Smith v. De Silva, 48, 250, 328.

v. Fromont, 127.
v. Fuge, 210.

v. Goddard, 152, 334,362, 372.

v. Jameson, 171, 312.
v. Mapleback, 205.

v. Oriel, 104, 333, 374.
v. Smith, 50, 255.

v. Stokes, 104, 250, 333,

336, 374.

Street v. Rigby, 118.
Strother v. Willan, 211.
Strutt, Ex parte, 321.
Stuart v. Marquis of Bute, 50.
Sullivan v. Greaves, 98, 173.
Sumner v. Powell, 400.
Sutton v. Clarke, 181.
Swan v. Steele, 55, 58, 64.
Sykes v. Bauwens, 179.

Taitt, Ex parte, 341, 344, 356.

v. Watson, 12, 16, 26, Tanner v. Hague, 230.

304, 306.

Snaith v. Burridge, 71.

v. Mingay, 64.

Snellgrove v. Hunt, 149, 371.

Solly v. Forbes, 204.

Solomon, Ex parte, 315.

Solomons v. Medex, 131.
South v. Tanner, 184, 185.
Southwood v. Taylor, 362.
Spalding v. Mure, 187.

Spencer v. Billing, 209, 210,
281.

Stacey v. Frederici, 156.
Stacy v. Decy, 152.
Staff, Ex parte, 283.
Stanborough, Ex parte, 342.
Standgroom, Ex parte, 328.
Staniforth v. Fellowes, 152, 363.
Stansfeld v. Levy, 194.
Staples, In re, 311.

Steel v. Western, 140.

Steers v. Leshley, 96.
Steiglitz v. Egginton, 75, 76.
Stent v. Bailis, 36.
Stephens, Ex parte, 364, 365,
v. Weston, 153.

Stephenson v. Chiswell, 365,386.
Stiles, Ex parte, 323.
Stokes v. Stokes, 78.
Stone, Ex parte, 290.

Stonehouse v. De Silva, 371.
Storer v. Hunter, 297, 299.
Storks, Ex parte, 284.
Story v. Lord Windsor, 129.
Stoveld, Ex parte, 254, 354.
Strange v. Lee, 135, 136.
Strangford v. Green, 77.

Tarleton v. Backhouse, 280.

v. Tarleton, 269.

Tattersal v. Groote, 86, 102, 118, 121.

Taylor, Ex parte, 337, 352, 353. v. Fields, 157, 225, 227,

229,326, 350.

v. Harris, 183, 196.

v. Haylin, 116.

v. Higgins, 94.

Teed v. Elworthy, 138, 139, 141,

v. Ryan, 257.
Thomson v. Thomson, 98.
Thornton v. Dixon, 48, 50, 51.
v. Illingworth, 193.
v. Proctor, 120.
Thwaites v. Richardson, 212.
Tickell v. Short, 116.
Tinkler v. Walpole, 210.
Tissard v. Warcup, 188.
Titner, Ex parte, 293.
Tobin, Ex parte, 289, 358.
Tooker's Case, 77.
Townsend v. Devagnes, 51.
Trigwell, Ex parte, 375.
Tupper v. Haythorne, 70.

Streatfield v. Halliday, 283, 373. Turner v. Davies, 206.

Waugh v. Carver, 1, 17, 18, 22, Willock, Ex parte, 344.

Worthington, Ex parte, 285, 307. Yonge, Ex parte, 318, 345, 353.

A

PRACTICAL TREATISE

ON THE

LAW OF PARTNERSHI

CHAPTER I.

Of the Contract of Partnership.

PARTNERSHIP has been thus described by an eminent writer on the civil law: contractus societatis est, quo duo, pluresve, inter se pecuniam, res, aut operas conferunt, eo fine ut, quod inde redit lucri, inter singulos pro ratâ dividatur (a). This definition, it has been observed, is good only as between the parties, but not with respect to the world at large (b). To render a partnership complete, a communion of profit and loss is essential (c). The shares of the parties must be joint, though it is not necessary that they should be equal: and the parties jointly interested in the purchase must also be jointly concerned in the future sale (d). Partnership, therefore, in its extended and complete sense, is a voluntary contract, between two or more persons, for joining together their money, goods, labour, and skill, or either or all of them, upon an agreement, that the gain or loss shall be divided proportionably between them, and having for its object the advancement and protection of fair and open trade (e)..

(a) Puffendorf, lib. 5. cap. 8.
(c) Coope u. Eyre, 1 H. Bl. 37.

(b) Waugh v. Carver, 2 H. Bl. 246.
(d) Ibid.
(e) Wats. on Partn. 1.

B

Every person sui juris is competent to contract the relation of partner. An infant may, by law, be a partner, and he will be entitled to all the benefits resulting from the partnership, although he will not be liable for the losses, if he choose to avail himself of his minority (a). But a feme covert cannot sustain the character of partner, because she is legally incapable of entering into the contract of partnership; and although married women are not unfrequently entitled to shares in banking-houses, and other mercantile concerns, under positive covenants, yet, when this happens, their husbands are entitled to such shares, and become partners in their stead.

The contract of partnership may be divided into the two classes of public and private. It may be denominated public, where the association consists of an indefinite or a large definite number of joint undertakers; and private, where a few individuals only connect themselves together. The former is usually called a company or society, and is instituted to carry on some important undertaking, for which the capital and exertions of a few individuals would be insufficient. Of these, some are incorporated by Letters Patent, or Act of Parliament, such as the East India Company, and the Bank of England; others are not, such as most of the Fire and Life Insurance Companies.

Those companies or societies, which are not confirmed by public authority, are in fact nothing more than ordinary partnerships, and the laws respecting them are the same (b); but the articles of agreement between the parties are usually very different. The capital is generally divided into a certain number of shares, whereof each partner may hold one or more; but he is restricted to a certain number.

(a) Goode v. Harrison, 5 B. & A. 150. But an infant partner, who, on attaining the age of majority, does not disaffirm the partnership, is responsible on contracts subsequently made by the firm. Id. Ibid.

(b) Rex v. Dodd, 9 East, 516. Beaumont v. Meredith, 3 Ves. & Bea. 180.