The petitioner seeks to recover of the defendants $10,000 paid to Sénécal on or before the 31st of December, 1836, as a portion of the capital stock that John Cauchois, her son-in-law, was to put into the co-partnership of Sénécal 6c Cauchois. She alleges that the firm engaged to refund to her this amount, by yearly instalments of one thousand dollars. That they have not only paid no part of the said sum according to contract, but that, for the purpose of defrauding her of the ten thousand dollars, Sénécal & Cauchois have sold out the largest portion of their goods and merchandize, and are selling off the rest, and are about leaving the State, with the fraudulent view of depriving her of all recourse against their property and persons, before she can obtain and exe-. cute a judgment against them in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. The petition concludes with a prayer for a writ of attachment against the property of the firm, and an order of arrest against Sénécal, the only partner residing here. The answer pleads the general issue, and avers that Michel Musson who signed the articles of* co-partnership, as attorney in fact for J. Cauchois, then in France, was without authority to insert in it the *454clause by which one thousand dollars are to be paid each year to the plaintiff, and that, as soon as J. Cauchois was apprized of the said clause in the act of partnership, he wrote to Sénécal that he would not ratify it. The answer denies that the defendants ever intended to defraud the plaintiff, and avers that they were selling out in the usual way of their business where European goods have long been in store. It concludes with a reconventional demand for the sum of $25,000 as damages, for the injury done to the defendants by the calumnies set forth in the petition, and the wrongful suing out of an attachment which has rendered it impossible for them to meet their engagements and transact their business. The case was submitted to a jury on the main action only, the court below having, on motion, ordered the reconventional demand to be stricken out of the answer, as irregular, illegal, and premature.

*454There was a verdict and judgment below for the defendants, from which the plaintiff has appealed.

The co-partnership between Sénécal & Cauchois, to form which the plaintiff agreed to advance, and did advance the sum of $10,000 for Cauchois, her son-in-law, was to begin on the 1st of May, 1836, and to expire on the 1st of October, 1839. The articles of co-partnership are signed only by Sénécal, and Musson as attorney in fact of Cauchois ; and the clause upon which the plaintiff rests her claim for reimbursement against the firm, is in the following words, to wit:

“ A. Sénécal et John Cauchois percevront chacun annuellement une allowance de seize cents piastres pour leur entretien particular. Sur sa portion John Cauchois s’engage á appliquer une somme de mille piastres par an á l’extinction de la dette de dix mille piastres, sans inléréls, qu’il a contractée envers sa belle mere, Madame Vve, Ml. Smith, et á cette fin au lieu de toucher les dites mille piastres, le versement en sera fait par la société entre les mains de Monsieur Michel Musson aux époques convenues contre son re<?u, pour compte de Madame Vve, Ml. Smith, dont il e^t Fagent en cette ville.”

Morphy, J. In the clause on which the plaintiff rests her claim for reimbursement against the firm, even taking for granted the right of Cauchois’ agent to make it, we cannot see any engagement on the part of the firm to become indebted for, or to repay to the plaintiff, the capital advanced by her to her son-in-law, and by him put into the partnership. If, in virtue of this clause, the petitioner, under proper pleadings, had claimed the one thousand dollars a year, which were to be retained by the firm and paid over to her, out of the allowance of $1600 made to Cauchois for his private expenses during the existence of the partnership, she might and probably would have recovered. The partnership would have had to pay the money to her, not as a reimbursement or restitution of the capital paid in by Cauchois, but as a part of the sum which the latter had the right to draw for his expenses each year, and which, by-agreement, was to be paid to her. But, in this suit, the petitioner claims of the defendants the very capital which she has advanced to Cauchois to form the partnership. This she has clearly no right to do ; she lent her money to Cauchois, not to the partnership. It is, therefore, against Cauchois that her right of action exists, and not against the firm, with whom she never contracted. Story on Partnership, p. 211, § 134, 135. Pothier, No. 101, 105, 106. But there is another view of this subject equally fatal to the plaintiff’s pretensions. Her suit is, in substance, to withdraw Cauchois’ share or portion of the capital of the partnership, before the time for which it was contracted has expired, for this action was brought on the 20th of November,'1838. This Cauchois himself could not do, nor can the plaintiff. 10 Mart. 433. 7 Ib. N. S. 284. 8 Ib. N. S. 281. -Sénécal has clearly the right to insist on the application-of the partnership funds to the payment of the partnership debts, in preference to all debts due by Cauchois individually. „ The plaintiff’s only remedy was to sue Cauchois, against whom alone she has a right of action, and to attach such balance as might be coming to him upon a final settlement of the partnership. Civ. Code, art. 2794. Story on Partnership, p. 135, § 971.

Judgment affirmed.