At Common Law one partner could not sue another on matters arising out of the partnership before an accounting was had between the partners,1 and while the partnership was still in existence.2 So an action could not be brought by the executor against the surviving partner,3 or by the surviving partner against the heirs of a deceased partner while the partnership accounts are unsettled.4 This objection is waived by failure to object at trial.5 Such an action at law would lie after the partnership was ended, or after accounting.6 A partner may sue at law for contribution upon a matter outside the partnership,7 or where by express agreement a partnership item has been separated from the mass of partnership business.8 One partner may before final accounting maintain an action at law against another to recover money borrowed by the latter from the former to put into the partnership business,9 or for money which he is to pay the former for an interest in a patent which they are to contribute to the partnership.10 So where a partnership is formed between physicians to carry out a contract to transfer the good will of one to the other a suit can be brought for failure to transfer such good will.11 After an accounting and an adjustment of all rights and liabilities growing out of the partnership one partner may maintain an action against the other for the balance due.12 Thus one partner may sue another on a note given on sufficient consideration based on partnership accounts,13 or on an express agreement based on a mutual adjustment of their affairs.14 After dissolution and a sale by one partner to the others the former may maintain an action against such others.15 So, after a dissolution of a firm composed of A, B and C, whereby A was to collect all claims and pay all debts, A may maintain an action on a debt due from B and C to the firm of A, B and C.16 So, after dissolution of a firm composed of A and B under an agreement whereby A owns all the accounts, A may maintain an action against B if B collects any of such accounts.17

13 Huggins v. Huggins, 117 Ga. 151; 43 S. E. 759.

1 Dukes v. Kellogg, 127 Cal. 563; 60 Pac. 44; Miller v. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654; 51 L. R. A. 504; 36 S. E. 961; Sindelare v. Walker, 137 111. 43; 31 Am. St. Rep. 353; 27 N. E. 59; Bowzer v. Stoughton, 119 111. 47; 9 N. E. 208; Newman v. Tich-enor, 88 111. App. 1; O'Brien v. Smith, 42 Kan. 49; 21 Pac. 784; Stone v. Mattingly (Ky.), 19 S. W. 402; Johnson v. Ewald, 82 Mo. App. 276; Willey v. Renner, 8 N. M. 641; 45 Pac. 1132; Devore v. Woodruff, 1 N. D. 143; 45 N. W. 701; Kun-neke v. Mapel, 60 O. S. 1; 53 N. E. 259; Oglesby v. Thompson, 59 O. S. 60; 51 N. E. 878; Eddins v. Mene-fee (Tenn. Ch. App.), 54 S. W. 992.

2 Miller v. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654; 51 L. R. A. 504; 36 S. E. 961; Sebastian v. Academy Co. (Ky.), 56 S. W. 810.

3 Palm v. Poponoe, 60 Kan. 297; 56 Pac. 480.

4 Blakley v. Smock, 96 Wis. 611; 71 N. W. 1052.

5 Smith v. Putnam, 107 Wis. 155;

82 N. W. 1077; rehearing denied,

83 N. W. 288.

6 Johnson v. Peck, 58 Ark. 580; 25 S. W. 865.

7 Bull v. Coe, 77 Cal. 54; 11 Am. St. Rep. 235; 18 Pac. 808; Mullany v. Keenan, 10 Ia. 224; Soule v. Frost, 76 Me. 119; Carpenter v. Greenap, 74 Mich. 664; 16 Am. St. Rep. 662; 4 L. R. A. 241; 42 N. W. 276; Bates v. Lane, 62 Mich. 132; 28 N. W. 753; Halleck v. Streeter, 52 Neb. 827; 73 N. W. 219; Bank v. Delafield. 126 N. Y. 410; 27 N. E. 797; Jennings v. Pratt, 19 Utah 129; 56 Pac. 951; Coffin v. Mcintosh, 9 Utah 315; 34 Pac. 247.

8 Williams v. Henshaw, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 79; 22 Am. Dec. 366; George v. Benjamin, 100 Wis. 622; 69 Am. St. Rep. 963; 76 N. W. 619. Compare McMahon v. Rauhr, 47 N. Y. 67.

9 Bull v. Coe, 77 Cal. 54; 11 Am. St. Rep. 235; 18 Pac. 808; Crater v. Bininger, 45 N. Y. 545.

10 Cook v. Canny, 96 Mich. 398; 55 N. W. 987.

11 Tichenor v. Newman, 186 111. 264; 57 N. E. 826.

12 Douthit v. Douthit, 133 Ind. 26; Thompson v. Smith, 82 Ia. 598; 48 N. W. 988; Logan v. Trayser, 77 Wis. 579; 46 N. W. 877.

13 Scott v. Campbell, 30 Ala. 728;

Berry v. De Bruyn, 77 111. App. 359; Hey v. Harding (Ky.), 53 S. W. 33; Chamberlain v. Walker, 10 All. (Mass.) 429; Mitchell v. Wells, 54 Mich. 127; 19 N. W. 777; Bank v. Wood, 128 N. Y. 35; 27 N. E. 1020; Crater v. Bininger, 45 N. Y. 545; Moore v. Gano, 12 Ohio 300; Wilson v. Wilson, 26 Or. 251; 38 Pac. 185.

14 Douthit v. Douthit, 133 Ind. 26; 32 N. E. 715.

15 Huffman v. Huffman, 63 S. C. 1; 40 S. E. 963.

16 Beede v. Fraser, 66 Vt. 114; 44 Am. St. Rep. 824; 28 Atl. 880.

17 Glade v. White, 42 Neb. 336; 60 N. W. 556.

The law cannot settle accounts between three partners,18 nor could two firms sue each other if they had a member in common.19 However, if one of two firms having a common member gives a note to the other firm for a partnership debt, signed by the individual names of some of the partners, omitting the name of the member in common, the payee firm may sue the makers at law.20 Where the statute makes partnership contracts joint and several, one partner may sue the other at law on a joint and several note.21 By reason of its more flexible procedure, equity gives adequate relief in actions between partners growing out of partnership business,22 or in an action between two firms having a common member.23

18 Stevens v. Coburn, 71 Vt. 261; 44 Atl. 354.

19 Crosby v. Timolat, 50 Minn. 171; 52 N. W. 526.

20 jungk v. Reed, 9 Utah 49; 33 Pac. 236.

21 Morrison v. Stockwell, 9 Dana

(Ky.) 172; Sturges v. Swift, 32

Miss. 239; Willis v. Barron, 143

Mo. 450; 65 Am. St. Rep. 673; 45

S. W. 289; Merrill v. Green, 55 N. Y. 270; Walker v. Wait, 50 Vt. 668.

22 Vieth v. Ress, 60 Neb. 52; 82 N. W. 116; Sanger v. French, 157 N. Y. 213; 51 N. E. 979.

23 Sehnebly v. Cutler, 22 111. App. 87; Crosby v. Timolat, 50 Minn. 171; 52 N. W. 526; Cole v. Reynolds, 18 N. Y. 74.