Short answer. He can be forced out. Article 1791 says that when the partnership faces an imminent loss, a partner who refuses to contribute an additional share of capital to save it — unless he is an industrial partner — is obliged to sell his interest to the other partners. Refusal does not dissolve the firm; it costs him his stake.
What the law says
any partner who refuses to contribute an additional share to the capital, except an industrial partner, to save the venture
Civil Code, Article 1791 — Refusal to Add Capital in Imminent Loss. Read the full provision →
When a partner can be compelled to add capital
Ordinarily no partner can be forced to put more money into a partnership than he originally agreed to. Article 1791 carves out one situation where that changes. It applies where there is no agreement to the contrary and the business faces an imminent loss. In that narrow case, a partner who refuses to contribute an additional share to the capital ... to save the venture does not simply get to sit on his hands. The Code turns his refusal into a decision to leave: he must sell his interest to the partners who are willing to keep the business alive, rather than ride out the rescue at their expense.
The industrial partner is exempt
The article expressly excepts the industrial partner — the one who contributes work or services rather than money. He is not required to reach into his pocket, because his contribution to the partnership was never capital in the first place. Requiring him to buy his way back into a venture he was never meant to fund would defeat the very basis on which he joined. So a capitalist partner who refuses faces the forced sale; the industrial partner who cannot or will not add cash does not, and keeps his share in the firm.
'Imminent loss' and 'no agreement to the contrary'
Two conditions gate the whole rule. First, the loss must be imminent — a real and pressing threat to the business, not an ordinary bad quarter or a partner's wish to expand. The provision is a rescue mechanism, not a tool to squeeze money out of a reluctant partner in good times. Second, it yields to the partners' own contract: the opening words if there is no agreement to the contrary mean the partners are free to write their own rule on additional contributions, and where they have done so, that agreement governs instead of Article 1791.
What the forced sale means in practice
The consequence is specific: the refusing partner is obliged to sell his interest to the other partners — not expelled for nothing, and not automatically stripped of value. He is bought out, so the price of his interest still has to be worked out and paid to him. What he loses is the choice to stay while contributing nothing further to a sinking business; he cannot keep the upside of a rescue funded entirely by the others. In practice, disputes here turn on whether the loss was truly imminent and on how the departing partner's interest is valued.