? OCTOBER TERM, 1907. advance of one-third of the purchase price, w?ich appears in the heginning as a loan to ILainey, is re?ard? at the end, with manifest justice, as standing on, the same footing as the later advances made more specifically to the busings. The whole land is treated as firm capital, and the whole sum paid for is treated as having been contributed, as in fact it was, by Smith, and as contributed to the firm. A partner has a lien on the firm's assets for the repayment of his advances to the firm, and the ninth article, providing for the repayment of the whole sum advanced by Smith for the venture, means that he shall he repaid out of the land regarded as assets. Taking the instrument as a whole, we? are of opinion that it gives the appellant a lien. Whether the de- fendants nevertheless may not he entitled to priority, is not before us now. The only ground on which the demurrer was or could have been sustained was ?hat the plaintiff had no lien at all. Judgment rearsed. Demurrer overru/?. ARMOUR PACKING COMPANY v..UNITED STATES. SWII? AND COMPANY v. SAME. MORRIS AND COMPANY v. SAME. "UDAHY PACKING COMPANY v. SAME. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COlTlIT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 467, 468, 469. 470. Argued January 20, 21, 22, 1908.--Decided Mar?h 16. 1908. A device to obtain rebates to be within the prohibition of the Interstate Commerce Act, of March 2, 1889, 25 Star. 857, and the Elkins Act of Fcbnnuy 19, 1903, 32 Stat. 847, nced not n?cessarily be fraudulent. The term "device" as ?mcd in those statutes includes any plan or eontrivance whereby merchandise is transported for le?ss than the pub|ished rate, or any ot her advantage is given to, or discrimination practiced in favor of? the shipl?cr.
�
