A partner in a non-trading firm has very limited power to bind the partnership. A partner in a non-trading firm may contract for supplies,1 but he cannot otherwise contract firm debts,2 and he cannot give the firm's note even for the firm's debt, so as to bind his partners if they object thereto.3 Thus a member of a law firm cannot borrow money for the firm,4 or bind the firm by a note,5 or agree to collect a note without charge,6 or be a constructive trustee so as to charge his partner with knowledge.7 So one of a firm of solicitors cannot allow a third person to use the firm name.8 A member of a mining partnership has not general power to bind his partners.9 So a member of a firm of physicians,10 publishers,11 or planters,12

1 McPherson v. Bristol, 122 Mich. 354; 81 N. W. 254.

2 Schellenbeck v. Studebaker, 13 Ind. App. 437; 55 Am. St. Rep. 240; 41 N. E. 845; Breckinridge v. Shrieve, 4 Dana (Ky.) 375; Smith v. Sloan, 37 Wis. 285; 19 Am. Rep. 757.

3 Dowling v. Bank, 145 U. S. 512; Teed v. Parsons, 202 111. 455; 66 N. E. 1044; reversing, 100 111. App. 342; Schellenbeck v. Studebaker, 13 Ind. App. 437; 55 Am. St. Rep. 240; 41 N. E. 845; Lee v. Bank, 45 Kan. 8; 11 L. R. A. 238; 25 Pac. 196; Harris v. Baltimore, 73 Md. 22; 25 Am. St. Rep. 565; 8 L. R. A. 677; 17 Atl. 1046; 20 Atl. 1ll, 985; Mc-Pherson v. Bristol, 115 Mich. 258; 73 N. W. 236; Stavnow v. Kenefick, 79 Mo. App. 41; National, etc., Bank v. Noyes, 62 N. H. 35; Walker v. Walker, 66 Vt. 285; 29 Atl. 146; Snively v. Matheson, 12 Wash. 88; 50 Am. St. Rep. 877; 40 Pac. 628; Smith v. Sloan, 37 Wis. 285; 19 Am. Rep. 757.

4 Worster v. Forbush, 171 Mass. 423; 50 N. E. 936.

5 Hedley v. Bainbridge 3 Q. B.

316; Garland v. Jacomb, L. R. 8 Exch. 216; Levy v. Pyne, Car. & M. 453; Breckinridge v. Shrieve, 4 Dana (Ky.) 375.

6 Davis v. Dodson, 95 Ga. 718; 51 Am. St. Rep. 108; 29 L. R. A. 496; 22 S. E. 645. (Hence if he misappropriates the money, the firm is not liable.)

7 Mara v. Browne (C. A.) (1896), 1 Ch. 199.

8 Marsh v. Joseph (C. A.) (1897), 1 Ch. 213.

9 McConnell v. Denver, 35 Cal. 365; 95 Am. Dec. 107; Skillman v. Lachman, 23 Cal. 199; 83 Am. Dec. 96; Patrick v. Weston, 22 Colo. 45; 43 Pac. 446; Judge v. Brasewell, 13 Bush (Ky.) 67; Congdon v. Olds, 18 Mont. 487; 46 Pac. 261; Wal-dron v. Hughes, 44 W. Va. 126; 29 S. E. 505.

10 Crosthwait v. Ross, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 23; 34 Am. Dec. 613.

11 Pooley v. Whitmore, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 629; 27 Am. Rep. 733.

12 Benton v. Roberts, 4 La. Ann. 216; Prince v. Crawford, 50 Miss. 344.

2annot bind the firm by a note. A firm engaged in the business of contracting and building,13 or digging tunnels,14 or in paving and curbing streets,15 or in keeping a tavern,16 or in milling,17 is a non-trading firm.