A partnership when once formed may be dissolved by the agreement of the partners,1 or by the act of either, even if before the time for which the contract was to last.2 Some courts have expressed the view that such a partnership cannot be dissolved without cause before the time limited.3 If a partnership is formed to last for a fixed time, but the right to dissolve the partnership by giving written notice is reserved, it may be dissolved at any time by such written notice.4 Dissolution by operation of law may be caused by efflux of the time fixed by the partnership agreement,5 or by death of a partner.6 There is

11 Sibley v. Bank, 97 Ga. 126; 25 S. E. 470.

12 Miller v. Glass Works, 172 Pa. St. 70; 33 Atl. 350 (as that the partners were individually liable on the contract).

13 Peterson v. Armstrong, 24 Utah 96; 66 Pac. 767.

1 Richardson v. Gregory, 126 111. 166; 18 N. E. 777; Howard v. Pratt, 110 Ia. 533; 81 N. W. 722; Wood v. Fox, 1 A. K. Mar. (Ky.) 451.

2 Lapenta v. Lattieri, 72 Conn. 377; 77 Am. St. Rep. 315; 44 Atl. 730; Solomon v. Kirkwood, 55 Mich. 256; 21 N. W. 336; Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 513; 10 Am. Dec. 286. Undoubtedly either has the power to end the partnership whenever he pleases; though his exercise of that power without just cause may leave him liable in damages for such dissolution. See La-penta v. Lattieri, 72 Conn. 377; 77 Am. St. Rep. 315; 44 Atl. 730.

3 Hannaman v. Karrick, 9 Utah 236; 33 Pac. 1039; Cole v. Moxley, 12 W. Va. 730; Moore v. May, 117 Wis. 192; 94 N. W. 45. Hannaman v. Karrich, 9 Utah 236; 33 Pac. 1039, was affirmed by the supreme court of the United States in Karrick v. Hannaman, 168 U. S. 328, not on the ground that the rule of law there laid down was correct, for the Supreme Court was "not prepared to assent" to the proposition involved; but on the ground that the measure of damages given was exactly the same as would be allowed if the one partner could by his wrongful act dissolve the partnership before the expiration of the time limited.

4 Swift v. Ward, 80 Ia. 700; 11 L. R. A. 302; 45 N. W. 1044.

5 Morrill v. Weeks, 70 N. H. 17S; 46 Atl. 32.

6 Parker v. Parker, 99 Ala. 239; 42 Am. St. Rep. 48; 13 So. 520; Maynard v. Richards, 166 111. 466; qualified existence of the partnership for purposes of settlement.7 By contract it may be agreed that death will not cause dissolution.8 A partnership formed by contract, as a joint-stock company, is not dissolved by the death of a member if such is the original agreement,9 or by a sale of the share of a partner to a person outside the company.10 In legal effect a provision that death shall not dissolve the partnership creates a new partnership.11 Conveyance of all the firm's property,12 sale of the entire business,13 ceasing to do business,14 and rescission by one partner because the other wrongfully refuses to pay in his share of the capital,15 cause dissolution by operation of law. So a sale of one partner's interest is held to effect a dissolution.18

57 Am. St. Rep. 145; 46 N. E. 1138; affirming, 61 111. App. 336; Schmidt v. Archer, 113 Ind. 365; 14 N. E. 543; Van Kleeck v. McCabe, 87 Mich. 599; 24 Am. St. Rep. 182; 49 X. W. 872; Russell v. McCall, 141 X. Y. 437; 38 Am. St. Rep. 807; 36 N. E. 498; Stubbings v. O'Connor, 102 Wis. 352; 78 N. W. 577. Contra of mining partnerships, Patrick v. Weston, 22 Colo. 45; 43 Pac. 446; Childers v. Neely, 47 W. Va. 70; 81 Am. St. Rep. 777; 49 L. R. A. 468; 34 S. E. 828.

7 Maynard v. Richards, 166 111. 466; 57 Am. St. Rep. 145; 46 N. E. 1138; affirming, 61 111. App. 336.

8 Scholefield v. Eichelberger, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 586; Vincent v. Martin, 79 Ala. 540; Rand v. Wright, 141 Ind. 226; 39 X. E. 447; Stan-wood v. Owen, 14 Gray (Mass.) 195; Exchange Bank v. Tracy, 77 Mo. 594; Wilcox v. Derickson, 168 Pa. St. 331; 31 Atl. 1080; Brew v. Hastings, 196 Pa. St. 222; 79 Am. St. Rep. 706; 46 Atl. 257; Davis v. Christian, 15 Gratt. (Va.) 11; Mc-Nash v. Oat Co., 57 Vt. 316; Willis v. Chapman, 68 Vt. 459; 35 Atl. 459. Contra, Laney v. Laney, 6 Dem. (X. Y.) 241.

9 Carter v. McClure, 98 Tenn. 109; 60 Am. St. Rep. 842; 36 L. R. A. 282; 30 S. W. 585.

10 Machinists' National Bank v. Dean, 124 Mass. 81; McNeist v. Oat Co., 57 Vt. 316; Walker v. Wait, 50 Vt. 668.

11 Pitkin v. Pitkin, 7 Conn. 307; 18 Am. Dec. 1ll; Exchange Bank v. Tracy, 77 Mo. 594; Kennedy v. Porter, 109 X. Y. 526; 17 X. E. 426; McGrath v. Cowen, 57 O. S. 385; 49 X. E. 338.

12 Dellapiazza v. Foley, 112 Cal. 380; 44 Pac. 727.

13 Haeberly's Appeal, 191 Pa. St. 239; 43 Atl. 207.

14 Ligare v. Peacock, 109 111. 94; Bank v. Page, 98 111. 109; Potter v. Tolbert, 113 Mich. 486; 71 N. W. 849; Jones v. Jones, 18 Ohio C. C. 260; 10 Ohio C. D. 71.

15 Lapenta v. Lettieri, 72 Conn. 377; 77 Am. St. Rep. 315; 44 Atl. 730.

16 Rowe v. Simmons, 113 Cal. 688; 45 Pac. 983; Summerlot v. Hamilton, 121 Ind. 87; 22 N. E. 973; Schlicher v. Vogel, 61 N. J. Eq. 158; 47 Atl. 448. Contra, in mining partnerships, Childers v. Neely, 47 W. Va. 70; 81 Am. St.

So, taking in new partner is a new contract, and abrogates a provision that if either partner becomes intoxicated he shall pay $1,000 to the other.17 But the mere delivery of a "trust mortgage,"18 or an agreement to sell partnership interest, do not effect dissolution.19 A decree of court may effect a dissolution. Such a decree may be based on fraud,20 or exclusion from inspection of books,21 or insanity,22 or on the insolvency of a partner.23 Thus the transfer of one partner's interest in partnership real estate made to his father without consideration to avoid paying debts of the firm is ground for dissolution.24 Insanity is not of itself dissolution, but is merely the ground for a decree of dissolution,25 even after adjudication.26 Bankruptcy of one partner does not of itself dissolve a partnership.27 If a partnership is formed between husband and wife, a divorce does not of itself dissolve such partnership.28 Lack of mutual trust is ground for a decree of dissolution.29 But the sale of transferable-shares in a partnership organized as a joint stock company, if acquiesced in by other members, is not dissolution.30