 501; Adler v. Foster, 39 Mich. 87; Hill v. Marcy, 49 N. H. 265; Fry v. Patterson, 49 N. J. L. 612, 10 Atl. 390; Heroy v. Van Pelt, 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 60; First Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 73 N. Y. 593; Wait V. Brewster, 31 Vt. 516. See also Parker V. Canfield, 37 Conn. 250, 9 Am. Rep. 317. 1 See ante § 411 et seq. 2 See post ch. 20. ^ "The dissolution having been by agreement, and the appellant being in possession of the assets' for the purpose of realizing upon them, dis- charging liabilities and distributing surplus, he has the same right as, and occupies a position analogous to that of, a surviving partner." Ad- ams V. Carmony, 44 Ind. App. 291, 87 N. E. 708, 89 N. E. 327. "The duty imposed upon the liquidator is one of agency. He becomes the sole authorized agent of the partnership for the single purpose of winding up and finally settling its affairs. There are elements of trust in his position and duty which lead so often to regard and describe him as a trus- tee for the creditors on the one hand or the retiring partner on the other, and the description is not in- appropriate so long as it does not mislead us into the error of regard- ing the position and duty of the liqui- dator as that belonging to a direct trust. His authority is not such. No new authority is given to him. What he has is a restricted and narrowed part of that which the partnership conferred. That continues and sub- sists to the extent necessary for a settlement of the business, and is not a new authority or a direct trust. § 607 LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 804 partners.* Moreover, the appointment of a member of the dis- solved firm to liquidate its affairs does not, it seems, in the ab- sence of notice, affect the power of his former associates to bind Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 90, 11 Am. Dec. 417; Adams V. Taylor, 14 Ark. 62. The liqui- dator becomes the agent for the part- nership for the one specific purpose. His duty is to collect and adjust the debts due to the firm, to turn the as- sets into money, to pay and discharge the outstanding liabilities, and then to pay over to the other partner his just share of the remaining surplus." Gilmore v. Ham, 142 N. Y. 1, 36 N. E. 826, 40 Am. St. 554. * "Appended to the notice of dis- solution signed by the partners, and published in this case, is this clause : 'The remaining unsettled business of the firm will be adjusted by E. Short, who is hereby authorized to close all business transactions of the late firm.' This notice is good evidence of the agreement of the parties, and con- clusive in favor of third persons who have dealt with Short, relying upon it. But no one could or had a right to understand it as authorizing Short to do more than to adjust and settle the unfinished business, and close up the transactions of the firm. This power he had without the agreement; it added nothing to the authority which the law gave, and took noth- ing from it. * * * There is not a word in it to indicate an intention to confer upon him the authority to create new obligations. He is there- fore remitted to his power as a part- ner, and, considered in that light, it is very clear he possessed no such authority. The elementary books and adjudged cases speak an almost uniform language upon the subject." Palmer v. Dodge, 4 Ohio St. 21, 62 Am. Dec. 271. See further Myatts V. Bell, 41 Ala. 222; Brown v. Bam- berger, 110 Ala. 342, 20 So. 114; Bass Dry Goods Co. v. Granite City Mfg. Co., 116 Ga. 176, 42 S. E. 415 ; Jose- love V. Bohrman, 119 Ga. 204, 45 S. E. 982; Bank of Montreal v. Page, 98 111. 109; Hamilton v. Seaman, 1 Ind. 185, Smith 129; Van Valkenburg V. Bradley, 14 Iowa 108; Parker v. Macomber, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 505; Smith V. Shelden, 35 Mich. 42, 24 Am. Rep. -529; Hayes v. Heyer, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 485; Hilton v. Vander- bilt, 82 N. Y. 591; Stirnermaun v. Cowing, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 275; Gilmore v. Ham, 142 N. Y. 1, 36 N. E. 826, 40 Am. St. 554; Smith v. Pros- key, 82 App. Div. 19, 81 N. Y. S. 424 (revd. 177 N. Y. 526, 69 N. E. 1131) ; Mauney v. Coit, 80 N. Car. 300, 30 Am. Rep. 80; Parker v. Cous- ins, 2 Grat. (Va.) 372, 44 'Am. Dec. 388; Conrad v. Buck, 21 W. Va. 396. And compare Star Wagon Co. v. Swezey, 52 Iowa 391, 3 N. W. 421, 59 Iowa 609, 13 N. W. 749; Waite v. Foster, 33 Maine 424; Casco Bank v. Hills, 16 Maine 155; Seldner v. Mt. Jackson Nat. Bank, 66 Md. 488, 8 Atl. 262, 59 Am. Rep. 190; Napier v. Mc- Leod, 9 Wend. (N.Y.) 120; In re Davis' Estate, S Whart. (Pa.) 530, 34 Am. Dec. 574 ; Whitehead v. Bank of Pittsburgh, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 172; Jack v. McLannahan, 191 Pa. St. 631, 43 Atl. 356; Meyran v. Abel, 189 Pa. St. 215, 42 Atl. 122, -69 Am. St. 806 Siegfried V. Ludwig, 102 Pa. St. 547 Fulton V. Central Bank, 92 Pa. St 112; Lloyd v. Thomas, 79 Pa. St. 68; 805 DISSOLUTION 608 the partnership." Interest and profits are not, apparently, assess- able against a liquidating partner to any further extent than in the case of a surviving one.' § 608. Holding out as partner after dissolution. — Al- though a partner has retired from the firm he is not relieved from liability as a partner until he has given proper notice, and this liability is sometimes said to arise from his holding himself out as a partner. '^ Even after giving notice a partner may by his conduct cause others to believe that he is liable as a partner and will be held bound to persons who have relied on such apparent liability in giving credit,* as by permitting the use of the old firm name.® In such cases it is a question of fact whether there was a holding out as a partner.^** McCowin V. Cubbison, 72 Pa. St. 358; McCoon v. Galbraith, 29 Pa. St. 293; Brown v. Clark, 14 Pa. St. 469; Robinson v. Taylor, 4 Pa. St. 242; Dundass v. Gallagher, 4 Pa. St. 205; Houser v. Irvine, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 345, 38 Am. Dec. 768. sQillilan v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 41 N. Y. 376; Clark v. Reed, 31 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 413. See further Casco Bank V. Hills, 16 Maine 155. « Buckley v. Kelly, 70 Conn. 411, 39 Atl. 601 ; Randolph v. Inman, 172 111. 575, SO N. E. 104; Macready v. Schenck, 43 La. Ann. 479, 9 So. 470; Dunlap V. Watson, 124 Mass. 305; Fithian v. Jones, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 201; In re Brown's Appeal, 89 Pa. St. 139. See further Klotz v. Macready, 39 La. Ann. 638, 2 So. 203. 7 Richards v. Hunt, 65 Ga. 342 ; In re Morse, Fed. Cas. No. 9854; Meyer V. Krohn, 114 111. 574, 2 N. E. 495; Stall V. Cassady, 57 Ind. 284; Spears V. Toland, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 203, 10 Am. Dec. 722; Goddard v. Pratt, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 412; Morrill v. Bis- sell, 99 Mich. 409, 58 N. W. 324; Curtis V. Sexton, 201 Mo. 217, 100 S. W. 17; Thatcher v. Allen, 58 N. J. L. 240, 33 Atl. 284; Bank of Mononga- hela Valley v. Weston, 172 N. Y. 259, 64 N. E. 946; Davis v. Willis, 47 Tex. 154 ; Amidown v. Osgood, 24 Vt. 278, 58 Am. Dec. 171. 8 Gammon v. Huse, 100 111. 234; Shapard Grocery Co. v. Hynes, 3 Ind. Ter. 74, 53 S. W. 486; Casco Bank v. Hills, 16 Maine 155 ; Garbett v. Ged- ney, 15 Misc. 440, 37 N. Y. S. 200, 72 N. Y. St. 780; Metz v. Commercial Bank, 45 S. Car. 216, 23 S. E. 13; Wait V. Brewster, 31 Vt. 516 ; Farm- ers' Bank v. Smith, 26 W. Va. 541 ; Wausan First Nat. Bank v. Conway, 67 Wis. 210, 50 N. W. 215 ; Ex parte Cooper, 5 Jur. 10. sDreher v. Connolly, 9 N. Y. S. 365, 16 Daly 106, 30 N. Y. St. 674; Norquist V. Dalton, 11 N. Y. S. 351, 32 N. Y. St. 240; Speer v. Bishop, 24 Ohio St. 598. I'Boyd V. McCann, 10 Md. 118; Reed v. Frazer, Z7 Minn. 473, 37 N. W. 269 ; Barkley v. Beckwith, 90 App. Div. 570, 86 N. Y. S. 128; Cook v. Penrhyn Slate Co., 36 Ohio St. 135, 33 Am. Rep. 568.