WILLIAM BEECHAM, defendant below, app't. vs. AZAEL DODD, surviving partner of Waples & Dodd, plaintiff below, respondent

WILLIAM BEECHAM, defendant below, app’t. vs. AZAEL DODD, surviving partner of Waples & Dodd, plaintiff below, respondent. Definition of a partnership. What is a partnership is a question of law; its existence is a question of fact. This was an appeal from the judgment of justice Dingle, in an action of assumpsit for work and labor, goods sold, áse. The pleas were non-assumpsit and set-off of a debt due from Waples to defendant. The case turned on the question whether there was a partnership between Dodd & Waples. Ridgely, for plaintiff, on this question cited Goio on Part 1; 2 H. Blac. 244; 2 Wm. Blac. 998; 17 Ves. 404, 412. Cullen, for defendant, contra, cited Coll, on Part. 8, 14 b.; 4 East Rep. 144; Gow 20; 1 Com. Law Rep. 20. [MAJORITY — Booth, Chief Justice,] Booth, Chief Justice, charged.— What constitutes a partnership is a question of law; whether a partnership exists, is a question of fact. A partnership is a voluntary contract between two or more per-ons for joining together their money, goods, labor and skill, to carry on business jointly, with an agreement to divide proportionally in he profits, and also the losses. There must be an agreement, either express or implied, reciprocally to participate in the losses as well is the profits of the concern. This communion of profit and loss is issential to constitute a complete partnership as well between the jarties, as in respect to strangers, who deal with them. There must )e a common interest in the stock of the company, and a personal •esponsibility for the partnership engagements. The shares of the arties in the concern must be joint; but it is not necessary they hould be equal. The sharing of the profits without also sharing the| ss, will not constitute a partnership. Therefore, where a party ¡urnishes his labor and agrees to receive a share of the profits as a ompensation for his labor, or in lieu of wages, he is not a partner. So where a parfy agrees to give his services in conducting the business of another, and to receive for his services a salary and a certain commission or per centage on the profits arising from the goods sold, the salary to be deducted from the commission, it does not constitute a partnership. Ridgely, for plaintiff. Cullen, for defendant. If there was an agreement that Waples was to find the shop and the materials, and Dodd was to furnish his skill and labor, and to receive as a compensation for such skill and labor, one-half or any other certain share of the sales of the articles manufactured, such agreement does not constitute a partnership. But if the agreement was that Waples should find the shop and the materials, and Dodd was to furnish his skill and labor, and both had a common interest in the stock of the concern, with an agreement to divide the profits and losses between them, such an agreement constituted a partnership. Verdict for defendant.