titled. But when he seeks to recover money paid for a consideration which he has enjoyed or has had the benefit of, this presents quite another question. The $2,900 was paid to the appellant in consideration of being admitted as a partner in his business. He was admitted as a partner, and continued to be a member of the firm for at least a year. The business was not, it is true, a successful one, but this, in the absence of fraudulent representations on the part of the appellant, cannot affect the question. We are dealing with a contract between an infant and adult, executed on both sides, and upon the faith of which money was paid by the infant for a consideration which he has enjoyed. The privilege of infancy, says Lord Mansfield in Zouch v. Parsons, 3 Burrows 1804, was intended as a shield or protection to the infant, and not to be used as the instrument. of fraud and injustice to others; and to hold that an infant has the right, not only to withdraw from a partnership at his own pleasure, and to subject the adult partner to the payment of all the partnership debts, but has the right also to recover money paid by him as a consideration for being admitted into the partnership, would be, it seems to us, to extend the privilege beyond any just principles upon which it is founded.

66*

"We have quoted at length from the preceding cases, because the question at issue is an important one, and comes before us for the first time for decision. And while fully recognizing the privilege which the law accords to minors in regard to contracts made during their minority, yet, in a case like the present, where money is paid by a minor in consideration of being admitted as a partner in the business of the appellant, and he does become and remains a partner for a given time, he ought not to be allowed to recover back the money thus paid unless he was induced to enter into the partnership by the fraudulent representations of the appellant.

Question 576: What was the suit in this case about? Did it prevail?

(Note: Lindley says (Lindley on Partnership, 8th Ed., p. 91): "Moreover, notwithstanding the general irresponsibility of an infant, he cannot, as against his co-partners, insist that on taking the partnership accounts he shall be credited with profits and not be debited with losses. An infant partner

may avoid the contract into which he has entered, either before or within a reasonable time after he becomes of age. If he avoids the contract and has derived no benefit from it, he is entitled to recover back any money paid by him *

*

but he cannot do this if he has already obtained advantages under the contract, and is unable to restore the party contracting with him to the same position as if no contract had been entered into.")

§ 576.

(Partnerships, Sec. 17.) Consideration.

Case 577. Dale v. Hamilton, 5 Ha. 393.

VICE-CHANCELLOR WIGRAM: "If one man has skill and wants capital to make that skill available, and another has capital and wants skill, and the two agree that the one shall provide capital and the other skill, it is perfectly clear that there is a good consideration for the agreement on both sides, and it is impossible for the court to measure the quantum of value. The parties must decide that for themselves."

Question 577: What is the consideration in a partnership agreement?

§ 577. (Partnerships, Sec. 18.) Legality of object.

(Note: If the firm is for an illegal purpose, as for instance to smuggle goods, to deal in contraband, to conduct a gambling house, etc., the agreement is not only unenforceable, but the law will withhold its aid in making one partner account to the other.)

§ 584. Nature of partner's interest in firm property.

§ 578. (Partnerships, Sec. 19.)

Necessity of firm name.

(Note: A firm name is not absolutely indispensable. If parties are actually partners, the fact that they have not adopted any name will not prevent liability to third persons or any other legal consequence of partnership.)

§ 579. (Partnerships,. Sec. 20.) What firm name may consist of.

Case 578. Crawford et al. v. Collins et al., 45 Barb. 269.

Facts: Suit on a bond given by defendants to “Union Towing Company." Plaintiffs sue in their own proper names, as partners constituting the partnership under that name.

JAMES, J.: "This action was properly brought in the individual names of the plaintiffs; they were the persons who composed the firm known as the "Union Towing Company," the real owners of the debt and the legal holders of the bond. The parties to a partnership may

give it just such name as they please, and all contracts, obligations or notes made with or given to such firms may be prosecuted in the individual names of its members.

"It is different with corporations; but the Union Towing Company was not a corporation.

Question 578: (1) In the absence of statute, may the partners adopt a fictitious name?

(2) How is suit brought by or against partners on a contract executed in a partnership name that does not disclose the names of all the partners?

(3) A promissory note was given by W., P. and S., three partners composing a partnership under the name of W. & P. The three partners, W., P. and S. are sued thereon. S. defends he was not a party to the note. Assuming he is really a partner and that the note is a partnership note, is his defense good? (Swan v. Steele, 7 East. 210.)

Case 579. North v. Moore, 135 Cal. 621.

Facts: Suit by certain parties as partners trading as Abrams Bros. Defense, that Abrams Bros. have not complied with California law requiring every partnership transacting business under fictitious name or a designation not showing the names of the persons interested, to file with clerk of county court a certificate showing real names and make publication thereof in some newspaper, etc.

Point Involved: The necessity of complying with statutory regulations enacted in some states with reference to use of firm name not showing the real names of the parties interested.

CHIPMAN, C.:

66*

The firm name might apply equally to a partnership composed of two or more and might embrace all or only some of the brothers by the name of Abrams. The statute clearly defeats their rights to maintain an action

Question 579: Under what authority was the defense made. in this case? Why could not such defense have been made in the case immediately preceding?

(Note: Such provisions are in force in some, but not in all the states.)

§ 580. (Partnerships, Sec. 21.) Use of firm name.

Case 580. Hendren v. Wing, Stephens and Eggleston, 60 Ark. 561.

Facts: Suit to reclaim personal property mortgaged to plaintiffs naming them as the Arkansas Machinery & Supply Company. Defense, that this name is not the name either of a natural person or a corporation.

RIDDICK, J.: "The Arkansas Machinery & Supply Company is not a corporation, but it is the business name of a firm of partners. The question for us to determine is whether a chattel mortgage, executed to it, as such partnership, is valid at law. The decisions in regard to transfers of real estate to partnerships are based on the old rule that 'a partnership, as such, cannot at law be the grantee in a deed, or hold real estate.' Percefull v. Platt, 36 Ark. 464. This rule does not apply to personal property. On the contrary, a partnership, as such, can at law be the vendee in a bill of sale or other conveyance of personal property. The custom of the country teaches us that this is so. The business of the country is largely carried on by partners under partnership names which frequently do not contain the name of any person. A consideration of this fact shows that there is a wide distinction between the rights of partnerships at law, in regard to buying and selling of personal property and the restrictions that prevail there in regard to transfers of real estate

*

*

Question 580: (1) What was the question raised in this case? (2) Was the subject matter real or personal property? (3) In the opinion of the Court did the nature of the property as personal or real make a vital distinction?

Case 581. Percefull and wife v. Platt, 36 Ark. 456. Facts: Deed to real estate to George F. Lovejoy & Co. Platt sues in ejectment under this deed asserting