Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/428

 you what a self-binder is worth that fails to be useful as a machine of that character, if it is no use asa binder or harvester?" The question was properly objected to, and over this objection the witness was allowed to answer: "It ain’t worth anything." The answer was very damaging. There was nothing in the case to warrant such an inquiry. There was no trouble except with the binder, and a careful examination of the plaintiff's own testimony on cross-examination discloses the fact. that the defect in the binder was not a very serious one. He said that there was no trouble in cutting or elevating the grain; that the only difficulty was in binding, and the breaking of sway-bars; that it would not bind over half of the grain. The hypothetical question that we have quoted assumed a state of facts not only unwarranted, but in direct opposition to the evidence as it fell from the plaintiff's own lips. For this error the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered. No other question will be considered, because the respondent has failed to file any brief in support of his judgment. All concur.

, Plaintiff and Respondent, v., et al., Defendants, and , Administrators, etc., and , Administratrix, etc., Defendants and Appellants.

1. Partnership—Guaranty of Commercial Paper by Partner.

A member of a partnership engaged in the banking business has no authority by virtue of his partnership relation, to guaranty in the firm name commercial paper for the benefit or accommodation of third parties; and the firm would not be bound by such guaranty, in the absence of the showing of specific authority, or an authority to be implied from previous course of business between the parties, or subsequent ratification of the act by the other partners.

2. Same; Same—Extent of Partner’s Power to Bind Firm by Guaranty.

One member of a firm has no authority to bind his firm by a guaranty of commercial paper of a third party, even when such firm is interested