§ 316. We come next in order to the consideration of what constitutes a dissolution of partnership. A partnership may be dissolved in six ways: 1st. By the death, or incapacity, or bankruptcy, of the parties, or of either party; 2d. By the consent and agreement of the parties, or some of them; 3d. By the expiration of the time limited in the articles of copartnership for its duration; 4th. By the decree of a court of equity; 5th. By the extinction of the subject-matter of the partnership, or the completion of the business; 6th. By a war between the countries of which the partners are respectively subjects.
§ 317. First. A partnership will be entirely dissolved by the death of one of the partners, however numerous the partners may be; upon the ground that the personal qualifications and skill of each party constitute the consideration of the contract. The dissolution takes effect from the time when the surviving partners receive notice of the death of one of the members.1 So, also, if either party become incapacitated to act, the partnership is dissolved; whether such incapacity be created by law, or exist in fact; as if a person become palsied or idiotic; or if he lose his capacity by reason of outlawry, or attainder of felony, or treason; or by subsequent marriage, if the partner be a feme sole; or if war be declared between the countries of which the partners are subjects respectively.2 So, also, the absolute absconding of one partner would operate to dissolve a partnership, although a mere voluntary and temporary absence would not.3 Where one of the partners sells his share to a stranger, or to one of the firm, the change of parties would also dissolve the partnership,4 unless there be a special provision for such a circumstance in the articles of copartnership. Again, the bankruptcy or insolvency of either the whole firm, or of an individual member; or a voluntary and bond fide assignment by one of the partners of all his interest in the stock, operates as a dissolution of the partnership, and the assignee or purchaser becomes tenant in common with the other partners.5 This rule is founded upon the fact that a continually
1 Story on Part. § 160, 161, 162; 3 Kent, Comm. lect. 43, p. 67, 68; Coll. on Part. B. 3, ch. 3, p. 368 to 371, 2d ed.; Gow on Part. ch. 5, § 2, p. 248 to 251, 3d ed.; Watson on Part. ch. 7, p. 384, 385, 2d ed.; 2 Bell, Comm. B. 7, p. 640 to 643, 5th ed.; Parkin v. Carruthers, 3 Esp. 248; Carter v. Whalley, 1 B. & Ad. 11; Newsome v. Coles, 2 Camp. 617; Godfrey v. Turnbull, 1 Esp. 371.
2 Story on Part. § 128, 129, 162; Gow on Part. ch. 5, § 2, p. 248 to 251, 3d ed.; Coll. on Part. B. 3, ch. 3, § 3, p. 368 to 375, 2d ed.
3 Anderson v. Maltby, 2 Ves. Jr. 244; s. c. 4 Bro. C. C. 423; Coll. on Part. B. 3, ch. 3, § 3, p. 400 to 404, 2d ed.; Parker v. Ramsbottom, 3 B. & C. 257; Ex parte Peake, 1 Madd. 346; Gow on Part. ch. 5, § 2, p. 237, 238, 3d ed.; Story on Part. § 163.
4 Buffalo City Bank v. Howard, 35 NT. Y. 500 (1866).
1 Story on Part. § 317, 318, 319; Nerot v. Burnand, 4 Russ. 250; 3 Kent, Comm. lect. 43, p. 56; Crawshay v. Collins, 15 Ves. 218; Gow on Part. ch. 5, § 1, p. 219, 220; Vulliamy v. Noble, 3 Meriv. 614; Gillespie v. Hamilton, 3 Madd. 251; Scholefield v. Eichelberger, 7 Peters, 586; Burwell v. Cawood, 2 How. 560; Knapp v. McBride, 7 Ala. 19.
2 Griswold v. Waddington, 16 Johns. 438; Story on Part. § 303, 304, 315; Coll. on Part. B. 1, ch. 2, § 2, p. 71; Watson on Part. ch. 5, § 1, p. 216, 217, 3d ed.; Nerot v. Burnand, 4 Russ. 247; Potts v. Bell, 8 T. R. 561; The Rapid, 8 Cranch, 155, 161; The Hoop, 1 Rob. Adm. 196; The Julia, 8 Cranch, 181. See Clemontson v. Blessig, 11 Exch. 135.
3 Whitman v. Leonard, 3 Pick. 179; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. 94. See Ayer v. Ayer, 41 Vt. 346 (1868); Tenney v. New England Prot. Union, 37 Vt. 64 (1864).
4 Cochran v. Perry, 8 Watts & Serg. 262.
5 Marquand v. Pres. & Dir. of N. Y. Manuf. Co., 17 Johns. 525; Ketcham v. Clark, 6 Johns. 148; 3 Kent, Comm. lect. 43, p. 59, 4th ed.; Rodriguez v. Hefiernan, 5 Johns. Ch. 417; Nicoll v. Mumford, 4 Johns. Ch. 522, 525; Ex parte Barrow, 2 Rose, 252; Murray v. Bogert, 14 Johns. 318; Kingman tion of the partnership is at variance with the regulation of the bankrupt law, the whole of the bankrupt's property being vested in the assignee. The dissolution takes effect from the decree of bankruptcy under the commission, and reverts to the time when the act of bankruptcy was committed.1 From the time, therefore, of the act of bankruptcy, all the acts of the bankrupt partner are void, and the solvent partners cannot carry on the partnership business.2 So, also, in the case of involuntary assignment, under judicial process, where a separate creditor of the partner levies an execution on the partnership goods and sells them, the partnership is dissolved fro tanto, to the extent of the right, title, and interest levied upon, and sold.3
§ 318. Secondly. If there be no definite time agreed upon limiting the duration of the partnership, it may be dissolved at any moment by one partner; for, in such case, it can only exist by the consent of all the parties. But if the partnership be formed for a definite time, it can only be dissolved, within that time, by the mutual agreement of all the parties.4
§ 319. Thirdly. If a time be fixed for the duration of the partnership, upon the expiration of such time it is dissolved.
v. Spurr, 7 Pick. 235; Heath v. Sansom, 4 B. & Ad. 175; Tapley v. Butter-field, 1 Met. 515; Havens v. Hussey, 5 Paige, 30, 31; Hitchcock v. St. John, Hoffm. 511; Anderson v. Tompkins, 1 Brock. 456; Pearpoint v. Graham, 4 Wash. C. C. 232; Story on Part. 307-309; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. 94.
1 Story on Part. § 314; Watson on Part. ch. 5, p. 302 to 313, 2d ed.; Gow on Part. ch. 5, § 3, p. 298; Coll. on Part. B. 4, ch. 1, p. 583 to 590; Fox v.. Hanbury, Cowp. 445; Hague v. Rolleston, 4 Burr. 2174; Ex parte Smith, 5 Ves. 295; Harvey v. Crickett, 5 M. & S. 336; Dutton v. Morrison, 17 Ves. 194; Barker v. Goodair, 11 Ves. 78; Thomason v. Frere, 10 East, 418.