4. By a valid assignment of all the part nership effects for the benefit of creditors, which has been held to work immediate dis solution ; Welles v. March, 30 N. Y. 344; Wells v. Ellis, 68 Cal. 243, 9 Pac. 80; either under insolvent acts; Colly. Part. 6th ed. § 102 ; or otherwise; Simmons v. Curtis, 41 Me. 373; but this is only prima facie evi dence of dissolution which other circum stances may rebut ; Pleasants v. Meng, 1 Dall. (Pa.) 380, 1 L. Ed. 185 ; by a sale of the partnership under a separate execu tion against one partner ; 2 V. & B. 300; 3 Kent 59. It is said that this does not consti tute a dissolution but inevitably leads to it; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 296; Carter v. Roland, 53 Tex. 540; but it was said by Fuller, C. J., "The abso lute right to have the affairs of the firm at once wound up, when the specified duration of the partnership has not expired, may be subject to modification according to circum stances ;" Riddle v. Whitehill, 135 U. S. 621, 633, 10 sup. Ct. 924, 34 L. Ed. 282. The mere insolvency of one or all of the members of a partnership, without a suspension or judi cial process, etc., does not of itself operate a dissolution; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 296; but it at least gives to the partners an option to require one; Williston v. Camp, 9 Mont. 88, 22 Pac. 501.
5. By the civil death of one of the part ners; Pothier, Part. n. 147. But the abscond ing of a party from the state does not of itself operate a dissolution; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 296. See Story, Part. § 298.
6. By the breaking out of war between two states in which the partners are domiciled and carrying on trade; Griswold v. Wad dington, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 438; McStea v. Matthews, 50 N. Y. 166 ; Matthews v. Mc Stea, 91 U. S. 7, 23 L. Ed. 188. See W.
7. By the marriage of a feme sole partner; 4 Russ. 260; 3 Kent 55. This would now, in view of the recent married women acts, depend upon the laws of the state; Brown v. Chancellor, 61 Tex. 437. The marriage of a male and female partner would work a dis solution; Bassett v. Shepardson, 52 Mich. 3, 17 N. W. 217.
8. By the eztinction of the subject-matter of the joint business or undertaking ; Gris wold v. Waddington, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 491; and by the completion of the business or ad venture for which the partnership was form ed; Story, Part. § 280.
9. By the termination of the'period for which a partnership for a certain time was formed ; Colly. Part. § 105.
10. By the assignment of the whole of one partner's interest either to his co-partner or to a stranger ; 4 B. & Ad. 175 ; Marquand v. Mfg. Co., 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 525; Cochran v. Perry, 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 262; Clark v. Carr, 45 Ill. App. 469; Schleicher v. Walker, 28 Fla. 680, 10 South. 33 ; where it does not ap pear that the assignee acts in the concern after the assignment; Marquand v. Mfg. Co., 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 525; Mason v. Connell, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 381; Buford v. Neely, 17 N. C. 481. But in England this can occur only in partnerships at will. See Riddle v. White
hill, 135 U. S. 632, 10 Sup. Ct. 924, 34 L. Ed. 282. It has been held that a sale by one partner of his interest in the firm's property to the other does not necessarily work a dis solution of the firm ; Lobdell v. Baldwin, 93 Mich. 569, 53 N. W. 730; but it has been held that a sale by a partner of his share of the stock dissolves the firm and gives the purchaser a right to an account; Miller v. Brigham, 50 Cal. 615. In partnerships for a term, assignment is a ground for dissolution by remaining co-partners, but probably not by the transferee. In America, the trans feree always has a right to an account ; Mon roe v. Hamilton, 60 Ala. 226 ; Miller v. Brig ham, 50 Cal. 615. But see Taft v. Buffum, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 322; where it was held that such an assignment would not ipso facto work a dissolution. See Riddle v. Whitehill, 135 U. S. 632, 10 Sup. Ct. 924, 34 L. Ed. 282.
11. By the award of arbitrators appointed under a clause in the partnership articles to that effect. See 1 W. Bla. 475 ; 4 B. & Ad. 172; Byers v. Van Deusen, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 268.
12. By judicial decree. A court of equity may dissolve a partnership on the occurrence of events or changes of circumstances which render the continuance of the relation impos sible or unprofitable ; Gilmore, Partn. 581. To dissolve a partnership at will requires no proceedings in court, as it may be done by the voluntary action of either partner ; supra. Where it is for a term however, as already stated supra, it is held by many courts that the action of a partner is not sufficient and therefore there must be resort to the courts. This must be to a court of equity ; Story, Partn. § 284; Wilson v. Las sen, 5 Cal. 116; Barnstead v. Min. Co., id. 299. A dissolution may be decreed for the wilful fraud or other gross misconduct of one of the partners; Pars. Part. § 270, 357; 4 Beay. 502 ; Reynolds v. Austin, 4 Del. Ch. 24; Raymond v. Vaughn, 128 Ili. 256, 21 N. E. 566, 4 L. R. A. 444, 15 Am. St. Rep. 112; Griswold v. Waddington, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 57; Howell v. Harvey, 5 Ark. 270, 39 Am. Dec. 376; Oteri v. Scalzo, 145 U. S. 578, 12 Sup. Ct. 895, 36 L. Ed. 824; 1 De G., M. & G. 171; so on his gross carelessness and waste in the administration of the partnership, and his exclusion of the other partners from their just share of the management ; 1 J. & W. 592; Howell v. Harvey, 5 Ark. 278, 39 Am. Dec. 376; Groth v. Payment, 79 Mich. 290, 44 N. W. 611; or persistent violation of partnership articles; Rosenstein v. Burns, 41 Fed. 841; or the loss of health by a partner ; Pars. Part. § 360; or the pecuniary inability of a partner to fulfil his engagement with the others; id.; so on the existence of vio lent and lasting dissension between the part ners; Blake v. Dorgan, 1 G. Greene (Ia.) 537; where these are of such a character as to prevent the business from being conducted upon the stipulated terms; 3 Kent 60, 61; and to destroy the mutual confidence of the Partners in each other ; 21 Beay. 482; Sieg hortner v. Weissenborn, 20 N. J. Eq. 172.