Partners occupy a relation of especial trust and confidence towards each other with reference to partnership matters.1 In dealing with each other with reference to partnership matters, each must make full and fair disclosure to the other of all material facts known to him and not to the other.2 Thus omission by a partner to disclose to his Co-partner facts affecting the value of partnership property may constitute fraud.3 Thus a purchase of one partner's interest in mining property by the other is voidable where the vendee does not disclose the existence of a valuable vein of ore on such property.4 A partner who, in the absence of the other partner, effects a purchase of partnership property must show

New Jersey. Groel v. United Electric Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 616, 61 Atl. 1061.

Oregon. Wills v. Nehalem Coal Co., 52 Or. 70, 96 Pac. 528.

Virginia. Richlands Oil Co. v. Mor-riss, 108 Va. 288, 61 S. E. 762.

Wisconsin. Pietsch v. Milbrath, 123 Wis. 647, 107 Am. St. Rep. 1017, 68 L. R. A. 945, 101 N. W. 388, 102 N. W. 342.

Contra, Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Lewisohn, 210 U. S. 206, 52 L. ed. 1025.

1United States. Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U. S. 411, 37 L. ed. 790.

Alabama. Goldsmith v. Eichold, 94 Ala. 116, 33 Am. St. Rep. 97, 10 So. 80.

Colorado. Caldwell v. Davis, 10 Colo. 481, 3 Am. St. Rep. 599, 15 Pac. 696.

Illinois. Raymond v. Vaughn, 128 111. 256, 15 Am. St. Rep. 112, 4 L. R. A. 440, 21 N. E. 566.

Kentucky. Rankin v. Kelly, 163 Ky. 463, 173 S. W. 1151.

Hew York. Butler v. Prentiss, 158 N. Y. 49, 52 N. E. 652. Virginia. Yost v. Critcher, 112 Va. 870, 72 S. E. 594.

West Virginia. Krebs v. Blanken-ship, 73 W. Va. 539, 80 S. E. 948.

Wisconsin. Wells v. McGeoch, 71 Wis. 196, 35 N. W. 769.

2 United States. Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U. S. 411, 37 L. ed. 790.

California. Warren v. Schainwald, 62 Cal. 56; Meyers v. Merillion, 118 Cal. 352, 50 Pac. 662.

District of Columbia. Baker v. Cum-mings, 4 D. C. App. 230.

Illinois. Roby v. Colehour, 135 111. 300, 25 N. E. 777.

Massachusetts. Jones v. Dexter, 130 Mass. 380, 39 Am. Rep. 459; Arnold v. Maxwell, 223 Mass. 47, 111 N. E. 687.

Washington. Galbraith v. Devlin, 85 Wash. 482, 148 Pac. 589.

Wisconsin. Wells v. McGeoch, 71 Wis. 196, 35 N. W. 769.

3Baker v. Cummings, 4 D. C. App. 230.

4Hanley v. Sweeny, 109 Fed. 712, 48 C. C. A. 612. (The vendee learned of its existence by tunneling from an adjoining mine which he managed.) affirmatively that the transaction was fair and upon full disclosure of material facts.5 So a surviving partner stands in a relation of trust and confidence to the executor of the deceased partner, so that a contract whereby the surviving partner buys the partnership assets from such executor will be closely scrutinized and will be enforced only if reasonable, fair and just.6 A partner can not'without the consent of his co-partners acquire an interest in partnership property adverse to his co-partners from third persons.7 A partner can not, without the consent of his co-partners, acquire a renewal of a lease held by the firm of realty,8 especially if the firm has made valuable improvements thereon.9 So he can not deal with the firm, concealing his identity, and thereby make a contract which the firm can not avoid.10 A partner can not acquire secret profit for himself in the same business as the partnership and in competition with it. He must account for such profits to the partnership.11 He may, however, engage in business for himself outside the business of the partnership,12 and he is not liable to the partnership for such profits, even if the partnership contract bound him not to engage in other business.18 He can not buy property for the firm and charge the firm therefor more than the amount thus paid by him.14 He can not represent the firm in a transaction and in the same transaction represent an adverse interest from which he receives a commission.15 In equity, a partner may, however, deal with the firm if the remaining partners know all the material facts and represent the firm in the transaction.16 Thus he may sell property to the firm in consideration of which the firm assumes certain debts which he owes,17 or he may buy property of the firm in consideration of his assuming the debts of the firtn,18 even if he is insolvent;19 or he may take an assignment of a claim which belongs to the partnership.20

5Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U. S. 411, 37 L. ed. 790.

6Mack v. Mack, 23 Can. S. C. 146; Tennant v. Dunlap, 97 Va. 234, 33 S. E. 620.

7United States. Kinsman v. Park-hurat, 59 U. S. (18 How.) 289.. 15 L. ed. 385.

Alabama. Dikis v. Likia, 187 Ala. 218, 65 So. 398.

Illinois. Roby v. Colehour, 135 111. 300, 25 N. E. 777.

Massachusetts. Arnold v. Maxwell, 223 Mass. 47, 111 N. E. 687.

Michigan. Gordon v. Tyler, 53 Mich. 629, 19 N. W. 560, 20 N. W. 70.

8Lurie v. Pinanski, 215 Mass. 229, 102 N. E. 629.

9Knapp v. Reed, 88 Neb. 754, 32 L. R. A. (N.S.) 869, 130 N. W. 430; Mitchell v. Reed, 61 N. Y. 123, 19 Am. Rep. 252.

10Whitman v. Bowden, 27 S. Cal 53, 2 S. E. 630.

11England. Aas v. Benham [1891), 2 Ch. 244.

United States. Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512, 32 L. ed. 764.

Illinois. Leeds v. Townsend, 228 111. 451, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 191, 81 N. E. 1069.

Michigan. Lockwood v. Beckwith, 6 Mich. 168, 72 Am. Dec. 69.

North Carolina. Chilton v. Groome, 168 N. Car. 639, 84 S. E. 1038.

West Virginia. Kyle v. Griffin, 76 W. Va. 214, 85 S. E. 559.

12Latta v. Kilbourn, 150 U. S. 524, 38 L. ed. 1169; Sullivan v. R. R. 128 Ala. 77, 30 So. 528; Belcher v. Whitte-more, 134 Mass. 330.

13Dean v. MacDowell, 8 Ch. Div. 345; Latta v. Kilbourn, 150 U. S. 524, 38 L. ed. 1169; Metcalfe v. Bradshaw, 145 111. 124. 36 Am. St. Rep. 478, 33 N. E. 750; Murrell v. Murrell, 33 La. Ann. 1233.