XV. On the Contract of Partnership

What is the contract of partnership? Partnership is a contract by which two or more contribute something in common, for the sake of receiving profit in common, C. I. 1697; C. G. 1833; C. A. 1175; C. H. 1665; C. L. 1240. Partnership: here the discussion concerns partnership so called civil. For there are also commercial partnerships, anonymous companies, etc., which are governed by their proper statutes, approved by the authority of the Prince. Two or more: who namely are able to dispose of things, and who are not prohibited from acquiring reciprocal utility for themselves because of violation of the rights of other persons; for this reason, e.g., this partnership cannot be entered into between a mother and her natural son. C. I. 1704; C. G. 1840. - Something, that is, money, or other goods, or even one's own industry. Except goods which the partners will acquire either by donation, or by legacy, or by succession, unless according to C. G. the matter concerns spouses, which can be contributed in such a way that only their enjoyment, not their ownership, becomes common. C. I. 1433, 1698, 1701;

C. G. 1526, 1833, 1837. In common: something can be contributed in common in two ways: 1. So that not only the use and fruits, but the ownership of the thing contributed is common, so that each becomes owner of the whole capital by partial ownership. 2. So that, while ownership of the thing remains with the contributor, the use and fruits are common. L. 1 § 1; L. 2, L. 7, etc., Dig. Pro socio. Moreover, by law itself there pass into the ownership of the partnership those things which are consumed by use, or become worse; those which are contributed so that they may be sold; those which are given after an estimation of them has been made and consigned in an inventory. C. I. 1715; C. G. 1851; C. H. 1687. Cf. C. A. 1181, 1182. - Contribute; for if they do not contribute, but, e.g., two by legacy or by purchase fall upon one and the same thing, bequeathed to them or bought by them, there is not partnership, but common ownership. Profit in common; if there is no common profit, even though some utility is not lacking, as e.g., a common doorway, there is not partnership, but common ownership. Profit; if not profit as such, but a part of the profit as though a stipend and remuneration is given to him who furnishes the service, not partnership, but a hiring of service is understood. - C. B. 705; Lugo d. 30, n. 1, 4; Molina d. 411, n. 7; Less. l. 2, c. 25, n. 1; L. 904. A partnership is not a moral person or moral body, but is only a collection of persons. Hence those things which are communicated by the partners, and those things which are acquired by the partners, indeed become the property of all the partners, but not of the partnership. And if it is necessary to go to trial, not the partnership, but the individual partners must sue or be sued. C. I. Proc. 137. If someone lends money to a partnership, he claims it back from the individual partners man by man, or in equal parts, even if not all are partners in equal parts, C. I. 1727; C. G. 1863. Namely he lends not to the partnership, but to the partners, that is, to the individuals. Since partnership is a matter transacted among others, a partner can associate with himself some third person as regards his own portion in the partnership, but the creditor of the partners cannot use the right of the partners, nor involve himself in the affairs of the partners, C. I. 1725; C. G. 1861. Likewise, as regards third parties, those things which have been done by the mandatary of the partnership within the limits of the mandate are the same as if they had been done with the individual partners; but those things which have been done beyond the limits of the mandate are imputed to the mandatary himself. C. I. 1727, 1728; C. G. 1862, 1863, 1864.

Partnerships: some are Moral Bodies, others are not Moral Bodies. Both the latter and the former can acquire and possess, but with this difference: that a partnership which has been erected into a Moral Body has juridical patrimonial unity, distinct from the patrimony of any individual associate; but that which is not a Moral Body does not have the patrimony of a Moral entity, but has only co-ownership, by which the patrimony exists undivided in the individual associates. Therefore a moral body is like a private person, and has nothing in common with those of whom it consists. Wherefore what is owed to the body is not owed to the individuals; nor do the individuals owe what the body owes. And when a moral person which had been instituted for the cause of public utility has been extinguished, its goods go to the church, if it was ecclesiastical; to the treasury, if lay. But those of one which was for private utility, as commercial and industrial partnerships, pertain to the partners or colleagues and their heirs. Besides civil partnership there is also commercial partnership, so called from Commercial acts, which are enumerated at the beginning of the Commercial Code, title 2. Wherefore the definition of civil partnership is valid also for commercial partnership, whether mercantile or industrial. But according to the same Code a threefold commercial partnership is distinguished: Partnership under a collective name; partnership in commendam; anonymous company. In a collective partnership, all the partners are obliged without limit and in solidum as regards the obligations of the partnership. In a partnership in commendam, one or more commendatary partners are obliged without limit and in solidum; but the other investing partners, one or more, answer limitedly up to a determined sum, which can also be represented by shares. In an anonymous company, social obligations are secured only limitedly to a determined capital, and each partner is obliged only by his own quota or by his own share. Art. 76.

Whether the contract of partnership is licit? - Resp. Affirmatively. For it contains nothing which is opposed to justice. Nevertheless it requires the following conditions. 1. That the partnership be made in honest business. C. I. 1698; C. G. 1833; C. H. 1666. Certainly no one can licitly be obliged in a base thing. - 2. That loss of the capital pertain only to its owner, if only the usufruct of the thing is contributed into the partnership; but that it pertain to the partnership itself, if the capital itself is contributed into the partnership. For the thing perishes to the owner. C. I. 1715; C. G. 1851; C. H. 1687. Cf. C. A. 1183. 3. That due equality be preserved between profits and losses and expenses to be divided among the partners. Losses here are understood as those which come to the partners from the aspect of the partnership alone. Expenses are the costs of journeys, payments of tolls, etc. C. I. 1716, 1717; C. G. 1852, 1853; C. H.

1689; C. A. 1192-1197. 4. A partnership of immovable things, or of the use of them, indeterminate as to duration or beyond nine years, needs writing, and, as regards third parties, transcription. C. I. 1314, 1932, 1942. Cf. C.

A. 1178; C. H. 1667, 1668; L. 904-907; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 78, a. 2.

Resolutions: Wherefore it is necessary that for each one there be established a part of the profit in proportion to the thing which he contributed, and a part of the loss in proportion to the profit. But if something else has been spontaneously agreed, the pact is valid, provided the profit be established at least equal to the just wage of the thing or service which someone contributes, as though leased; and provided it is not established that one should feel no part of the profit, or no part of the loss, C. I. 1719; C. G. 1855; C. H. 1689, 1691; C. A. 1193, 1196; C. B. 722; C. L. 1242. The proportion of him who contributed service alone will be the part of him who contributed least. C. I. 1717; C. G. 1853; C. H. 1689. Yet, with attention to natural law, if the industry of the merchant were notably worth more than the capital of the co-partner, certainly an agreement could be made concerning a greater profit to be received proportionately, which indeed is approved by positive Law itself. Inst. l. 3, t. 26, §§ 1, 2.

Cf. C. A. 1183, 1187, 1193; C. B. 706, 707. "It seems to me that it must altogether be said," says St. Alphonsus, 907, "that, while the capital remains safe for the owner, the profit is to be divided proportionally, account being taken of the value of the industry on one side, and on the other side of the convenience furnished from the money, according to the common estimation of the profit which is commonly accustomed to be had from money applied to business. Hence it must be well noted that sometimes the industry of the merchant will be worth more than the use of the money, and then the profit must be distributed proportionally, so that sometimes a pact could be licit, that at the end even the capital be divided, while the profit meanwhile has been distributed equally, as is done by custom in many places in the partnership of animals. In addition it must be noted that sometimes the value of industry decreases because of the multitude of workers seeking partnership; for this reason perhaps several contracts can be excused which at first sight seem unjust, because the industry of the workers contributed into the partnership according to the custom of the place is commonly not estimated there as worth more."

Resolutions: The pact is altogether unjust by force of which, once the merchandise has been bought, before all else and while the partnership lasts, the capital is restored to the owner; and then what remains is divided equally, because for the one placing that capital the danger of his capital is diminished, but the merchant, if afterward the merchandise perishes, is subject without compensation to the danger of capital and profit. L. 907.

Whether the pact is licit that, if some sheep from a flock perish, they must be supplied from the offspring which are born, and meanwhile the other offspring, wool, and cheese are divided equally? The first opinion affirms, "because such substitution of sheep results as much in favor of the shepherd as of the one buying the sheep." The second opinion denies, and this seems altogether true to St. Alphonsus, 909, "because although the profit is diminished first for both, and afterward is compensated for both, nevertheless the offspring which are substituted ought to have been divided equally between the shepherd and the owner.

But when they are substituted, this certainly yields more to the utility of the owner than of the shepherd, since the owner then already compensates for himself the loss of profit, just as the shepherd does; but meanwhile the owner always preserves the capital safe for himself, which ought to be diminished for him, and therefore equality is not preserved in the contract." Partnership of animals is simple if the lessor furnishes the animals and the lessee furnishes labor for their care, custody, and feeding. It is in equal parts if each furnishes animals, and one of them also furnishes labor. In a simple partnership, the lessee has half of the increase, which consists in the offspring that come, and in the greater value of the animals. Milk and dung and the labor of the animals yield to the lessee.

Wool and what accrues to the animals are divided between the lessee and the lessor. C. I. 1669, 1676, 1684. In a partnership by equal portions, the animals become common for profit and for loss. Milk, dung, and the work which the animals furnish yield to the lessee; the lessor has right to half the wool and increase. C. I. 1684. Besides these two species of partnership as regards animals, there are two other species, namely partnership with a tenant farmer, and partnership with a sharecropping tenant farmer. In the former partnership with a tenant farmer, animals of the same value must be left at the end of the lease. Meanwhile the profits belong to the lessee. But the dung must be applied to the cultivation of the land.

C. I. 1687 ff. In the latter partnership, which is entered into with a sharecropping tenant farmer, it can be agreed that the tenant farmer yield his part of the wool, at its time, to the lessor for less, and that the latter share in half of the milk and take the greater part of the profit. C. I. 1693. In a simple partnership of animals or one by equal parts, according to law, according to C. I. 1675, the animals which perish by chance perish to the owner alone, or to the lessor. According to C. G. 1810, unless all perish, but only a part, the loss is common to the lessor and the lessee. But according to both Codes, it cannot be agreed that the lessee participate more in loss than in profit. C. I. 1677; C. G. 1811.

Whether the contract of partnership called "with capital safe" is licit, namely when animals are handed over to a shepherd with the pact of rendering them safe in the same number at the end of the partnership, and of dividing the profit? "Speaking of itself this contract is illicit, because the capital must stand at the danger of the one contributing it; for the thing perishes to its owner.

Nevertheless it can probably become licit if another contract of insurance is added, by compensating the shepherd, through a greater part of the fruits, for the burden of such danger of the capital taken upon himself.... Certainly the contract is unjust by which the owner gives oxen estimated according to their present value, with the pact that if they decrease, at the end of the partnership the same value must be restored, because deterioration of the thing pertains to the owner, unless this damage is otherwise compensated. But if nevertheless there were a pact that at the end of the partnership not only the profit, but also the capital of the animals, is to be divided with the partner, then the pact will not indeed be unjust, that if meanwhile the capital perishes, the shepherd is bound to restore to the owner half of the capital." L. 907, 909, q. 4.

According to C. I. 1683, 1686, 1692, 1695; C. G. 1817, 1820, 1830, the animals must be estimated at the very beginning of the partnership; when the partnership has ended, they are estimated again, and the lessor takes beforehand as many heads as equal the price of those contributed. But the profit is to be divided in various ways according to the various species of lease and agreements. In a simple partnership or one by equal parts, it cannot be agreed that the lessee bear the danger of the capital beyond half according to C. I. 1677, or the whole according to C. G. 1811, nor that he participate more in loss than in profit. C. I. ib.; C. G. ib.

Whether a partner who ought to have contributed a sum of money into the partnership and did not contribute it, also owes interest? Resp. Affirmatively, C.

I. 1710; C. G. 1846; C. H. 1682. And the same is established there if a partner has taken some sum of money from the partnership chest for his particular utility.

To whom does administration of the partnership pertain? - Administration of the partnership pertains to him to whom it was committed. C. A. 1190, 1198; C. B. 710. But from him to whom administration was given in the very contract of partnership, it cannot afterward be taken away except for a legitimate cause. But if it was given afterward, it can be revoked as a simple mandate. C. I. 1720; C. G. 1856; C. H. 1692; C. B. 712. If it has been committed to no one, it is judged to have been tacitly permitted to all. C. I. 1723; C. G. 1859; C. H. 1695; C. B. 709. But each one must employ such diligence in common things as he employs in his own things. C. B. 708. Cf. C. A. 1185, 1186. Therefore, if he has done some things negligently and injured the partnership, but has done other things diligently and increased the partnership, the negligence is not compensated, unless this latter was altogether extraordinary. C. I. 1714; C. G. 1850; C. H. 1686; C. A. 1191. If one of the partners has exacted something from a debtor of the partnership, who is at the same time his own debtor, he must impute the payment to each debt proportionally; but if he has ascribed the whole to the partnership, it is valid. C. I. 1712, 1713; C. G. 1848, 1849; C. H. 1684. Cf. C. A. 1202, 1203; Inst. l. 3, t. 26, § 9; C. B. 718-721.

In what ways is partnership ended? Partnership, if nothing has been specially agreed, is ended: 1. When the time for which it had been entered into has been completed. 2. When the common thing has been totally extinguished, or the business has been ended. 3. By the natural or civil death, interdiction, or publication of goods of one of the partners. 4. By the express will of one or more partners, when the duration of the partnership is unlimited; but if the partnership is for a determined time, its dissolution cannot be demanded unless some grave reason is present, e.g., the infidelity of the co-partner, or the continual infirmity of a partner by which he can no longer conduct the business of the partnership. C. I. 1729, 1731-1735; C. G. 1865, 1867, 1869-1871; C. A. 1189, 1205, 1207, 1210-1212; C. H. 1680, 1700 ff.; C. B. 723, 724, 726, 727, 728; Inst. l. 3, t. 24, §§ 4-8; L. 907.

Note: When the partnership has ended, he who administered it must render an account of the administration. If by his fault the partnership has suffered damage, that damage will be imputed to his part, and if he himself is not solvent, it will be common to all the partners. - If, on the contrary, the administrator of the partnership has incurred damage, namely from the cause of the partnership, this damage also will be common to all the partners. - When a partnership of profits has been dissolved, the capital must first be restored to the owner, even if in fact no profit remains. Sixtus V, Bull Detestabilis § 2; L. 907; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 78, a. 2, ad 5. Similarly, if the capital perishes at the beginning, it perishes to the owner, since in a partnership of profits the capital, or sum of money, is not contributed, but only the convenience of the money. L. 907. When the partnership has ended, first the debts of the partnership are paid; then the received profits which remain are to be distributed proportionately among the partners. C. B. 731 ff.

Whether an agreement can be made that, when a partner has died, the partnership be continued with his heir? Resp. Affirmatively. This certainly was prohibited by Roman Law, L. 35, 59, C. h.t. But it is admitted by Italian, French, Austrian, and Spanish Law. Nor indeed does it seem illicit by Natural Law. C. I. 1729; C. G. 1868; C. A. 1206-1209. C. H. 1704: the partnership remains if it was agreed that it should remain with the survivor or with the heir. But although the partnership does not remain with the heir, nevertheless he is bound to complete those things which were begun by the deceased. L. 40, C. h.t.; C. I. 4732; C. G. 1868; C. A. 1206, 1209; C. B. 727.

Whether any loss of a thing dissolves the partnership? - Resp. Affirmatively, if one of the partners promised to contribute the ownership of the thing, or only its use and fruit, in common, and the thing perishes before it is contributed. Negatively, if the ownership of the thing had already been contributed in common. C. I. 1731; C. G. 1867. Yet he is bound to furnish warranty for the eviction of those things which the partner contributed for the sake of use alone. C. I. 1709; C. G. 1845.

Whether, when a partnership has been contracted without limit as to duration, someone can withdraw from it at will? Resp. Affirmatively, provided nevertheless that his renunciation be in good faith and not made at an inopportune time. In good faith: not with evil fraud, for instance so that he alone may seize the whole profit, e.g., from inheritance, legacy, purchase. Inopportunely, that is, at that time when it was of interest to the partners that the partnership not be dissolved. C. I. 1733, 1734; C. G. 1869, 1870; C. A. 1212; C. H. 1705; C. B. 723, 738 ff.; Inst. l. 3, t. 24, § 4.

How many kinds of contract of partnership are there? - The contract of partnership can be diverse, both by reason of the end, insofar as the proximate end is either only common use of things, or only fruits or profit, or both; and by reason of the matter, insofar as either all goods are contributed, or only use and profits, or the profits of certain goods or of a certain business; and by reason of time, insofar as the partnership is entered into either for life, or for a determined time, or until the outcome of some business. C. I. 1699 ff.; C. G. 1835 ff.; C. A. 1176; L. 907.

What concerning universal and particular partnership? - A twofold partnership is distinguished: universal and particular. C. H. 1671. Universal can be either of all present goods, or of all profits. C. I. 1700 ff.; C. G. 1836 ff.; C. A. 1177; C. H. 1672, 1673.

If a partnership of all present things has been entered into, all the goods which are then those of the contracting parties immediately become common; and also those which they afterward acquire from these. But those things which the parties afterward acquire by succession or donation enter the partnership only as to usufruct, godimento. A stipulation as to the communication of these goods, according to C. I., is null; according to C. G., is prohibited. C. I. 1701; C. G. 1837; C. H. 1674. Cf. C. A. 1177, 1180. If partnership is made of all profits, it embraces only those profits which the parties will acquire by their own industry, by whatever title; goods whether movable or immovable of the partners become common only as to usufruct, C. I. 1702; C. G. 1838; C. H. 1675. Once it has ended, if the things were contributed only as to use, each one takes his own thing, or its price, if he transferred ownership into the partnership. A universal partnership entered into without another declaration is a partnership not of things but of gains, C. I. 1703; C. G. 1839; C. H. 1674.

But a particular partnership is that which is contracted concerning only some things or services, C. I. 1705, 1706, 1715; C. G. 1841, 1842, 1851; C. H. 1678. It can be made in many ways: 1. If all the partners contribute capital and service. 2. If all contribute only capital, but a third person hired by a stipend applies industry. 3. If one contributes capital and another service. - L. 907.

Note: Partners are not held in solidum on account of the debts of a non-commercial partnership; nor can one oblige another without express faculty. C. I. 1726; C. H. 1698.

Whether and what kind of partnership exists between spouses? A partnership, or rather common ownership, between husband and wife can be entered into before the wedding, and it can take its beginning only from the beginning of the marriage. C. I. 1433; C. G. 1399; C. A. 1180, 1233. Indeed, according to C. G. 1400, it is judged to be entered into by law itself, unless something else has been agreed. According to C. I. 1433, 1435, they are prohibited from entering into a universal partnership of goods; but it is permitted only as to useful things, with claims and debts both of the husband and of the wife excepted from common ownership, attivo e passivo presente dei coniugi, and likewise with goods to come from a lucrative cause of inheritance or donation excepted. Nevertheless, to the common ownership pertains the use and fruit, godimento, of all movables and immovables, present and future. The administration of this partnership is in the hands of the husband, to whom moreover it is permitted to alienate common things under an onerous cause, C. I. 1438; C. G. 1421. Leases made by him are held as made by a usufructuary. C. I. 1439. - But this partnership is dissolved by the death of a spouse, his or her declared absence, definitive personal separation, or judicial separation of goods. Once dissolved, it can be restored, but with the same pacts, and with the rights acquired meanwhile by a third party preserved. C. I. 1441, 1443. Once the partnership has been dissolved, the woman or her heirs can repudiate it or accept it with benefit of inventory. C. I. 1444.

The effect of this partnership according to Roman Law is to make ownership common to each spouse. But the husband has the usufruct, L. 539, 542. Its effect according to C. I. 1436 is to render common and divisible the acquisitions made by the spouses together or separately during the partnership or common ownership. According to C. G. 1470, 1474, when the community has been dissolved, proper goods and owed indemnities are first taken out, then what remains is divided in equal portions between husband and wife, or their representatives.

According to C. A. 1233, 1234, 1236, common ownership of goods, if it has been entered into by special contract, is understood only for the case of death, and gives to the spouse a right to half the goods which have been reciprocally placed in common, which perhaps remain after the death of the other spouse. But no right is acquired to the fruits during the marriage. - According to C. B. 1432 ff., a partnership can be entered into between spouses both before marriage and after marriage has been contracted. It can be either universal or particular, and when one or the other spouse has died it is continued with his or her descendants.

The husband has administration; but he cannot freely dispose of the goods of the partnership, nor can he bring any detriment to the wife; nevertheless from the goods of the partnership he bears the burdens of marriage. The goods of the partnership belong to each spouse, and when the partnership has been dissolved they are to be divided between them in equal portions. Cf. 677, 868.

Whether partnership is present between brothers. Among brothers "a partnership is not judged to have been made, unless this is had expressly or tacitly from conjectures. Hence not because brothers have an undivided patrimony and live from a common table is a partnership contracted among them, unless indeed all exercise themselves in some business; or unless, one conducting business, the others contribute their goods.... And this is more clearly presumed if all contribute in common all goods pertaining to each one. Yet this is understood when each one also contributes his own goods, besides the common goods; otherwise, if only one contributes his own proper goods, for instance profits of some office or art, and the others only common goods, then he can compensate these for himself.... And so likewise, if one contributes greater labor, he can receive more, according to the estimation of his labor. But if some absent brother conducts business in the common name from common goods, he is understood to have a partnership until he is admonished by the other brothers that they wish to make a division; and then the partnership does not cease even for the businesses begun." L. 907. Therefore partnership is understood among brothers if all contribute in common what they gain, or if they conduct business in common. - But once partnership has been entered into, the profits become common in proportion to the things and industry which each contributed into the partnership; and losses also become common in proportion to the profit. - If one of the brothers has children, who themselves also work for the partnership, or receive sustenance from it, in the first case a proportionate part of the profit corresponds also to them; in the other it will be imputed to the father's part.

If brothers retain for themselves those things which come to them from their own proper gain, with only the paternal inheritance left in common, so that they receive and feel also emolument and damage in common, the partnership will be restricted only to hereditary goods.

What is the triple contract? - The triple contract is that by which someone, contributing a thing or money, makes a pact with another partner that, whatever happens, the thing or the whole sum be restored to him with a certain profit, yet less than that profit which he could probably hope for. Or it is a contract of partnership to which two other contracts are joined, namely insurance of the capital and insurance of the profit, or the aleatory sale of the hope of receiving a greater profit for a lesser certain and insured profit. I contract, e.g., with Peter, giving him a sum of money for conducting business. But since the hope of gaining 15 per 100 shines upon me, and on the other side I fear lest I lose the capital, I enter into a second contract with Peter, giving him 5 per 100 if he is willing to take upon himself the insurance of the capital. With this second contract entered into, only 10 per 100 remains for me to gain. But I would prefer a profit still smaller but certain, rather than greater and uncertain. Therefore I propose to my partner that he give me only 5 per 100, but restore it certainly, whatever may come upon us, both the capital and the constituted profit. Hence a threefold contract is given, namely of partnership, of insurance of the capital, and of insurance of the profit. L. 908.

Whether the triple contract is licit? The first probable opinion denies. The reason is 1. Because thus partnership is destroyed, whose nature is that dangers be common; therefore it is a true mutuum; therefore the title or foundation for receiving profit is lacking, at least above the legal rate for mutuum. 2. Because, they say, the opposite doctrine was reproved by Sixtus V, through the Bull Detestabilis, a. 1586, § 1, and through the Bull of St. Pius V Onus, § 4.

The second probable opinion commonly affirms, provided the money is truly given for business. The reason is: 1. Because these individual contracts separately and with different persons are of themselves licit and just; therefore also if they are made together and with the same person. 2. Because there is nothing against equality, for compensation is given, and the danger is equivalently sustained by the one giving the money. 3. Because Benedict XIV declares, de Syn. l. 7, c. 1, that the triple contract was not condemned by Sixtus V, nor did he intend to condemn it. And in the Encyclical Vix pervenit he says that he does not wish to condemn contracts about which dispute exists among theologians. - As regards civil Law, some say that the triple contract is reproved, C. I. 1719; C. G. 1855; others, and more truly, say that nothing concerning it is had in C. I. or C. G. For those articles regard the simple contract of partnership. - L. 842, 847, 849, 908; Lugo n. 37; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 10, c. 7.

What is common ownership of goods? Common ownership of goods is indeed distinguished from the contract of partnership, yet it implicitly contains in itself some contract of partnership, whatever may have been the origin of the beginning of this common ownership. Moreover, common ownership of goods is the co-ownership of two or more persons as regards one and the same thing, as, e.g., if several persons possess one and the same house. C. A. 361, 639, 825; C. H. 392; C. B. 741; C. He. 646-654; C. L. 2175 ff. Cf. here 1121 seq.

By what laws is common ownership of goods governed? If special agreements are lacking, or special dispositions of Law, one must then stand by the general prescriptions of the Law itself. C. I. 673; C. H. 392; C. A. 826. These are the general norms of Law: The concurrence of those participating in the same ownership of a thing, in rights and burdens, must be proportioned to the quota of each. C. I. 548, 549, 561, 674, 676; C. H. 393; C. A. 830, 839 ff.; C. G. 655, 656. Anyone can use the thing placed in common ownership, and alienate, cede, subject to mortgage his own portion, or even substitute another in his own right of enjoying, unless the right in question is merely personal, as is the right of habitation. C. I. 675, 679; C. H. 394, 399; C. A. 829. If the greater part does not consent, innovations cannot be made, even if useful. Nevertheless anyone can oblige the others to necessary expenses for the conservation of the thing. C. I. 676-678; C. H. 395, 397; C. A. 828, 833. - Anyone can also always withdraw from common ownership, unless the time has been determined by pact, which will not be beyond ten years. C. I. 681; C. H. 400. Cf. C. G. 815. Dissolution of common ownership cannot be demanded by co-owners of things which, if divided, could no longer serve the use for which they are destined. C. I. 684; C. H. 401. Cf. C. A. 830 ff. According to C. B. 741 ff., the parts of a thing undivided among several, in doubt, pertain to each equally, and the fruits corresponding also to his part pertain to them, and at the same time the common use of the thing, insofar as the other undivided owners take no detriment from it. Administration of the undivided thing pertains to all in common. - The thing cannot be essentially changed. But any undivided owner can dispose of his own portion. And all are bound to sustain the burdens of administration and conservation. Any undivided owner can demand the cessation of indivision. And this is had either by the thing itself divided among the undivided owners, or, if it cannot be divided, by the thing sold. Cf. ib. art. 1008 ff.

But there are various cases of common ownership for which special dispositions of Law are present: 1. When several things of diverse owners have been mixed together, and cannot be separated without damage, the ownership is then common, yet according to the proportion of the value of the thing pertaining to each one, C. I. 471; C. H. 381; C. G. 572 ff. - 2. When a wall between houses or gardens is common, or a tree is common, a ditch on the boundary of fields is common, or flowing water is common, common pastures. C. I. 546 ff., 542 ff., 682; C. A. 421, 854 ff.; C. H. 572 ff., 593; C. G. 646, 653 ff.; C. L. 2319 ff., 2328 ff.

3. When there are several owners of the same building, some owners of the upper parts, others of the lower. C. I. 562 ff.; C. H. 396.

4. When an inheritance is common. C. I. 984 ff., 1034 ff.; C. G. 815 ff.

Common buildings. If several are owners of the same building, some owners of the upper parts, others of the lower parts, repair of the walls by which the building is supported, of the roof, and of any other common thing, as e.g., the vestibule, well, solarium, is common, according to the value of each part. But each one, beginning from the lowest cellars, must make his own rooms, ceilings or vaults by which he is covered; lay above the pavements on which he walks; build the stairs by which he goes; and if the same floor, piano, is common to several, each is held according to the value of his part. Finally he to whom the highest apartments pertain cannot, without the consent of the others, raise them higher, although he can enclose them with a ledge or parapet, if that harms others. Trees placed in a common hedge or on the boundary are common. Each can be compelled to cut them down, except those which serve as boundaries of fields.

Flowing water, except that which is of public right, provided it flows naturally and without a manufactured work, belongs to those who possess estates near the banks. Wherefore they can divert it, while it flows, for irrigating their own fields or for carrying on crafts, provided it is restored to its natural course when it goes out from their own lands.