Georgia Penitentiary Co. Number Two et al. vs. Nelms. et al. April, 1879; that by this resolution two hundred and fifty convicts are taken away from them; and that said resolution impairs the obligation of their contract, and is therefore void. I. The contract of lease of complainants, as well as the claim of the Marietta and North Georgia Railroad Company, is based upon the act of the legislature approved February 25th, 1876, entitled "An act to regulate the leasing out of penitentiary convicts by the governor, authorizing him to make contracts in relation thereto, and for other purposes." The resolution of 1879 cannot add to or take away any rights of lessees existing under this act of 1876. It is but an expression of the views of the legislature as to what they thought they had done, and instructions to an executive officer as to what, in their opinion, he should do under this act; and it is a legitimate source to look to in determining the intention of the legislature in passing the act. 2. To determine whether said resolution impairs the obligation of pre-existing contracts made under the act of 1876, it is necessary to construe said act, to give effect to the words employed therein, and thus reach the intention of the legislature. And it is a cardinal rule in the construction of statutes that an act should be so construed that all parts thereof may stand together. This act provides that as the leases may expire under the act of March, 1874, the governor is authorized and required to farm or lease said convicts to one or more companies, or association of persons, upon compliance with certain conditions. But before any disposition is made of the convicts, the governor is authorized to furnish the directors of the Marietta and North Georgia Railroad Company, upon their application for the same, two hundred and fifty convicts, or so many thereof as they may desire, for the space of three years, or until the completion of the grading of their road, upon giving satisfactory obligation to feed, clothe and provide for the same. Georgia Penitentiary Co. Number Two et al. vs. Nelms et al. It is patent from this the first section of the act of 1876, that the legislature intended the Marietta and North Georgia Railroad Company to have the right to two hundred and fifty convicts before any other disposition by lease was made of them. In paragraph first, of the first section, it provides for leases "for the space of time not less than twenty years," "to one or more companies," "or association of persons;" and the language of the second paragraph of this section. commences and reads as follows: "Before any disposition is made of the convicts as contemplated under the provis ions of this act (i. e. leasing to one or more companies), his excellency, the governor, shall be authorized to furnish to the directors of the Marietta and North Georgia Railroad, upon their application for the same, two hundred and fifty convicts," etc. This qualification in favor of the railroad before any other disposition could be made of the convicts; the proviso that the governor might lease to certain railroads, unless the convicts have been leased to the companies provided for and the Marietta and North Georgia Railroad; the further proviso in the same section authorizing leases to railroads and turnpikes, subordinate to the rights of the companies provided for and the Marietta and North Georgia Railroad; and still further, section second authorizing other leases, at the same time guarding with the usual proviso, and in the same connection, the rights of the Marietta and North Georgia Railroad; all show the plain and manifest intention of the legislature to grant to this railroad company the right to the services of two hundred and fifty convicts for three years, or longer, if necessary to complete the grading of the road. Such being the right of this company, it was entitled ro receive that number of convicts, provided application for them was made before they were leased to other companies, and the requisite obligation delivered or tendered; and this right was paramount to that of all other lessees. Printup Bros. & Co. vs. Turner.-Turner vs. Printup Bros. & Co. et al. The penitentiary companies, therefore, took their leases cum onere, and subordinate to the rights of the Marietta and North Georgia Railroad Company, if the latter made application for the convicts and tendered bond before the execution of these contracts. Whether the railroad company complied with the conditions requisite to entitle it to the convicts, is a question of fact which should be passed upon by a jury. Under the law, the chancellor having committed not error in refusing the injunction prayed for, his decision is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. PRINTUP BROTHERS & COMPANY vs. TURNER. TURNER US. PRINTUP BROTHERS & COMPANY et al. 1. Where a deed to lands is made to partners in the firm name, they nevertheless hold as tenants in common, and if, in the partnership name, they make a promissory note with mortgage on the land, and in the body thereof use the firm name, but execute it in their individual capacity, it is a proper legal conveyance from the partnership, as also from the partners themselves to the mortagee, and it may be foreclosed against one, more, or all of the partners. 2. One member of the firm cannot convey, by deed or mortgage, partnership land, though in the partnership name and to secure a partship debt, contracted within the scope of the partnership business, without authority or subsequent ratification by his copartners. Such an instrument conveys only his own interest, and though executed in the name of the partnership, if it be a mortgage, may be foreclosed as to the interest of the person who makes it. 3. When a suit is brought against copartners, or the survivors of a partnership, it is not necessary to declare against or pray process as to all the members thereof, and have a return of non est inventus as to those not served, in order to bind their interest in the partnership effects; in either case, the judgment binds the partners sued and served as to their individual property and all the property of the partnership. Printup Bros. & Co. vs. Turner.-Turner vs. Printup Bros. & Co. et al. Partnership. Title. Deeds. Mortgage. Before Judge UNDERWOOD. Floyd Superior Court. September Term, 1879. This case arose upon a money rule against the sheriff for the distribution of the proceeds of certain property sold under execution. The facts were, in brief, as follows: On May 22d, 1869, lot 118, in the Coosa division of the city of Rome, was conveyed to John Bones, John Brown, James W. Bones and John S. Bones, individually. On September 4th, 1872, lot 119 was conveyed to J. & S Bones & Co., as a firm. On April 1st, 1874, "James W. Bones, John S. Bones, John Brown and John B. Dougherty, merchants and partners composing the firm of J. & S. Bones & Co.," executed to Turner a mortgage to secure the payment of a promissory note for $17,500.00, due at twelve months, bearing interest at twelve per cent. per .annum. The mortgage was signed by each partner individually, and the note by J. & S. Bones & Co. At the March term, 1879, of Floyd superior court, a rule absolute was obtained on the mortgage in favor of Turner against James W. Bones, John Brown and John B. Dougherty. At the same term, Printup Brothers & Co. and other creditors obtained judgments against the firms of J. & S. Bones & Co. and Bones, Brown & Co., and against James W. Bones and John Brown, as survivors of both firms. John Bones, one of the joint owners of lot 118, was no party to any of the debts nor to any of the suits. John S. Bones was a party to all of the debts, but having died, was not a party to any of the suits. The declaration of Printup Brothers & Co. was against James W. Bones, John M. Bowie and John Brown, as survivors of J. & S. Bones & Co. (John S. Bones, of said firm, being now deceased), as makers, and of said county. of Floyd, and James W. Bones, of said county of Floyd, and John Brown and John B. Dougherty, of the county of Richmond, state of Georgia, survivors of the firm using Printup Bros. & Co. vs. Turner.-Turner vs. Printup Bros. & Co. et al. the name and style of Bones, Brown & Co., of said county of Richmond (John S. Bones, of said firm, being now deceased), as indorsers." The process was headed by substantially the same statement of parties, and required the defendants to be and appear, etc. The verdict and judg ment were against the defendants, as sued, for $4,485.31 principal, $128.00 interest to date, $300.00 damages, and costs. Lots 118 and 119 were sold under the execution of Printup Brothers & Co., notice being given that the mortgage lien would look to the proceeds, thus presenting an unincumbered title. The former brought $3,100.00 and the latter $2,100.00. The court distributed the fund as follows: Costs on execution of Printup Brothers & Co., To mortgage fi. fa. of Seth Turner, First National Bank of Rome, 32 85 6850 3.067 77 To fi. fa. in favor of Printup Brothers & Co., 943 56 677 20 To this judgment Printup Brothers & Co. excepted, and say the court erred as follows: 1. In ordering and deciding that one-half of the three thousand and twenty-four dollars and ninety cents (being the proceeds or money raised from the sale of lot No. 118) should be applied to and paid on the mortgage fi. fa. of Seth Turner, or that any portion thereof should be paid on said mortgage fi. fa. 2. In ordering and deciding that three-fourths of two thousand and seventy-three dollars and seventy-five cents (being the proceeds or money raised from the sale of lot No. 119) should be applied to and paid on the mortgage fi. fa. of Seth Turner, or that any portion thereof should be paid on said fi. fa. 3. In holding and deciding that three thousand sixty |