The only question in this case is, whether the defendant can maintain his claim in set-off. It was stated at
Upon these facts, which are not controverted, it seems to be very clear that the parties, so far as this voyage and adventure are concerned, sustain towards each other the relation of copartners. They are jointly interested in a mercantile enterprise to which they have respectively contributed in certain proportions their capital; they are joint owners of the property embarked in the transaction, and are to share the profits and losses which may result from the joint business in which they have engaged. The elementary definition of a partnership is an agreement between two or more persons to share the profits and losses of
Such being the legal relation of the parties, in the absence of any proof of a special agreement between them, or of a usage or custom of trade which changes their relative rights and liabilities, it is clear that the defendant cannot maintain his set-off. He has no right of action at law against the plaintiff. While the partnership is still in existence and its affairs are unsettled, and the result of the joint business or undertaking is unknown and uncertain, one copartner cannot maintain an action at law against his copartner to recover money advanced by him in carrying on the joint business beyond the just proportion which be is bound to pay. It is only after a dissolution of a copartnership, when there is a balance due after all the debts of the firm are paid, so that the recovery of this balance due to one of the firm from his copartners will effect a final settlement between the copartners, that an action at law can be maintained by one copartner against another. Sikes v. Work, 6 Gray, 433, & cases cited. Shattuck v. Lawson, ante, 407.
It is quite possibl' that the defendant may be able to prove at another trial that a usage prevails in the conduct and management of the whale fishery, which will authorize him to require immediate payment by his copartners of advances made under circumstances such as were disclosed by the evidence in this case. But no such usage was attempted to be proved at the trial, and the counsel for the plaintiff do not admit its existence,
Exceptions sustained.
