A partnership is a business relation between two or more persons arising out of a contract1 by which they agree to unite their property, credit, services, skill or influence in some business, so that they have a community of interest in such business,2 and usually divide the profits and losses between themselves in a fixed proportion.

A partnership differs from a corporation in this: that a corporation is a legal personalty,3 while a partnership is merely a relation between two or more persons4 and "is not a being distinct from its members."5 The contract of partnership may be express, and either written6 or oral.7 An oral contract of partnership to last for more than one year from the date of the making is held to be within the statute of frauds in some jurisdictions and unenforceable with reference to its duration.8 The contract of partnership may be implied from the conduct of the parties.9 It may include a single transaction10 as well as an extended series of transactions.

1 Mayfield v. Turner, 180 111. 332; 54 N. E. 418; Briggs v. Rice Co., 83 111. App. 618; Simmons v. Ingram, 78 Mo. App. 603; Martin v. Baird, 175 Pa. St. 540; 34 Atl. 809. "A copartnership is in its essence a contract of agency. Each partner is the general agent of the firm, and the firm is the agent of each partner, with power to bind him to a personal liability in favor of partnership creditors." Lapento v. Lettieri, 72 Conn. 377, 383; 77 Am. St. Rep. 315; 44 Atl. 730.

2 Stafford v. Sibley, 113 Ala. 447; 21 So. 459; National Surety Co. v. Townsend, etc., Co., 176 111. 156; 52 N. E. 938; affirming, 74 111. App. 312; McKasy v. Huber, 65 Minn. 9;

67 N. W. 650; Baldwin v. Eddy, 64 Minn. 425; 67 N. W. 349; Willey v. Renner, 8 N. M. 641; 45 Pac. 1132; Harvey v. Childs, 28 O. S. 319; 22 Am. Rep. 387; Frazier v. Linton, 183 Pa. St. 186; 38 Atl. 589; Carter v. McClure, 98 Tenn. 109; 60 Am. St. Rep. 842; 36 L. R. A. 282; 38 S. W. 585.

3 See Sec. 1065.

4 Harris v. Visscher, 57.Ga. 229; Mayfield v. Turner, 180 111. 332; 54 N. E. 418.

5 Chambers v. Sloan, 19 Ga. 84, 85. 6 Gibbs's Estate, 157 Pa. St. 59;

22 L. R. A. 276; 27 Atl. 383.

7 Jones v. Davies, 60 Kan. 309; 72 Am. St. Rep. 354; 56 Pac. 484.

As between the parties the question of partnership is one of intention, being in the first instance a question of fact,11 but when the facts are conceded or established, a question of law.12 If the parties enter into a relationship which the law holds to be a partnership they are partners although they may not have known the legal effect of their acts,13 or though they may have called the contract one of employment.14 A partnership is not an artificial person at law. Its liability exists only through the liability of its partners. Without statutory authority it cannot be sued in its firm name.15 A statute allowing a suit against a firm by the firm name does not destroy the Common Law right to sue the individual.16

8 Wahl v. Barnum, 116 N. Y. 87; 5 L. R. A. 623; 22 N. E. 280.

9 Haug v. Haug, 90 111. App. 604; Hallenback v. Rogers, 57 N. J. Eq. 199; 40 Atl. 576; affirmed, 58 N. J. Eq. 580; 43 Atl. 1098; William Deering, etc., Co. v. Coberly, 44 W. Va. 606; 29 S. E. 512. An actual partnership in which the partnership contract is inferred as a fact from the conduct of the parties must be distinguished from those cases where there is no partnership, but the persons have estopped themselves from denying its existence.

See Sec. 950 et seq.

10 Winstanley v. Gleyre, 146 111. 27; 34 N. E. 628; Holmes v. Mc-Cray, 51 Ind. 358; 19 Am. Rep. 735; Pennybacker v. Leary, 65 Ia. 220; 21 N. W. 575; Richards v. Grinnell, 63 Ia. 44; 50 Am. Rep. 727; 18 N. W. 668; Jones v. Davies, 60 Kan. 309; 72 Am. St. Rep. 354; 56 Pac. 484; Simpson v. Tenney, 41 Kan. 561; 21 Pac. 634; Hunter v. Whitehead, 42 Mo. 524; Chester v. Dick-erson, 54 N. Y. 1; 13 Am. Rep. 550; Yeoman v. Lasley, 40 O. S. 190; Hulett v. Fairbanks, 40 O. S. 233; Spencer v. Jones, 92 Tex. 516; 71

Am. St. Rep. 870; 50 S. W. 118; Canada v. Barksdale, 76 Va. 899.

11 Adamson v. Guild, 177 Mass. 331; 58 N. E. 1081; Densmore v. Mathews, 58 Mich. 616; 26 N. W. 146; Seabury v. Bolles, 51 N. J. L. 103; 11 L. R. A. 136; 16 Atl. 54; Spencer v. Jones, 92 Tex. 516; 71 Am. St. Rep. 870; 50 S. W. 118.

12 Morgan v. Farrel, 58 Conn. 413; 18 Am. St. Rep. 282; 20 Atl. 614; Schmidt v. Balling, 91 111. App. 388; Janney v. Springer, 78 Ia. 617; 16 Am. St. Rep. 460; 43 N. W. 461; Kingsbury v. Thorp, 61 Mich. 216; 28 N. W. 74; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Ross, 29 O. S. 429.

13 Chapman v. Hughes, 104 Cal. 302; 37 Pac. 1048; 38 Pac. 109; Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. 637; 43 Am. St. Rep. 217; 27 L. R. A. 126; 16 So. 601; Jones v. Davies, 60 Kan. 309; 72 Am. St. Rep. 354; 56 Pac. 484; Magovern v. Robertson, 116 N. Y. 61; 5 L. R. A. 589; 22 N. E. 398; Spaulding v. Stubbings, 86 Wis. 255; 39 Am. St. Rep. 888; 56 N. W. 469.

14 Cameron v. Ry., 108 La. 83; 32 So. 208.