runs v. suns. · 2 B5
matters rnustalso· be noticed -the-large improvements, 'costing over`$100,-
000, made upon the property, and paid for out of the business. It is
true, defendant claims that this appropriation of partnership funds to
A the improvement of the property is to be considered as a mere matter
of dividends,and that it is entirely·consistent with the idea of individ-
ual ownership. While it may be consistent with that idea, yet nothing
was said ·about a dividend, and apparently a mere accumulation of the
profits of the partnership business was expended in making the property
more serviceable for partnership purposes, so that the more natural thought
is that the firm was using its partnership profits to improve its partner-
ship property. Again, when the books of the present partnership were
opened, the following entry was made therein in reference to the ·mil1
property: , ,
· "NORTHFIELD Fnoumne Mums.
"Jesse Ames’ Sons, to Mill property in N orthtield, Minnesota, and improve-
ments the old and newmills, $1.00;" "
Thus itappears that the real property was entered upon the books of
the firm as a part of the assets; and that this entry was known to the
defendant Adelbert Ames, is, I think, very satisfactorily shown, and,
while I do not place so much reliance as counsel for complainant upon
the significance of this book-entry, yet it is in harmony with the pur-
pose evidenced by the transactions heretofore noticed. Indeed, such an
entry seems inconsistent with the idea of individual ownership of the
real estate. As such it is testimony worthy of consideration. Beyond
that, though of minor significance, are the insurance policies and tax
receipts. I say, "minor significance/’ because, while some of them in-
dicate partnership ownership of the property, they are not uniform in
their language, and some, atleast, are consistent with individual owner-
ship. Furthermore, it is obvious that the property was known as the
"Ames Mill‘l’roperty," and that persons dealt with the firm and trusted
it on the strength of its supposed ownership of the property. Of course,
it may be said that all the parties are bound by what the record shows
as to the legal title, but still, with the law of Minnesota such as it is in
respect to conveyances to partnerships, the significance of this dealing
and relianceupon the part of third parties is no, trivial element. Fur-.
thermore, suits for damages for flowage, and proceedings in court, while
perhaps consistent with individual ownership, are at least suggestive of,
and point towards, partnership ownership. I refer to these matters only
in a general way. V ‘
The testimony is voluminou , and it would be a waste of time and
paper to detail all the facts and circumstances. The significant kones I
have indicated, and in my mind they leave little doubt that from the
inception of the purchase, in 1864, to the commencement of_ this suit it
was the understanding of the partners that this real estate was part and
parcel of the partnership property. .
The other question remains, whether Gen. Butler has a right in equity
to insist upona preference in the matter of his claim by reasonof the