. sums v. mms. . 31
the purposeof carrying on the milling business, and the milling prop-
erty in question was purchased at the agreed price of $25,000. Adel-
bert Ames put in $2,000. Jesse Ames, his father, a farm at Cannon
City, some cash, a thousand or two bushels of wheat, and a span of horses;
leaving. a· balance remaining on mortgage, which was subsequently paid
out of the earnings of the mill. John T. Ames, a son of Jesse, and
brother of Adelbert, had no money to put into the business, but, as he V
testifies, was to have a salary and a portion of the earnings until he had
acquired an interest. This partnership of Jesse Ames & Co. took pos-
session of the mill property, and ran the mill, and out of the earnings
paid the mortgage given to theoriginal vendor. During this time Adel- '
bert Ames was away in thearmy, and and the business of the partner-
ship was carried on by his father and brother. In 1867 there was a re-·
arrangement. ~ Deeds were exchanged, by which a one-quarter undivided
interest in themill property was vested in Adelbert, one-eighth in John
T., while JesseAmes, the father, retained Eve-eighths; and a new firm
was formed by =the name of "Jesse Ames & Sons." Subsequently Jesse
Ames conveyedfa further one-sixteenth to John T. Ames. There was no
partnership contract reduced to writing, and the interests of the partners
` in the partnership were the same as their interests in the mill property.
The milling business was very prosperous. Large profits were made, and
something like $100,000 expended in improving this property. This
continued until 1876, at which time the legal title to the mill property
stood nine-sixteenths in Jesse Ames, three-sixteenths in John T. Ames,
and four-sixteenths in Adelbert Ames. At that time a new arrangement
was formed, by which one-half was conveyed by Jesse Ames to Adelbert
Ames, giving him an undivided three-fourthsinterest; and one-sixteenth
to John Hanley, who had been theretofore the foreman in the mill; and
a new Erm, by the style of "Jesse Ames’ Sons," was organized. Adelbert
Ames’ purchase from his father in 1876 of the undivided half was for
the sum of forty thousand dollars, of which twenty-Eve thousand dollars
was loaned to Adelbert by Gen. Butler, and the other fifteen thousand
borrowed onithe credit of Gen. Butler’s indorsement of Adelbert’s paper.
After this new partnership was formed, the milling business ceased to be
as profitable as it had theretofore been. The firm began to run behind,
until, in 1886, it was found impracticable to continue longer in business.
In May,‘1886, Gen. Butler commenced suit against Adelbert Ames to
recover the= $25,000 loaned, less $2,000 paid, and in that action attached
hisinterest inthe mill property. Thereupon the present complainants,
theother partners of Adelbert, brought this action to dissolve the part-
nership, obtain an accounting, and also seeking to enjoin the further pro- ,
ceedings under that attachment of Gen. Butler, until the firm debts had
been paid.? A   - Q -
; It is undisputed that the firm is insolvent, and that, even if the entire
mill property be considered as partnership property, and sold for the
satisfaction of the partnership debts, they will not all be paid; so that
the contention of the present complainants is that Adelbert Ames’ indi-
vidual debt to Gen. Butler must be subordinated to the prior claims of