Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/880

 NEWMAN ». EICHARDSON. 865 �bility for a collision. The controversy now pending and being liti- gated is with reference to the liability of sureties under a mandate remitted from the supreme court. It could net be error for the judge to Bit in this matter, nor would the statute exempt him. The rule is, therefore, as a matter of right dismissed. But the consent of the opposed party having been given, an order based upon consent of parties will be entered that the matters now at issue in this cause be restored to their place on the calendar, to be heard by that member of the court -who may preside when the same may be moved on for trial. ���H. & C. Newman V. EioHABDSoN and otherai �LeTCHFOBD V, ElCHABDSON & CaRT. (Circuit Court, E. D, Loulliana. June, 1881.) �1. Partnbbship— Negotiablb Instruments— Purchaser with Noticb. �Where one of two partners fraudulently indorses the name of the partner- ship upon commercial paper in which it had no property or interest, and obtains money upon it from the indorsee for a purpose clearly outside the scope of ihe partnership business, the indorsee has no claim against the other of the copartners. �At Law. �J. Ad. Rozier and F. Z. Rozier, for Newman. �T. Gilmore de Sons, for Letchford. �Buy ne e Renshaw and J. A. Campbell, for defendant. �BiLLiNGS, D. J, The facts in the first case are as follows: �George W./Cary, one of the firm of Eichardson & Cary, appliea to the plain- tiffs for a loan or advance on cotton thereafter to be shipped by his brother, C. W. Cary, of Monticello, Alabama. The plaintifEs demand collateral security. The next morning George "W". Cary delivered to them as such collateral security the prornissory note upon which suit is brought, which is a note purporting to be made by C. W. Cary, to the order of Eichardson & Cary, and was in- dorsed by George ^Y. Cary in the name of the flrm. As a matter of faet, the note was never the property of the firm of Eichardson & Cary, and they never had any interest in it, nor had they any interest in the transaction in which the loan or advance was made to G. W. Cary. �In the case of W. H. Letchford against the same party the facts are as follows : �George W. Cary, one of the firm of Eichardson & Cary, applied to the plain- tiff for a loan of $1,000, to meet a draft that was drawa to make some settle- v.9,no.l5 — 55 ��� �