WHO MAY BE. Genera/ rule. Persons who have the legal capacity to make other con tracts may enter into that of partnership; Lind. Part. *77; 1 Col. Part. § 11; Pars. Part. § 14; Gilmore, Partn. 77.
Aliens. An alien friend may be a part ner ; Lind. Part. *78 ; Co. Litt. 129 b; Gris wold v. Waddington, 15 Johns. (1sL Y.) 57. An alien enemy cannot enter into any com mercial contract; 1 Kent *66;, Scholefield v. Eichelberger, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 586, 8 L. Ed. 793; McAdams' Ex'rs v. Hawes, 9 Bush (Ky.) 15; 11 Exch. 135; and .the breaking out of a war between two countries in which partners re side dissolves the partnership ; Matthews v. MeStea, 91 U. S. 7, 23 L. Ed. 188 ; Ker shaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561, 97 Am. Dec. 124, 1 Am. Rep. 142. See WAR.
Corporations. There is no general princi ple of law which prevents a corporation from being a partner with another corpora tion, or' with ordinary individuals, except the principle that a corporation cannot law fully employ its funds for purposes not au thorized by its charter ; Lind. Part., 2d Am. ed. *78; Butler v. Toy Co., 46 Conn. 136; Grant, Corp. 5 ; Holmes v. R. Corp., 5 Gray (Mass.) 58.
In the absence of authority in its charter, 'however, a corporatiOn is probably not com petent to enter into a partnership; White Star Line v. Star Line of Steamers, 141 Mich. 604, 105 N. W. 135;113 Am. St. Rep. 551;' People v. Sugar Ref. Co., 121 N. Y. 582, 24 N. E. 834, 9 L. R. A. 33, 18 Am. St. Rep. 843 ; Morris Run Coal Co. v. Coal Co., 68 Pa. 173, 8 Am. Rep. 159 ; Mallory v. Oil Works, 86 Tenn. 598, 8 S: W. 396; and it has been specifically decided that a national bank Canna be a partner ; Merchants' N. Bk. v. Wehrmann, 69 Ohio St. 160, 68 N. E. 1004; nor a department store corporation ; Franz v. Dry Goods Co., 132 Mo. App. 8, 111 S. W. 636; Breinig v. Sparrow, 39 Ind. App. 455, 80 N. E. 37; nor can two corporations form a partnership ; New York & S. C. Co. v. Bank, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 412; nor does the purchase of an interest in a firm by a corporation make it a partner ; Aurora State Bk. v. 62
Mo. App. 390 ; but a corporation may be ex pressly authorized by its charter to enter' into a partnerghip, as was the case in But ler v. Toy Co., 46 Comi. 136.
A corporation which shares profits may be held to make good losses; Catskill Bank v. Gray, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 479. While a contract of partnership between a corpdiation and an individual is ultra as to this cotpora tion, yet if the corporation• has received the benefit of the contract, it must account to the other party for what is due him under the contract; Boyd v. Carbon Black Co., 182 Pa. 206, 37 Atl. 937.
blergymen were disqualified to enter into a partnership in England by 57 Geo. III.
Firms. Two firms may be partners in one joint firm; Smith v. Wright, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 243; In re Hamilton, 1 Fed. 800; Willson v. Morse, 117 Ia. 581, 91 N. W. 823. Where a partnership and an individual form a sec ond partnetship, all the meMbers of the first partnership' are Members of the new firm; Meyer v. Krohn, 114 Ill. 574, 2 N. E. Felons. Felons probably are not disqUali fied, in the absence of any statutory restrict tion, to enter into a contract of partnership in this country ; George, Partn. 11; Avery v. Everett, 110 N. Y. 317, 18 N. E. 148, 1 L. R. A. 264, 6 Am. St. Rep. 368.
Infants. An infant may contract the re lation of partner, as he may make any trad ing contract which is likely to prove for his advantage; Penn. v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. (Va.) Am. Dec. 478; 5 B. & Ald. 147. Such a contract made by a person during'in fancy is voidable and may be affirmed or dig affirmed by him at majority ; Story, Part. § 7 ; Osburn v. Farr, 42 Mich. 134, 3 N. W. 299; but whether he may disaffirm before majority is doubtful; Dunton v. Brown, 31 Mich. 182; Lind. Part., 2d Am. ed. *74, n.; though it is said that he may; Pars. (Jas.) Partn. § 136 ; Childs v. Dobbins, 55 Ia. 205, 7 N. W. 496 ; Adams v. Beall, 67 Md. 53, 8 Atl. 664, 1 Am. St. Rep. 379 ; Folds v. Al lardt, 35 Minn. 488, 29 N. W. 201.