¶1 Counsel for appellant in this case have filed an interesting and elaborate brief, with citation of authorities, in support of the position that a member of a copartnership may become an indej>endent contractor, with respect to a given piece of work, in his relation to the partnership firm of which he is a member. Chicago Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Campbell, 116 Ill. App., 322, and Burns v. Michigan Paint Co., 152 Mich., 613, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.), 816 and note. It is contended that such was the position of Howard in hauling the tobacco — the partnership extending only to the buying and selling of the tobacco — and that he alone should be held liable for the negligence of the truck driver who was engaged in this work at the time of the plaintiff’s injury. There was evidence pro and con on this point, but we think it is settled by the jury’s answer to the third issue. The crucial fact has been found against the appellant’s contention. Hence, the legal questions, debated before us, do not seem to be presented on the record. We have found no error,, and the judgment below will be upheld.
¶2 No error.