Actions. As a general rule an action at law does not lie by one partner against his co-partners for money paid or liabilities in curred on account of the partnership, be cause without an account it is impossible to tell whether a partner is a debtor or creditor of the firm; Smith v. Smith, 33 Mo. 557; Bracken v. Kennedy, 3 Scam. (Ill.) 558 ; Payne v. Freer, 91 N. Y. 43, 43 Am. Rep. 640; Johnson v. Wilson, 54 Ill. 419. See, contra, Gow, Part. c. 2, § 3. There are, however, many circumstances under which partners may sue each other; see Story, Part. § 219.
Articles of co-partnership. Partners may enter into any agreements between them selves, which are not void as against statu tory provisions or general principles of law, even though they do conflict with the or dinary rules of the law of partnership, and such engagements will be enforced between the parties; Pars. Part., 4th ed. § 160; 28 E. L. & Eq. 7.
One partner may obtain an injunction to restrain his co-partner from violating his rights under the contract of partnership, even when the dissolution of the partner ship is not asked; Leavitt v. Inv. Co., 54 Fed. 439, 4 C. C. A. 425, 12 U. S. App. 193; as not to carry on business ; 3 Beay. 383; or to divulge trade secrets; Roberts v. McKee, 29 Ga. 161; 9 Hare 241; or to collect debts of the firm ; 8 Ves. 317; Ellis v. Commander, 1 Strob. Eq. (S. C.) 188.
But it is held that equity will not inter fere 'with the suit of a partner to prevent a dissolution made in contravention of the partnership articles, or to compel specific performance of them, the contract being of an essentially personal character; Satter thwait v. Marshall, 4 Del. Ch. 337; Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 459; Karrick v. Hannaman, 168 U. S. 336, 18 Sup. Ct. 135, 42 L. Ed. 484.
But the partnership articles do not affect third persons, unless they have notice of them ; 2 B. & Ald. 697; 8 M. & W. 703; Gano v. Samuel, 14 Ohio 592; Whitaker v. Brown, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 505.
Claims against the firm. A partner may be a firm creditor and is entitled to pay ment of his claim before judgment• creditors of the individual partners ; Uhler v. Semple, 20 N. J. Eq. 288.
Compensation. As it is the duty of part ners to devote themselves to the interests of the business, it follows that they are not entitled to any special compensation for so doing, although the services performed by them are very unequal in amount and value, unless there is an express stipulation for re muneration ; Caldwell v. Leiber, 7 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 483 ; Pierce v. Pierce, 89 Mich. 233, 50 N. W. 851; Denver v. Roane, 99 U. S. 355, 25 L. Ed. 476 ; Lindsey v. Stranahan, 129 Pa. 635, 18 Atl. 524; Adams v. Warren
(Ala.) 11 South. 754 ; Nevills v. Min. Co., 135 Cal. 561, 67 Pac. 1054 ; Roth v. Boies, 139 Ia. 253, 115 N. W. 930 ; Williams v. Pe dersen, 47 Wash. 472, 92 Pac. 287, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 385, and note where the cases are collected; nor for services performed prior to the partnership, although they en ure to its benefit ; Dunlap v. Watson, 124 Mass. 305. A surviving partner has been held entitled to compensation for continuing the business, in order to save the good-will; Cameron v. Francisco, 26 Ohio St. 190. A surviving partner is ordinarily entitled to compensation after dissolution ; 25 Beay. 382 ; but it is held that a liquidating part ner is not entitled to compensation for wind ing up the concern ; Burgess v. Badger, 82 Hun 488, 31 N. Y. Supp. 614 ; Appeal of Brown, 89 Pa. 139 ; Denver v. Roane, 99 U. S. 355, 25 L. Ed. 476 ; Dunlap v. Watson, 124 Mass. 305; so of a surviving or liquidating partner ; Burgess v. Badger, 82 Hun 488, 31 N. Y. Supp. 614; Burgess v. Badger, 82 Hun 488, 31 N. Y. Supp. 614 ; but he is entitled to be paid his expenses ; Book v. O'Neil, 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 306. But where it was agreed that a partner should not give personal serv ices, he may recover for services rendered the firm at their request ; Lewis v. Moffett, 11 Ill. 392. See Liquidating partner, infra.
Contribution. Since partners are coprin cipals and all liable for the firm debts, any partner who pays its liabilities is, in the ab sence of agreement to the contrary, entitled to contribution from his co-partners; Lind: Part., 2d Am. ed. *367; 6 De G. M. & G. 572; Kelly v. Kauffman, 18 Pa. 351. The right exists independently of the articles of part nership even if not there recognized ; Taft v. Schwamb, 80 Ill. 289 ; Moley v. Brine, 120 Mass. 324 ; Jones v. Butler, 87 N. Y. 613.
Ewemption. The right of partners to stat utory exemption out firm property is a disputed point, and depends somewhat on the statutes of the several states. It has been held that they are not so entitled ; Cowan v. Creditors, 77 Cal. 403, 19 Pac. 755, 11 Am. St. Rep. 294; First N. Bk. v. Hackett, 61 Wis. 335, 21 N. W. 280 ; Pond v. 101 Mass. 105; Thurlow v. Warren, 82 Me. 164, 19 Atl. 158, 17 Am. St. Rep. 472 ; Hart v. Hiatt, 2 Ind. T. 245, 48 S. W. 1038; Gay lord v. Imhoff, 26 Ohio St. 317, 20 Am. Rep. 762; Bonsall v. Comly, 44 Pa. 442; contra, Harris v. Visscher, 57 Ga. 229 ; Skinner v. Shannon, 44 Mich. 86, 6 N. W. 108, 38 Am. Rep. 232 ; Stewart v. Brown, 37 N. Y. 350, 93 Am. Dec. 578 ; Ladwlg v. Williams, 87 Wis. 615, 58 N. W. 1103 ; McKinney v. Baker, 9 Or. 74. See Thomps. Hom. & Ex. § 197.