Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/556

 548 FEi/l!;.;AL ItEX'OiiïER. �flict of authority as to them (see Trustees and Tort-Feasors, 1 Am. Law Eev. N. S, 36) — I take it there can be no doubt that a partner is entitled to contribution from his coparfcner when he has paid more than bis share of the firm liabilities, even though the liabilities grow eut of a tortious act of the firm. When money has corne into the hands of a partner- ship on a partnership transaction, however unlawfully or wrongfuUy acquired as between the members, it is partner- ship assets, and must be acconnted for as such as between themselves. McBlair v. Gibbes, 17 How. 337. In this case the supreme court, approvingly quoting from a prier case, says: "Can one of two partners possess hiœself of the prop- erty of the firm, and be permitted to retain it, if he can show that in realizing it some provision in some act of parlia- ment has been violated ? The answer is that the transaction alleged to be illegal is completed and closed, and will not be in any manner affected by what the court is asked to do as between the parties. The difference (he observes) between enforcing illegal contracts and asserting title to the money ' which has arisen from thern is distinctly taken in Tenant v. Elliot and Fariner v. Russell, and recognized by Sir William Grant in Thompson "v. Thompson." �Also in Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70, 81, it is held that "after a partnership contract, confessedly against public pol- icy, has been carried ont, and money contributed by one of the partners had passed into other forms — the resulta of the contemplated operation completed — a partner in whose hands the profits are cannot refuse to account for and divide them on the ground of the illegal character of the original con- tract." �The principle stated in these cases covers this case. Upon the allegations of the bill these contracts set out between the two corporations were fulfiUed, the consideration paid over, and the original transactions closed. The profits accrued thereupon, according to the allegations of the bill, came to the firm of Flood, O'Brien, Mackey and Fair, as partners, and, however obtained, they were upon that hypothesis part- nership assets, and as between them must be so treated. ��� �