bined a large acquaintance with both sys tems. He was a man of high character and a sound and acute judge. His extreme cau tion and timidity, however, limited the influ ence which his learning and experience would otherwise have had.1
the test, or one of the tests whether a person not ostensibly a partner is, nevertheless, in contemplation of law, a partner, is, whether he is entitled to participate in the profits. This, no doubt, is, in general, a sufficiently accurate test; for a right to participate in
BARON ROLFE, AFTERWARDS LORD CRANWORTH.
Crapworth had a marked capacity for lucid statement. His discussion of the vexed question as to what constitutes a partnership, in Cox v. Hickman, 8 H. L. Cas. 267, is a good illustration: "It is often said that
profits affords cogent, often conclusive, evi dence that the trade in which the profits have been made was carried on in part for or on behalf of the person setting up such a claim. But the real ground of the liability is that
1 Cox v. Hickman, 8 H. L. Cas. 267; Egerton v. Brownlow, 4 do. i; Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 rlo. 842; Oakes v. Turquand, 2 do. 369; Brook v. Brook, 9 do. 195; Ranker v. Great Western Ry. S do. 72; Ricket v. Metropolitan Ry. 2 E. & I.
App. 174; Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 do. 330; Shaw Ï-. Gould, 3 do. 55; Startup v. Macdonald, 12 L. J., Ex. 477; Clift v. Schwabe, 17 L. J., С. Р. 2; Money v. Jordan, 2 De G., M. & G. 318; Hills v. Hills, 8 M. & W. 401; Jones v. Lock, i Ch. App. 25.
