Sharing profits and losses is so usual an attribute of a partnership that it is implied from the relationship, and there need not be an express agreement to share losses.1 An agreement to share losses is implied from a contract to share net profits.2 So where A is to furnish capital, B to furnish labor, and both to share in the profits, a sharing of losses is implied.3 By express contract, however, there may be a partnership in which there is no sharing of losses.4 Conversely, if the contract provides for a sharing in profits and losses in business it is prima facie a partnership contract.5 However, as the question is one of the intention of the parties, it is not safe to make even this an arbitrary test. If there is no community of interest in the business transaction, mere sharing of profits and losses by special contract does not constitute a partnership ;6 as where A, the owner of a farm and the implements thereon, leased it to B, who was to manage it, A to have two-thirds of the profits or pay two-thirds of the losses, B the other third.7 So one partner's sharing profits and losses with a stranger does not make him a partner.8 An agreement to share profits alone is 'prima facie a partnership contract, though the inference is not as strong as from a sharing of both profits and losses.9 At English Law an attempt was made to distinguish between a compensation equal to a share of the profits, and a share of the profits as profits, holding a partnership always to exist in the latter case as a matter of law.10 This arbitrary distinction was overthrown in England;11 and at Modern Law contracting for a sharing of profits does not constitute a partnership if the parties do not intend a community of interest.12 Thus a promise to pay a certain percentage of profits for the use of a machine13 or of a manufacturing plant,14 or for a lease of property,15 or for services rendered in the business,16 as for managing and selling land,17 or for services and the use of a patent-right,18 or for sawing logs for another,19 or cutting and rafting logs,20 or for selling cross-ties for another,21 or to share commissions for customers furnished,22 are none of them partnership contracts if the elements of community of interest and common control of business are lacking. A loan of money for use in partnership business,23 even if a percentage of the profits is given therefor24 and the lender gives advice,25 or manages the business as an agent,26 or leases a fishery and lends money to operate it for one-half of the net proceeds as rental,27 none of them constitute the lender a partner. So a contract to indemnify against a certain per cent. of loss in consideration of a corresponding per cent. of the profits is not a partnership.28 So a contract by which one furnishes logs and the other saws them into lumber and they divide the lumber29 or the profits 30 is not a partnership. If, however, there is a community of interest in the capital of the business the transaction creates a partnership,31 even if the transaction assumes the outward form of a loan.32 So contracts between A and B whereby A is to buy goods of certain kinds and B is to sell them, are held to create partnerships whether profits alone33 or both profits and losses34 are to be shared. But a contract whereby A sells land to B, and C is to erect certain car-shops on part of it, and on resale the profits are to be divided between B and C, does not create a partnership. A cannot, therefore, hold C for the purchase price of the realty.35 Sharing in gross receipts is not a partnership,36 as where A trained B's horses, and they divided the winnings.37 So the ordinary form of a contract between a depot company and a railroad company,38 or between connecting carriers,39 does not constitute a partnership.

Am. St. Rep. 838; 27 Atl. 990; Strickley v. Hill, 22 Utah 257; 83 Am. St. Rep. 786; 62 Pac. 893; Fish v. Thompson, 68 Vt. 273; 35 Atl. 174; Ferguson v. Gooch, 94 Va. 1; 40 L. R. A. 234; 26 S. E. 397.

2 Ottison v. Edmonds, 15 Wash. 362; 46 Pac. 398.

3 Mosier v. Parry, 60 O. S. 388; 54 N. E. 364.

4 Teed v. Parsons, 202 111. 455; 66 X. E. 1044; reversing, 100 111. App. 342.

1 Gates v. Johnson, 56 Neb. 808; 77 X. W. 407.

2 Johnson v. Carter, 120 Ia. 355; 94 X. W. 850.

3 Dow v. Dempsey, 21 Wash. 86; 57 Pac. 355.

4 Leeds v. Townsend. 89 111. App. 646; Jones v. Murphy, 93 Va. 214; 24 S. E. 825.

5 Straus v. Kohn, 83 111. App. 497; Atchinson, etc., Ry. v. Huekle-bridge, 62 Kan. 506; 64 Pac. 58; Noyes v. Tootle, 2 Ind. Ter. 144; 48 S. W. 1031; Hart v. Hiatt, 2 Ind. Ter. 245; 48 S. W. 1038; Winter v. Pipher, 96 Ia. 17; 64 N. W. 663; Bryan v. Bullock, 119 X. C. 193; 25 S. E. 865; Commercial Bank v. Miller, 96 Va. 357; 31 S. E. 812; Smith v. Putnam, 107 Wis. 155; 82 X. W. 1077; rehearing denied, 83 X. W. 288.

6 National Surety Co. v. Town-send, etc., Co., 176 111. 156; 52 X. E. 938; affirming, 74 111. App. 312.

7 Bradley v. Ely, 24 Ind. App. 2;

79 Am. St. Rep. 251; 56 N. E. 44.

8 O'Connor v. Sherley, 107 Ky. 70; 52 S. W. 1056.

9 Paul v. Cullum, 132 U. S. 539; London, etc., Corp. v. Drennen, 116 U. S. 461; Beauregard v. Case, 91 U. S. 134; Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 116; Tyler v. Wad-dingham, 58 Conn. 375; 8 L. R. A. 657; 20 Atl. 335; Dame v. Kemp-ster, 146 Mass. 454; 15 N. E. 927; Torbert v. Jeffrey, 161 Mo. 645; 61 S. W. 823; Fourth National Bank v. Altheimer, 91 Mo. 190; 3 S. W. 858; First National Bank v. Gal-laudet, 122 N. Y. 655; 25 N. E. 909; Southern Fertilizer Co. v. Reams, 105 N. C. 283; 11 S. E. 467; Cos-sock v. Burgwyn, 112 N. C. 304; 16 S. E. 900; Sawyer v. Bank, 114 N. C. 13; 18 S. E. 949; Wood v. Vallette, 7 O. S. 172; First National Bank v. Ballard, 19 Ohio C. C. 63; 10 Ohio C. D. 298; Wessels v. Weiss, 166 Pa. St. 490; 31 Atl. 247; Walker v. Tupper, 152 Pa. St. 1; 25 Atl. 172; Wipperman v. Stacy, 80 Wis. 345; 50 N. W. 336; Spaulding v. Stubbings, 86 Wis. 255; 39 Am. St. Rep. 888; 56 N. W. 469.

10 Waugh v. Carver, 2 H. Bl. 235.

11 Cox v. Hickman, 8 H. L. Cas. 268.

12 Cox v. Hickman, 8 H. L. Cas. 268; Wilson v. Edmonds, 130 U. S. 472; Meehan v. Valentine, 145 U. S. 611; Johnson v. Rothschilds, 63 Ark. 518; 41 S. W. 996; Cadenasso v. Antonelle, 127 Cal. 382; 59 Pae. 765; Nofsinger v. Goldman, 122 Cal. 609; 55 Pac. 425; Coward v. Clan-ton, 122 Cal. 451; 55 Pac. 147; Butler v. Hinckley, 17 Colo. 523; 30 Pac. 250; Morton v. Nelson, 145 111. 586; 32 N. E. 916; Grinton v. Strong, 148 111. 587; 36 N. E. 559; Gottschalk v. Smith, 156 111. 377; 40 N. E. 937; Clark v. Barnes, 72 Ia. 563; 34 N. W. 419; Porter v. Curtis, 96 Ia. 539; 65 N. W. 824; Winter v. Pipher, 96 la. 17; 64 N. W. 663; Leonard v. Sparks, 109 La. 543; 33 So. 594; McWilliams v. Elder, 52 La. Ann. 995; 27 So. 352; Drovers', etc., Bank v. Roller, 85 Md. 495; 60 Am. St. Rep. 344; 36 L. R. A. 767; 37 Atl. 30; Wild v.

Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 129; 57 Am. Rep. 552; 7 Atl. 295; Whiting v. Leakin, 66 Md. 255; 7 Atl. 688; Murphy v. Craig, 76 Mich. 155; 42 N. W. 1097; Clifton v. Howard, 89 Mo. 192; 58 Am. Rep. 97; 1 S. W. 26; Kellogg Newspaper Co. v. Far-rell, 88 Mo. 594; Breman Savings Bank v. Saw Co., 104 Mo. 425; 16 S. W. 209; Congdon v. Olds, 18 Mont. 487; 46 Pac. 261; Whitney v. Bank, 50 Neb. 438; 69 N. W. 933; AEtna Ins. Co. v. Bank, 48 Neb. 544; 67 N. W. 449; Eastman v. Clark, 53 N. H. 276; 16 Am. Rep. 192; Jernee v. Simonson, 58 N. J. Eq. 282; 43 Atl. 370; Seabury v. Bolles, 51 N. J. L. 103; 11 L. R. A. 136; 16 Atl. 54; Wild v. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 129; 57 Am. Rep. 552; 7 Atl. 295; Grapel v. Hodges, 112 N. Y. 419; 20 N. E. 542; Waverly National Bank v. Hall, 150 Pa. St. 466; 30 Am. St. Rep. 823; 24 Atl. 665; Dunham v. Loveroek, 158 Pa. St. 197; 38 Am. St. Rep. 838; 27 Atl. 990; Butler Savings Bank v. Osborne, 159 Pa. St. 10; 39 Am. St. Rep. 665; 28 Atl. 163; Taylor v. Fried, 161 Pa. St. 53; 28 Atl. 993; Ryder v. Jacobs, 182 Pa. St. 624; 38 Atl. 471; Brown v. Watson, 72 Tex. 216; 10 S. W. 395; Riedeburg v. Schmitt, 71 Wis. 644; 38 N. W. 336.

13 Nofsinger v. Goldman, 122 Cal. 609; 55 Pac. 425.

14 Thornton v. McDonald, 108 Ga. 3; 33 S. E. 680.

15 Bradley v. Ely, 24 Ind. App.

2; 79 Am. St. Rep. 251; 56 N. E. 44; Garrett v. Publishing Co., 61 Neb. 541; 85 N. W. 537; Austin v. Neil, 62 N. J. L. 462; 41 Atl. 834; Wormser v. Lindauer, 9 N. M. 23; 49 Pac. 896; State v. Sanders, 52 S. C. 580; 30 S. E. 616; Houston, etc., Co. v. McFadden, 91 Tex. 194; 40 S. W. 216; 42 S. W. 593.

16 Gulf, etc., Co. v. Boyles, 129 Ala. 192; 29 So. 800; Johnson v. Carter, 120 Ia. 355; 94 N. W. 850; Morrow v. Murphy, 120 Mich. 204; 79 N. W. 193; modified, 80 N. W. 255; Canton Bridge Co. v. Eaton Rapids, 107 Mich. 613; 65 N. W. 761; Stone v. Mfg. Co., 65 N. J. L. 20; 46 Atl. 696; Cornell v. Redrow, 60 N. J. Eq. 251; 47 Atl. 56; Kootz v. Tuvian, 118 N. C. 393; 24 S. E. 776; Murray City Ginning Co. v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 508.

17 Coward v. Clanton', 122 Cal. 451; 55 Pac. 147; Mayfield v. Turner, 180 111. 332; 54 N. E. 418; Grigsby v. Day, 9 S. D. 585; 70 N. W. 881.

18 Warwick v. Stockton, 55 N. J. Eq. 61; 36 Atl. 488.

19 Hodges v. Rogers, 115 Ga. 951;

42 S. E. 251.

20 Gore v. Benedict (Tenn. Ch. App.), 61 S. W. 1054.

21 Padgett v. Ford, 117 Ga. 508;

43 S. E. 1002.

22 Wheeler v. Lack, 37 Or. 238; 61 Pac. 849.

23 Johnson v. Carter, 120 Ia. 355; 94 N. W. 850; Richardson v. Carlton, 109 Ia. 515; 80 N. W. 532; Krall v. Forney, 182 Pa. St. 6; 37 Atl. 846.

24 In re Young (1896), 2 Q. B. 484; King v. Whichelow, 64 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 801; Meehan v. Valentine, 145 U. S. 611; Randle v. Barnard, 81 Fed. 682; Thillrnan v. Benton, 82 Md. 64; 33 Atl. 485; Clayton v. Davett (N. J. Ch.), 38 Atl. 308; State v. Hunt, 25 R. I. 69; 54 Atl. 937. Contra, Rahl v. Orendorff Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App. 72; 64 S. W. 1007.

25 Page v. Simpson, 188 Pa. St. 393; 68 Am. St. Rep. 874; 41 Atl. 638.

26 In re Young (1896), 2 Q. B. 484.

27 Hanthorn v. Quinn, 42 Or. 1; 69 Pac. 817.

28 Haines's Estate, 176 Pa. St. 354; 35 Atl. 237.

29 Thornton v. George, 108 Ga. 9; 33 S. E. 633.

30 (A share of profits for sawing logs,drying lumber and shipping it.) J. A. Fay, etc., Co. v. Ouachita, etc., Co., 51 La. Ann. 1708; 26 So. 386. Contra, where one was to furnish logs, the other to saw them, and the profits to be divided. Loveland v. Peter, 108 Mich. 154; 65 N. W. 748.

31 Huggins v. Huggins, 117 Ga. 151; 43 S. E. 759; Snyder v. Lind-sey, 157 N. Y. 616; 52 N. E. 592; Orvis v. Curtiss, 157 N. Y. 657; 68 Am. St. Rep. 810; 52 ST. E. 690; rehearing denied, 53 N. E. 1129.

32 Johnson v. Rothschilds, 63 Ark. 518; 41 S. W. 996. Citing Pooley v. Driver, L. R. 5 Ch. Div. 458; Du-bos v. Jones, 34 Fla. 539; 16 So. 392; Harvey v. Childs, 28 O. S. 319; 22 Am. Rep. 387.

33 Torbert v. Jeffrey, 161 Mo. 645; 61 S. W. 823.

34 Atchison, etc., Ry. v. Huckle-bridge, 62 Kan. 506; 64 Pac. 58.