PARTITION" PARTNERSHIP 137 tween the forces of the two great empires. It lasted three days, and resulted in the defeat of the Romans, who were compelled to pur- chase permission to retire unmolested at a price equivalent to about $7,000,000. Three or four years after this great battle Artaxerxes, the tributary king or satrap of Persia, who claimed descent from Cyrus and Darius Hystaspis, re- volted against Artabanus, called the Persians and the followers of Zoroaster to arms, and, after a hard struggle which lasted five or six years, defeated and killed Artabanus in a great battle on the plain of Hormuz in 226. The Parthian empire thus perished after an ex- istence of nearly five centuries, and the Per- sian empire of the Sassanians took its place. See "The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy," by George Rawlinson (London, 1873). PARTITION, in law, the severance of common or undivided interests. It is particularly ap- plied to interests in realty. At common law lands held by two or more persons were held by them either in joint tenancy, in common, or in coparcenery. The first two of these es- tates were created by the act of the parties. The last was created by operation of the law, when in casting a descent it devolved a single estate upon two or more heirs; as, for ex- ample, when an estate in fee of one who left no male succession passed to his daughters or other female representatives. These persons were called coparceners. Theirs was the only joint estate of which the common law would compel a dissolution at the request of a single party. Joint tenants and tenants in common became so, said the law, by their own mutual agreement and act, and the tenancy could be justly severed only by their mutual consent. But coparceners are rendered so by operation of law, and lest any one of them be prejudiced by the perverseness of his fellows, the law will lend its aid, if he ask it, and help him, by par- tition, to the enjoyment of his separate inter- est. In the reigns of Henry VIII. and of Wil- liam IV. special statutes extended this com- mon law benefit, which hitherto coparceners alone had enjoyed, to joint tenants and tenants in common ; so that partition then became in- cident to all estates held in common. In the United States the technical joint tenancy is for the most part abolished ; joint ownerships be- ing, if not under express statutes, yet in effect, only tenancies in common. Therefore what in England would be estates in coparcenery are here estates in common, so that much of the English law of partition is inapplicable here. Yet as among us real property general- ly passes, on the death of an ancestor, to more persons than one, partition still retains an im- portance in respect to the tenancies in com- mon of heirs and devisees. In some parts of the country, the operation of this remedy is extended by statutes beyond the limits fixed for it by the common law or the statutes of Henry VIII. In England partition was made either by mutual consent or upon compulsion. In the latter case, the relief was sought either by a writ of partition, sued out by one party, at common law, or by his petition to the court of chancery. The latter is now the usual mode, and there is good reason for the prefer- ence of 'the chancery courts, as the procedure at law in a case of partition is far less effec- tive than that in equity. The courts of law are limited to a mere allotment according to the proportional shares of the parties in inter- est ; and this often causes a purely mechanical, and so prejudicial, division of an estate. But chancery, not restricted to the exact balancing of equivalent shares, but capable of all equita- ble adjustments of . the matter, may distribute among the claimants the separate, though un- equal, parcels of the estate, assigning to the several parties the portions which will best suit their respective condition, equalizing such a partition by decreeing pecuniary compensation to be made, or in other cases ordering equita- ble payments by some for improvements made in the common property by others. This ju- risdiction is exercised with peculiar fitness in all cases where purely equitable rights, con- flicting claims of parties, or modes of enjoy- ment are to be adjusted. Courts of equity will interpose only when the title of their pe- titioner is clear. If it be contested, he must try it at law. Wherever, in our states, dis- tinct equity courts exist, they probably have concurrent jurisdiction with courts of law in respect to partitions, and, in general, such a jurisdiction as has just been described. But in almost all the states the cognizance of par- titions is regulated by very minute statute pro- visions, and to these in each state reference must be made for the particular methods of procedure, and the powers of the courts. In some states the equity process is left undis- turbed; in some the writ of partition, with certain modifications, still remains. General- ly, however, the mode of obtaining partition is by petition to the higher courts of law. The courts of probate, too, are usually invested with the power to divide estates. PARTNERSHIP, in law, exists when two or more persons combine their property, labor, or skill, or one or more of these, for the trans- action of business for their common profit. It may be confined to a specific purpose or a sin- gle transaction; but when not so limited by the words of the partners, or by acts which imply limitation, it is general. All persons competent to do business on their own account may enter into partnership. Generally, the partners own the property and the profits joint- ly ; but one or more of them may own exclu- sively the property or capital, leaving only the profits to be owned jointly. So all kinds of property may be owned by a partnership. But when real estate is so owned, the laws of rec- ord title, of transfer by deed, of inheritance, and of dower, have still an important operation. Generally the rule is this : Real estate is part- nership property when it is bought with part-
