[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo ad Sabinum. ] §17.2.29.prSi non fuerint partes societati adiectae, aequas eas esse constat.
[ULPIANUS in his thirtieth book on Sabinus] If the shares have not been added to the partnership, it is established that they are equal.
si uero placuerit, ut quis duas partes uel tres habeat, alius unam, an ualeat? placet ualere, si modo aliquid plus contulit societati uel pecuniae uel operae uel cuiuscumque alterius rei causa.
But if it is agreed that one should have two or three shares, and another one, is it valid? It is accepted that it is valid, provided only that he has contributed something more to the partnership, either on account of money, or of labour, or of any other thing.
§17.2.29.1Ita coiri societatem posse, ut nullam partem damni alter sentiat, lucrum uero commune sit, Cassius putat: quod ita demum ualebit, ut et Sabinus scribit, si tanti sit opera, quanti damnum est: plerumque enim tanta est industria socii, ut plus societati conferat quam pecunia, item si solus nauiget, si solus peregrinetur, pericula subeat solus.
Cassius thinks that a partnership can be entered into in such a way that one partner suffers no share of the loss, while the profit is common; which will be valid only if, as Sabinus also writes, the labour is of as much value as the loss; for often the industry of a partner is so great that he contributes more to the partnership than money, likewise if he alone voyages, if he alone travels abroad, and undergoes dangers alone.
§17.2.29.2Aristo refert Cassium respondisse societatem talem coiri non posse, ut alter lucrum tantum, alter damnum sentiret, et hanc societatem leoninam solitum appellare: et nos consentimus talem societatem nullam esse, ut alter lucrum sentiret, alter uero nullum lucrum, sed damnum sentiret: iniquissimum enim genus societatis est, ex qua quis damnum, non etiam lucrum spectet.
Aristo reports that Cassius answered that such a partnership cannot be entered into, that one should experience only profit, and the other only loss, and that he was accustomed to call this a "leonine partnership"; and we agree that such a partnership is void, where one should experience profit, and the other indeed no profit, but only loss; for it is a most inequitous kind of partnership, from which someone should expect loss, and not also profit.