However, the jurisdictional analysis here would be the same in either case. CSC supports its position by reference to Bloise v. Trust Co. Bank c., 170 Ga. App. 405 ( 317 SE2d 249) (1984), and Cohen v. Publishers Paper Co., 171 Ga. App. 87 ( 318 SE2d 796) (1984). In Bloise, a bank sought to recover from the defendant on a loan the bank made to a partnership in which the defendant was a partner.

Davis Metals, supra. That action is ascribed to the other shareholders since Corrado was acting as their agent. OCGA § 9-10-91; Bloise v. Trust Co. Bank of Savannah, 170 Ga. App. 405, 407 (1) ( 317 S.E.2d 249) (1984). The Supreme Court in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 478 (105 SC 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528) (1985), did state that an individual's contract with a nonresident cannot alone establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party's home forum, noting that the Court had long ago rejected "mechanical" tests and "conceptualistic theories of the place of contracting or performance."

See Kaplan v. Gibson, 192 Ga. App. 466, 467 (1) ( 385 S.E.2d 103) (1989) (evidence sufficient to support finding that physicians were ostensible partners under OCGA § 14-8-16 to render them liable in medical malpractice suit). It is uncontroverted there are no written documents indicating that appellee was a partner with Mr. Messina or M A, see American Cotton College v. Atlanta Newspaper Union, 138 Ga. 147, 148 (4) (b) ( 74 S.E. 1084) (1912); compare Bloise v. Trust Co. Bank, 170 Ga. App. 405, 407 (2) ( 317 S.E.2d 249) (1984), and appellants do not assert that appellee and her husband expressly stated to them that appellee was a partner. Compare Kaplan, supra.

]" Girard v. Weiss, 160 Ga. App. 295 (1) ( 287 S.E.2d 301) (1981). The execution of the agreement in Georgia is a sufficient purposeful transaction of business within the forum ( Bloise v. Trust Co. Bank of Savannah, 170 Ga. App. 405 (1) ( 317 S.E.2d 249) (1984)), and the cause of action arises from and is connected with the consummation of the agreement. See Davis Metals, supra.

As previously stated, under the holding in White Lumber, the contacts between appellant's partner and Oregon were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over him there, and thus, over the partnership and appellant. Oregon's exercise of personal jurisdiction over appellant does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. In Bloise v. Trust Co. Bank of Savannah, 170 Ga. App. 405 ( 317 S.E.2d 249) (1984), we held that where a non-resident defendant's partners had "transacted business" in Georgia, under the Georgia Long-Arm Statute, their "action is ascribed to appellant since [his partners] were acting as his agents. [Cit.