80     p s . mvnm .1=¤1=0M¤¤=·., . . .  
for all thetime; necessary in the construction of the railroad or roads
— over and above that given the other roads or companies, as the exempe
tion provided. for them included the time of construction. '1`hisbeing
a·case that can be appealed to the supreme court, and being one that
concerns thepublic, will be given an early hearing, when this decision
can be reviewed. I deem it best for all parties to sustain the demurrer,
and dismiss the case, so that an appeal can be taken at once.
t ` Ames etal. v..AM1ss at al. » i
n (Ctrcuit 0'aurt, D. Jlhnncaota. December 11, 1888.)
1. PARTNERSHIP1PARTNERSHIP Pnormrrr. i _ v A r
At the formation of a partnership for carrying on the milling business the
property in controversy was purchased, a small part of the price being paid
in cash, and taken possession of, and used for the partnership business, and
the balance of the price was paid out of the earnings of the mill, and a large
amountof the proiits expended in improvements thereon. There was no
agreement between the partners by which the property was `to become part-
nership property, and the title stood in the individual names of the partners,
but in exact proportion to their respective interests in the partnership; and,
` upon the several readjustments and conveyances of interests in the partner-
ship, deeds were given for proportionate interests in the property. Held, that
, the property was. as to creditors, partnership property, especially as under
the laws of the state where the property was situated the proper mode of
transferring title was to the individual partners. i · ·
2. SAME-FIRM·AND Innrvrousr. Cnmnrrons-Sorunron Eonrrr. ~
One who has advanced money to enable one partner to purchase an interest
, of another, has no equity superior to that of the partnership creditors, though
the advancement was made on the promise of the partner to secure him y
mortgage, and at a time when there were no partnership debts. ’
A In Equity. On final hearing on pleadings and proofs.
Bill by John T. Ames and others against Adelbert Ames and Benja- ,
I min F. Butler, to dissolve a partnership, and for an accounting, and for
· an injunction against attachment proceedings by Butler against the inter- .
est of Adelbert Ames in the partnership property.
Gordon E. Cole and Young &· Irightfncr, for complainants.
M. R. Benton, for defendants.
Bnmwmz, J. This case is submitted for final hearing on the pleadings
and proofs. The single question for present determination is whether
‘ certain mill property is to be treated as partnership or the individual
property of the three persons who formed the late partnership of "Jesse
Ames’Sons." A brief statement of the general history of this mil] prop-
erty for the last quarter of a century will pave the way to a clear under-
standing of the question, as it is now presented, and the considerations
which mustnecessarily adeotand determine the answer thereto. In
1864, the property was first purchased by the Ames family. At that
time a partnership was formed by the name of "Jesse Ames & Co.," for