CLASSIFICATION OF PARTNERSHIPS. The Roman law recognized five sorts of partner ship. First: societas unilversorum bonorum, a community of • goods: probably a survival of the old tribal relation. Second: societas universorum gum ex qucestu veniunt, or part nership in everything which comes from gain,—the usual form ; Pothier, Part. nn. 29, 43. Such contracts are said to be within the scope of the common law ; but they are of very rare existence; Story, Part. § 72 ; II. S. Bank v. Binney, 5 Mas. 183, Fed. Cas. No. 16,791. Third: socictas vectiganuni, a partnership in the collection of taxes. It was not dissolved by the death of a member ; and if it was so agreed in the beginning, the heir immediately succeeded to the place of the aftcestor. Fourth: sociotas negotia tionis enclitics, i. e. in a given business ven ture. Fifth: societas certarum rerum vel unfits rei, i. e. in the acquisition or sale of one or more specific things ; Pothier, Part. In the French law there are four prin cipal classes of partnership; First: en nom collectif, the ordinary general partnership. Second: en commandite, an association cor responding to our limited partnership, com posed of general and special partners in which the liability of the latter is limited to the fund invested by them. Third: anonyme, a joint stock company with limited liability. Fourth: en participation, simply a partner ship with a dormant partner ; Merlin, Re pert. de Jur. tit. Societe; Mackenzie, Rom. Law 217; Pothier, Part. *39. See Goiraud, Code, etc.
In the common law all partnership is for gain. General partnership is for a general line of business ; 3 Kent *25; Cowp. 814. But where the parties are engaged in one branch of trade or business only, they would be usually spoken of as engaged in a general partnership ; Story, Part. § 74. Special or particular partnership is one confined to a particular transaction. The extent or scope of the agreement is different in the two cases, but the character of the relation is the same. A partnership may exist in a single transac tion as well as in a series ; Daveis 323 ; Solomon v. Solomon, 2 Ga. 18; 3 C. B. 641;
Schollenberger v. Seldonridge, 49 Pa. 83. Special or limited partnership differs from the ordinary relation. It is composed of general partners to whom all the ordinary rules of partnership apply, and of limited partners with circumscribed power and lia bility limited to the amount of their contri bution. Theprivilege.is imparted by charter in England. In America it exists by statute ; and unless the provisions of the act are strictly complied with, the association will be as a genera] partnership; 3 Kent *35; Van Ingen v. Whitman, 62 N. Y. 513 ; Henkel v. Heyman, 91 Ill. 96; Vanhorn v. Corcoran, 127 Pa. 255, 18 Atl. 16, 4 L. R. A. 386. The special exemption of a limited partner will be recognized in other jurisdic tions than the one in which the association is formed, though the firm has made the con tract in the , foreign jurisdiction ; King v. Sarria, 69 N. Y. 24, 25 Am. Rep. 128.
Another sort of association is styled Lim ited pairtnership. It is of recent, statutory origin and strongly resembles a corporation. The members incur no liability beyond the amount of their subscription ; ,unless they violate in some manner the requirements of the statute under which they organize. It is a general requirement, that the word "lim ited" be in all cases added to the firm name. Limited partnerships in Pennsylvania, which can be sued in the partnership name, are nevertheless not corporations entitled to sue as artificial citizens of the states, within the constitution and laws of the United States; Imperial Refin. Co. v. Wyman, 38 Fed. 574, 3 L. R. A. 503.
In Louisiana and in Panama and the Canal Zone, under the civil law, a limited partner ship is known as a partnership in convmen dam; and in Hawaii it is provided that lim ited partnerships may be formed between corporations. For a list of statutes on the subject in force to 1911, see Gilmore, Partn. 597, n. 20.