Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/432

 The business of the corporation might almost be regarded as a branch of the business of the firm.

But the correctness of the decision in that case seems to be questioned in Bates on Partnership, (vol. 1, § 321,) and it no doubt goes as far as any court has gone in that direction. In Lindley on Partnership, 341, (bottom paging,) it is said: "The latter cases, however, decide that, unless it can be shown that the giving of guaranties is necessary for carrying on the business of the firm in the ordinary way, one of the members will be held to have no implied authority to bind the firm by them." Nor do we think that one partner has any implied power to bind his firm in the use of unusual and extraordinary means for collecting a debt. In this case the guaranty was not necessary to carry on the firm business in the ordinary way. It does not appear but that the deposit of the firm would have been paid in full without the guaranty; but further than that we are not willing to hold that one member of a firm, in order to secure a debt, has implied authority to bind a firm for a distinct and separate liability to a third person; and particularly must that be true where, as in this case, the liability incurred is several times greater than the debt sought to be secured. It can be readily seen that any different rule would be extremely hazardous. As fully sustaining our views, see Moore v. Stevens, 60 Miss. 809; Macklin v. Kerr, 28 U. C. C. P. 90. Plaintiff failed to establish any liability upon the guaranty in suit as against these appellants, and the judgment of the lower court as to them must be reversed, and a new trial ordered. All concur.

1. Transfer of Causes Under Omnibus Bill.

Respondent, after the admission of North Dakota into the federal Union, argued the appeal in this case in the supreme court of the state, applied for a rehearing after defeat, and after securing a rehearing applied for and obtained a continuance. Held, he could not thereafter obtain a transfer of