rules of the common law.
ton v. Dodge et al.,

12. Where the evidence as to the dili-
gence of a Notary to find the makers
of a note in order to demand its
payment at maturity from them
personally, is free from conflict, the
question of its sufficiency to estab-
lish due diligence in that behalf is
one of law. Adams v. Leland et
al.,
.411

13. The evidence given on the trial of
this action, to establish due diligence
stated, considered and held suffi-
cient to make a prima facie case of
due diligence....
.id

14. Statements made to the Notary
by persons to whom he was referred
at the makers' last known place of
business, as having knowledge of
the makers, in answer to questions
as to where the makers resided or
could be found, held competent
upon the question of the Notary's
diligence to find the makers.....id

15. Where by an agreement between
L. & A., of the one part, and the
defendant N., of the other, the
former sell their fixtures, &c., in a
coal-yard occupied by them, for a
specific sum, and take N.'s negotia-
ble note, and also sell to N., for
other consideration, a lease of said
yard, and guarantee its renewal on
certain terms, and agree, if a re-
newal be not procured, "to refund
the one-half the loss on such fix-
tures," and no renewal can be pro-
cured, and a suit is brought on such
note by one who is an indorsee of
it after its maturity, and there is no
fraud in procuring the note or in the
transaction on which it is founded,
the most that the defendant can
have deducted from the recovery on
the note is one-half of the difference
between the value of such fixtures
for the purposes of use under a re-
newed lease and the value thereof
for the purpose of removal. Wiltsie
v. Northam,..
.421

...id

17. A Mutual Insurance Company, for
the purpose of increasing its availa-
ble means, took up a subscription
by which its friends agreed to give
their notes for premiums in advance
of insurances to be effected by them
the subscription not to be binding
until $300,000 was subscribed.
When the subscription was under-
stood and believed to be made up,
no fraud being practised on the de-
fendant, he gave his two notes for
$500 each for the amount of his sub-
scription, and he effected actual in-
surance to an amount for which the
premiums were over $900, which
was charged to him against his
said two notes, and he, in addition
thereto, took an open policy upon
which the premium considerably
exceeded the remaining $100, but
no other risks were indorsed thereon
except those included in the $900:
Held, that the two notes for $500
each were valid binding notes, al-
though it afterwards appeared that
the whole $300,000 subscription
was not made up; the notes having
been voluntarily given and there
being no fraud on the part of the
Company or its Agent. Brookman
v. Metcalf,

.429

18. Transfer by such Company to a
bona fide holder for value, without
notice, valid though no previous
resolution of the Board of Direc-
tors.....
....id

19. Where it is set up as a defense to
a note that the maker had with

SALE.

1. One who sells and delivers chattels
by request of another who has no
title nor authority to sell, is liable to
the owner for the value, although
he acted in good faith and has paid
over the proceeds to his employer.
Anderson et al. v. Nicholas, ... 121

2. A purchase from a thief or tor-
tious taker confers no title. .....id

3. Where a valid contract is made
for the sale and delivery of the
wheat in a specified boat for cash;
and the buyer designates a vessel
into which the wheat is to be de-
livered and the seller accordingly
has it measured as is customary
in such cases and placed on board
of such vessel, and sends to the
buyer a duplicate measurer's return
or certificate of the quantity, and a
bill for the wheat at the contract
price, and the seller thereupon re-
quests payment from the buyer,
who answers that he will pay on
Saturday, (the second day there-
after,) and the seller makes no ob-
jection thereto; and where there is
no fraud in making such contract or
obtaining such delivery, a person in
good faith advancing money on the
same day to such buyer on the se-
curity of such wheat and on the
faith of his being the owner thereof
will obtain a valid title thereto as
against the seller to the extent of
such advance; although such buyer
fails after obtaining such advance
and thus becomes unable to pay to
the seller any part of the contract
price. Durbrow et al. v. McDonald
et al...
...130

4. Such a delivery being all the de-
livery which the parties contempla-
ted or the contract required; it was
subject to no condition unless it be
an implied one, that payment be
made if demanded, when all the
wheat was delivered.
..id

5. Where, in such a case, an advance
is made to such buyer upon the
understanding at the time of both
parties to it, that it is made on the
security of such wheat; and that
the person advancing should thence-
forth have the control of it and that
a bill of lading should be issued to
him as the shipper of it, making the
wheat deliverable to his order at
the port of destination, and such
bill of lading is immediately there-
after so issued and delivered; the
person so advancing from the time
thereof has the right of possession
and of control, as against the
seller.
....id

security, assigns his account to a
third person who brings an action
thereon and the defendant therein
claims to set off one of such notes
which had been paid to the assign-
or, after the assignment but before
the suit was brought, and after-
wards the suit is settled by the
payment of ten per cent of the sum
sued for and costs, such settlement
is no bar to an action by the de-
fendant therein to recover from the
said assignor the amount of the
other note, although it was paid
pending the former action and be-
fore the settlement. Bates v. Cobb
et al.,..
.29

3. A settlement "in full of an ac-
count and demand sued upon in
this action" does not embrace any
matter not embraced in the contro-
versy as disclosed by the pleadings
therein..

SHERIFF.

.id