Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/168

 on Migs., §§ 259, 261; Smith v. Crosby, 47 Wis. 160. The transfer, with privilege of repurchase, was a sale on condition. Sacton v. Hitchcock, 47 Barb. 220; Sentland v. Sentland, 3 Mich. 482; Coe v. Cassidy, 6 Daly, 645; Turner v. Kerr, 44 Wis. 433; Lee v. Kilburn, 3 Gray, 594; Baker v. Thresher, 4 Denio, 493; Hilliard on Mtgs., vol. 1, p. 96; Kent, vol. 4, p. 147; Holmes v. Grant, 8 Paige, 243; Woodward v. Pickett, 8 Gray, 617; Henly v. Houghtaling, 41 Cal. 22; McNamara v. Culver, 22 Kan. 661; Garsert v. Boyk, 1 Mont. 240; Horback vy. Hill, 112 U. S. 144.

Messrs. Ball & Smith, for the respondent, argued: That the partnership had been. dissolved by mutual consent, and by a completion of the business for which it was formed. Rohrer v. Drake, 33 Minn. 408. The partnership affairs have all been settled. One partner can sue another, even on an obligation pertaining to the partnership business, if the obligation can be determined without going into the partnership accounts. Croter v. Benninger, 45 N. Y. 545; Clark v. Mills, 13 Pac. Rep. 569. In this case an adjustment of the partnership affairs may be effected in an action at law. Thompson vy. Lowe, 12 N. E. Rep. 486. Where fraud exists action may be maintained against a copartner before final settlement. Sprout v. Crowley, 30 Wis. 187. Where one partner lends another the means to pay latter’s share of capital, it has been held not a partnership transaction. Bull v. Coe, 18 Pac. Rep. 808; Wetherbee v. Potter, 99 Mass. 354; Dunphy v. Ryan, 116 U. 8. 491.

Under code system of pleading, the court can give relief, irrespective of the prayer of the complaint, and if appellant had asked for an accounting he could have had it; but he, without objection, proceeded to trial by jury, and thereafter abandoned his demand for an accounting. Washburn v. Mendenhall, 21 Minn. 332.

The deed and agreement to reconvey amounted to a mortgage. Cornell v. Hall, 22 Mich. 377; Smith v. Crosby, 47 Wis. 160; Jones on Mtgs., §§ 258-61; Montgomery v. Chadwick, 7 Iowa, 114.

In January, 1882, plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement under which plaintiff, who resided