
    Connolly et al. v. Adams.
    One-partner cannot sxxchis-co-partnex', to recover the share of tho latter in the loss in a particxxlar transaction. He must sue for a settlement of the partnership.
    APPEAL by the plaintiffs from a judgment of the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, Strawbridge, J. The judgment of the court below was in these words :
    
      ft u The petition alleges that plaintiffs entered into an agreement, by which they, in Cincinnati, were to draw bills on merchandize shipped to defendant, and that they were to be jointly interested in the commissions ; that, in the result, there was a loss of $12,000, one-half of which they claimed from the'defendant. They further claim $2,000 for a seperate transaction in relation to a quantity of land. I think this language establishes that there was a partnership between the parties as factors and commission merchants; and I further think that the case fall» within the rule laid down in Levy's case, M La. 581, and also under these numerous cases, so frequently before these courts, viz.: that a partner’s-remedy is by suit for account and settlement of the whole affairs* It is ordered that the suit be dismissed, with costs.”
    
      JSlmore and W. W. King, for the appellants,
    contended that the parties were not commercial partners; that if there was any partnership,-it was a particular one. C. C. 2796, 2896, 2809. 2 An. R. 156. Collier on Partn. pp. 17, 21. Micou, for the defendant, cited 11-La. 581. 12 Rob. 595. 2 An. 10, 934. 8 Mart. N. S* 280. 11- Mart. 435. Story on Partnership, §;§ 221, 348.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Eustis, C. J.

For the reasons assigned by the judge of the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, it is- ordered that the- judgment be affirmed, with costs.  