This case is the sequel of the case of Butler v. Hinckley, ante. The cases were argued and have been considered together. ' In this instance the liability of appellant rests entirely upon - the claim that á co-partnership existed between Butler and Carleton. The evidence of such co-partnership is no stronger in this case than in the preceding case.

The decision in the former case must,- therefore, control in this. The judgment of the district court will be accordingly reversed. . .