Of the Law of PartnershipI. Of the nature, creation, and extent of partnerships.II. Of the rights and duties of partners in their relation to each other, and to the public.III. Of the dissolution of partnership.
NOTES
1. Pufendorf, Droit de la Nat. liv. 5. ch. 8. s. 1. Pothier, Traité du Contrat de Société, No. 1. Repertoire de Jurisprudence, art. Société. The French ordinance of 1673, required the contract of partnership to be reduced to writing, and registered; but that was the introduction of a new rule, and the regulation had gone into disuse in the time of Pothier, though he considered it to be a sage provision. (Pothier, ibid. No. 79. 82. 98.) The new French commercial code has retained the regulation of the ordinance, and it requires an abstract of the articles of partnership to be attested, and publicly registered; but the omission, though injurious to the parties as between themselves, does not affect the rights of third persons. (Code de Com. art 39-44) So, by the commercial Ordinances of Bilboa, confirmed by Philip V. in 1737, edit. N.Y. 1824, ch. 10. sec. 4. it was made necessary, in every partnership, to reduce the articles to writing, and acknowledge them before a notary and file a copy with the university, and house of trade. This would seem not to be now the general law in Spain; for it is admitted, that partnerships may be formed, as in the English law, tacitly as well as expressly. (Institutes of the Civil Law of Spain, by Asso. & Manuel, b. 2. ch. 15. translated by Johnston, London, 1825.)
2.Dob v. Halsey, 16 Johns Rep. 34.
3. Pothier, Traité du Con. de Soc., No, 8, 9, 10. Ferriere, sur Inst. 3. 26. Code Napoleon, No. 1833.
4. Pothier, ibid. No. 10.
5.Reid v. Hollinshead, 4 Barnw. & Cress. 867.
6.Pearce v. Chamberlain, 2 Vesey, 33.
7.Hoare v. Dawes, Doug. 371. Coope v. Eyre, 1 H. Blacks. 37.
8. Dig. 17. 2. 33.
9.Holmes v. United Insurance Company, 2 Johns Cases, 329. Post v. Kimberly, 9 Johns. Rep. 470. Osborne v. Brennar, 2 Nott & McCord, 427.
10.Sims v. Willing, 8 Serg. & Rawle, 103
11. Lord Ellenborough. McIver v. Humble, 16 East, 173.
12.Nairn v. Sir William Forbes, Bell's Commentaries on the Law of Scotland, vol. ii, 626.
13.The King v. Dodd, 9 East, 516. Holmes v. Higgins, 1 Barnw. & Cress. 74. Hess v. Worts, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 356.
14. Gibson, J., Hess v. West, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 491. Platt, J., Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johnson, 537.
15. De Grey, Ch. J., Grace v. Smith, 2 Blacks. Rep. 998. Eyre, Ch., J., Waugh v. Carver, 2 H. Blacks. 247. Cheap v. Cramond, 4 Barnw. & Ald 663. Spencer, J., Dob. v. Halsey, 16 Johns. Rep. 40.
16. Eyre, Ch. J., ub sup. Thompson J., Post v. Kimberley, 9 Johns. Rep. 489.
17.Willet v. Chambers, Cowp. 814. Gould, J., Coope v. Eyre, 1 H. Blacks. 43. Pothier, Traité de Soc. No. 55.
18. Dig. 18, 1. 35. 2. Pothier, Traité du Con de Soc. n. 14. Briggs v. Lawrence, 3 Term Rep. 454. Aubert v. Maze, 2 Bos. & Pull 371. Griswold v. Waddington, 16 Johns Rep 49.
19. Inst. 3. 26. 1. Pothier, ub. sup. n. 73. Peacock v. Peacock, 16 Vesey, 49.
20. Pothier, ub. sup. No. 15-19. n. 25.
21. Dig. 17.2. 44. Pothier, ub. sup. n. 13.
22. Pothier ibid. n. 25,26.
23. Dig. 17. 2. 29. 2. Pothier, ub. sup. No. 12.
24. Lord Mansfield. Willet v. Chambers, Cowp. 816. Code Napoleon; No. 1841.
25. Carvick v. Vickery, Doug. 653. note.
26. Hopkins v. Smith, 11 Johns. Rep. 161.
27. The Roman law, which has been followed in France, distinguished between two kinds of universal partnership, the one universorum bonorum, and the other universorum quae ex quaestu veniunt. By the first, the parties put into common stock all their property, real and personal, then existing, or thereafter to be acquired. All future acquisitions by purchase, gift, legacy, or descent, went into this partnership as of course, without assignment, unless the gift or legacy was declared to be under the condition of not being placed there Such a partnership was charged with all the debts of the parties at its commencement, and with all the future debts, and personal and family expenses. The validity of such a partnership was not questioned, notwithstanding it might be extremely unequal, and one might bring much more property into it than another, and acquire ten times as much by gift, purchase, or succession, and notwithstanding one partner might have a family of children, and another be destitute of any. (Pothier, Traité du Contrat de Soc. No. 28-42.) We need not be apprehensive that such a partnership will become infectious, for it appears to be fruitful in abuse and discord, and in the Code Napoleon, No. 1837, the more forbidding features of the connection are removed. Though it embraces all the existing property of the parties, and every species of gains, it does not under the code, extend to property to be acquired by gift, legacy, or inheritance, and every stipulation to that effect is prohibited. The Civil Code of Louisiana, which has throughout closely followed the Code Napoleon, has recognized these universal partnerships applying to all existing property; but they must be created in writing, and registered, and they are under the checks mentioned in the French code. Civil Code of Louisiana, No. 2800-2805. The other species of universal partnerships applies only to future profits, from whatever source they may be derived; and it is formed when the parties agree to a partnership without any further explanation. In this case, the separate acquisitions of each, by legacy or inheritance, are kept separate, and do not enter into the common mass; nor does it embrace present real property, but only the future issues and profits of it; and it is not, of course, chargeable with existing debts, though it was formerly
chargeable with them when made in that part of France, under the Droit Coutumier. (Pothier, ub. sup. n. 43-52. Code Napoleon, No. 1838.) The same kind of general partnerships, embracing all the present and future property of the parties, is known in the laws of Spain. Institutes by Doctors Asso & Manuel, b. 2. c. 15.
28.Robinson v. Wilkinson, 3 Price's Exch. Rep. 538. Lord Loughborough, 1 H. Blacks. Rep. 48. Pitts v. Waugh, 4 Mass. Rep. 424. Duncan, J., 8 Serg. & Rawle, 55.
29.Hoare v. Dawes, Doug Rep. 371. Grace v. Smith, 2 Wm Blacks. Rep. 998. Waugh v. Carver, 2 H. Blacks Rep. 235. Hesketh v. Blanchard, 4 East, 144. Ex parte Hamper, 17 Vesey, 404. Ex parte Langdale, 18 Vesey, 300. Carlen v. Drury, 1 Ves. 4 Bea. 157. Cheap v. Cramond, 4 Barnw. & Ald. 663. Best, J., Smith v. Watson, 2 Barnw. & Cress. 401.
30.Purviance v. McClintee, 6 Serg. & Rawle, 259. Gill v. Kuhn, ibid. 333. Dob v. Halsey, 16 Johns. Rep. 40. Shubrick v. Fisher, 2 Desauss. Ch. Rep. 148. Osborne v. Brennan, 2 Nott & McCord, 427.
31.Wightman v. Townroe, 1 Maule & Selw. 412. The better way would be, for the executors, in such cases, to have the trade carried on for the benefit of the infants, under the direction of the Court of Chancery, as has frequently been done in England. See 4 Johns. Ch. Rep. 627.
32.Dixon v. Cooper, 3 Wils. 40. Cheap v. Cramond, 4 Barnw. & Ald. 670. Benjamin v. Porteus, 2 H. Blacks. 590. Meyer v. Sharpe, 5 Taunton, 74. Hesketh v. Blanchard, 4 East, 144. Dry v. Boswell, 1 Campb. N.P. 329. Wilkenson v. Frazier, 4 Esp. N. P. 182. Muzzy v. Whitney, 10 Johns Rep. 226. Rice v. Austin, 17 Mass. Rep. 206.
33.Ex parte Hamper, 17 Vesey, 404. Ex parte Rowlandson, 1 Rose, 89. Ex parte Watson, 19 Vesey, 458. Mr. Cary, in his recent treatise on the Law of Partnership, p. 11., vindicates the principle on which the above distinction is founded, and insists that it is perfectly clear and just.
34. Lord Loughborough, 1 H. Blacks. Rep. 49.
35.Repertoire de Jurisprudence, par Merlin, tit. Société, art. 2. Code de Commerce, b. 1. tit. 3. sec. 1.
36. Civil Code of Louisiana. art. 2810.
37. Laws of N.Y. April, 1822. sess. 45. ch. 244. and sess. 60. ch. 238.
38.Saville v. Robertson, 4 Term Rep. 720. Young v. Hunter, 4 Taunt. Rep. 582. Poindexter v. Waddy, 6 Munf. Rep. 418.
39.Gouthwaite v. Duckworth, 12 East, 421.
40. Co. Litt. 182. a.
41. 1 Vern. 217.
42.Martin v. Crompe, 1 Lord Raym. 340.
43.Nicoll v. Mumford, 4 Johns Ch. Rep. 522. Fox v. Hanbury, Coop. Rep. 445. Taylor v. Fields, 4 Vesey, 396. 15 Vesey, 559. note S. C.
44.Thornton v. Dixon, 3 Bro. Ch. Cas. 199. Lord Loughborough in Smith v. Smith, 5 Vesey, 189. Ripley v. Waterworth, 7 Vesey, 424. Featherstonhaugh v. Fenwick, 17 Vesey, 298. Lord Eldon, in Townsend v. Devaynes, cited in Gow on Partnership, 54. edit. Phil. 1825, and in Crawshay v. Maule, 1 Swanston, 521. Contra, Sir Wm. Grant, in Bell v. Phyn, 7 Vesey, 453, and Balmain v. Shore, 9 Vesey, 500. Gow on Partnership, 54, 55.
45.Forde v. Herron, 4 Munf. 316. McDermot v. Laurence, 7 Serg. & Rawle, 438.
46. McAlister v. Montgomery, 3 Hayw. 96.
47. 15 Johns. Rep. 159.
48. 11 Mass. Rep. 469.
49. 2 Munf. 397.
50. 4 Johns. Ch. Rep. 522.
51. 1 Vesey, 497.
52. See 5 Vesey, 575. 2 Ves. & Bea. 242. 2 Rose, 76, 78. 1 Montagu on Partnership, 102, note.
53. 20 Johns. Rep. 611.
54. 12 Mass. Rep. 54.
55.Hope v. Cust, cited in 1 East's Rep. 53. Swan v. Steele, 7 East's Rep. 210. Rothwell v. Humphreys, 1 Esp. N. P. 406. Abbott. Ch. J., Sandilands v. Marsh, 2 Barnw. & Ald. 673. Ex parte Agace, 2 Cox's Cases, 312. Shippen, J., Gerard v. Basse,1 Dallas' Rep. 119. Parker, Ch. J., in Lamb v. Durant, 12 Mass. Rep. 56, 57. Mills v. Barber, 4 Day's Rep. 420. Pothier,Traité du Contrat de Soc. No. 96-105.
56.Mason v. Ramsey, 1 Campb. N.P. 384.
57.Siffkin v. Walker, 2 Campb. 308. Ripley v. Kingsbury, 1 Day's Rep. 150. note. Emly v. Lye, 15 East's Rep. 7.
58.Dougal v. Cowles, 5 Day's Rep. 511.
59.Van Reims Dyk v. Kane, 1 Gall. Rep. 630.
60.Ex parte Peele, 6 Vesey, 602.
61. Arden v. Sharpe, 2 Esp. N: P. 524. Shirreff v. Wilks, 1 East's Rep. 48. Ex parte Bonbonus, 8 Vesey, 540. Livingston v. Hastie, 2 Caines' Rep. 246. Lansing v. Gaine and Ten Eyck, 2 Johns. Rep. 300. Baird v. Cochran, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 397. Chazournes v. Edwards, 3 Pickering, 4.
62.Green v. Deakin, 2 Starkie's N. P. 347. New York Firem. Insurance Company v. Bennett, 5 Conn. Rep. 574.
63. 4 Johns. Rep. 277, 278. Spencer J., Dob v. Halsey, 16 Johns. Rep., 48.
64.Doty v. Bates, 11 Johns. Rep. 544.
65. Abbot, Ch. J., and Bayley, J., Sandilands v. Marsh, 2 Barnw. & Ald. 673.
66.Ridley v. Taylor, 13 East's Rep. 175. Williams v. Thomas, 6 Esp. N.P. 18. Lord Eldon, Ex parte Peele, 6 Vesey, 604, and Ex parte Bonbonus, 8 Vesey, 544. Arden v. Sharpe, 2 Esp.,N. P, 524. Wells v. Masterman, ibid.731. Bond v. Gibson, 1 Campb. N.P. 185. Usher v. Dauncey, 4 ibid. 97. Livingston v. Roosevelt, 4 Johns. Rep. 251. New York Fire Insurance Company v. Bennett, 5 Conn. Rep. 574.
67.Fox v. Hanbury, Cowp. Rep. 445. Best, J., in Barton v. Williams, 5 Barnw. & Ald. 395. Piersons v. Hooker, 3 Johns. Rep 68. Mill v. Barber, 4 Day's Rep. 428. Lamb v. Durant, 12 Mass. Rep. 54. Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Cranch's Rep. 289. Pothier, Traité du Contrat de Soc. No. 67. 69. 72. 90.
68.Willet v. Chambers, Cowp. Rep. 814. Rapp v. Latham, 2 Barnw. & Ald. 795. Bond v. Gibson, 1 Campb. N.P. 185. Baldwin, J. 5 Day's Rep. 515. Spencer J., 15 Johns. Rep. 422.
69.Willis v. Dyson, 1 Starkie's N P. 164. Galway v. Matthew, 1 Campb. N.P. 403. 10 East's Rep. 264. S. C. Leavitt v. Peck, 3 Conn. Rep. 124.
70. Dig. 10. 3. 28. Pothier, Traité de Soc. No. 90.
71. 7 Price's Rep. 193.
72. 3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 400.
73. Pothier, Traité du Con. de Soc. No. 71. 90.
74.Raba v. Ryland, 1 Gow's N.P. 132. Tupper v. Haythorne, in Chancery, reported in a note to the case in Gow.
75.Barton v. Williams, 5 Barnw. & Ald. 395.
76.Willet v. Chambers, Cowp. Rep. 814. Rapp v. Latham, 2 Barnw. & Ald. 795.
77.Hope v. Cust, cited in 1 East's Rep. 53.
78. 15 Vesey, 286.
79.Duncan v. Lowndes, 3 Campb. N.P. 478. Sandilands v. Marsh, 2 Barnw. & Ald. 673. Crawford v. Stirling, 4 Esp. N. P. 207. Sutton and McNickle v. Irwine, 12 Serg. & Rawle, 13.
80.Foot v. Sabin, 19 Johns. Rep. 154. New York Firem. Insurance Company v. Bennett, 5 Conn. Rep. 574.
81.Harrison v. Jackson, 7 Term Rep. 207.
82.Ball v. Dunsterville, 4 Term Rep. 3 3. Williams v. Walsby, 4 Esp. Y P. 220. Steiglitz v. Egginton, 1 Holt's N. P. 141.
83.Gerard v. Basse, 1 Dallas' Rep. 119. Green v. Beals, 2 Caines' Rep., 254. Clement v. Brush, 3 Johns. Cas. 180. Mackay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. Rep. 285. Anon., 2 Hayw. N. C. Rep. 99. Mills v. Barber, 4 Day's Rep. 428. Garland v. Davidson, 3 Munf. Rep. 189. In the marginal note giving the substance of the decision in the Court of Errors is Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johns Rep. 513, it is stated generally that the authority for one partner to bind the association by deed may be by parol; but I apprehend, that neither the decision in that case, nor the language of the court, goes beyond the English cases in the effect to be given to a parol authority, and that the marginal note of my learned friend the reporter, ought not to receive any other construction.
84.Tooker's case, 2 Co. 63. Ruddock's case, 6 Co. 25. Hawkshaw v. Parkins, 2 Swanst. Rep. 576-580. Pierson v. Hooker, 3 Johns. Rep. 68. Bruen v. Marquand, 17 Johns. Rep. 58.
85.Salmon v. Davis, 4 Binney's Rep. 375.
86.Ex parte Hodgkinson, 19 Vesey, 291.
87.Stead v. Salt, 3 Bingham's Rep. 101. Karthaus v. Ferrer, 1 Peter's Rep. 221.
88. Doug. Rep. 652.
89.Bound v. Lathrop, 4 Conn. Rep. 336. Hunt v. Bridgham, 2 Pick. Rep. 581.
90.Wood v. Braddick, 1 Taunt. Rep. 104. Simpson v. Geddes, 2Bay's Rep. 533.
91.Hackley v. Patrick, 3 Johns Rep. 536. Walden v. Sherburne, 15 ibid. 409. Chardon v. Colder, 2 Const. Rep S. C. 685.
92.Smith v. Ludlows, 6 Johns. Rep. 267. Johnson v. Beardslee, 15 ibid. 3.
93.Atkins v. Tredgold, 2 Barnw. & Cress. 23.
94.Bell v. Morrison, 1 Peter's Rep. 351. Case decided in Pennsylvania, December, 1827, and cited ibid. 396. note.
95.Burton v. Issit, 5 Barnw. & Ald. 267.
96. Pothier, Traité du Contrat de Soc. No. 59. Glassington v. Thwaites, 1 Sim. & Stu. 133.
97. Boulay Paty, Cours. de Droit Com. tom. 2, 94.
98. Inst. 3. 26. 6. Extincto subjecto tollitur adjunctum. Pothier. Traite de Soc. No. 140-143, illustrates this rule in his usual manner, by a number of plain and familiar examples. 16 Johns. Rep. 491. S. P.
99. Inst. 3. 26. sec. 7, 8, Vinnius, b. t. 3. 26. 4. Hub. in Inst. lib. 3. tit. 26. sec. 6. Pothier, Con. de Soc. No. 147, 148. 11 Vesey, 5. 1 Swanst. Rep. 480, 508. 16 Johns. Rep. 491.
100.Peacock v. Peacock, 16 Vesey 49. Featherstonhaugh v. Fenwick, 17 Vesey 298. Lord Eldon, in 1 Swanst. Rep, 508.
101. Inst. 3. 26. 4. Code. 4. 37. 5.
102. Pothier Traité de Soc. 150 says, that the dissolution by the act of a party ought to be done in good faith, and reasonably, debit esse facta bona fide et tempestive. He states the case of an advantageous bargain for the partners being in contemplation, and one of them, with a view to appropriate the bargain to himself, suddenly dissolves the partnership. A dissolution at such a moment, he justly concludes, would be unavailing.
