Short answer. Not to put in more, but you may be bought out. Under Article 1791, if there is no agreement to the contrary and the business faces an imminent loss, a capital partner who refuses to contribute an additional share to save the venture is obliged to sell his interest to the other partners. An industrial partner is excepted.
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 →
You cannot be forced to add capital — but there is a price
Article 1791 addresses the partner who does not want to throw good money after bad. It does not force him to contribute. In case of an imminent loss of the business of the partnership, any partner who refuses to contribute an additional share to the capital, except an industrial partner, to save the venture, is obliged instead to sell his interest to the other partners. So the refusing partner keeps his freedom not to put in more, but he cannot keep both his money and his place in the firm: the price of refusing is that he must let the others buy him out.
When it applies: imminent loss and no contrary agreement
Two conditions frame the rule. First, there must be an imminent loss of the business — a real and pressing threat to the venture, not an ordinary need for more working capital or an ambitious partner's wish to expand. The remedy is for saving a firm in danger, not for funding growth. Second, it applies only if there is no agreement to the contrary; partners are free to write their own rule about additional contributions, and if they have, that governs. Where those two conditions are met and a capital partner still refuses to chip in to save the business, the buy-out obligation is triggered.
Why the industrial partner is excepted
The article carves out the industrial partner — the one who contributes his work and skill rather than money. He is not obliged to sell his interest for refusing to add capital, and the reason is straightforward: he never undertook to put in capital in the first place. His contribution is his industry, and it would make no sense to demand cash from a partner whose whole role was to work. The obligation to contribute an additional share, and the buy-out that follows a refusal, therefore fall on the capitalist partners — those whose stake was money or property — and not on the one who came in on his labour alone.
Facing the choice
If your partnership hits a genuine crisis and you are asked for more capital, understand the position before you dig in. Check first whether your agreement sets its own rule on additional contributions, because that displaces the article. If it does not, and the loss really is imminent, a flat refusal does not simply end the matter — it puts the other partners in a position to buy you out at the value of your interest. Decide, then, whether you would rather contribute and stay, or refuse and be bought out.