260 FEDERAL SEPOBTEB. �habit of receiving snch paper from the Common-wealth Bank, which was always treated as the property of the Common- wealth Bank, and credited to it in its aceount current, and that the paper in question was received in that way, in the ordinary course of business, without any notification that any other party had any interest therein. �The court said: "It is evident that a loss must be sus- tained, either by the plaintiff or defendant in error, by the failure of the Commonwealth Bank. We see no good ground for maintaining that there is any superior equity on the sida of the New England Bank. It contributed to give the cor- poration, whieh bas proved insolvent, credit with the plaintiff in error, by the notes and bills which it placed in its hands to be sent to Washington for collection, indorsed in sueh a form as to make them prima fade the property of the Common- wealth Bank, and enable it to deal with them as if it were the real oxvner." It will be seen that the case was decided upon the ground that the paper was indorsed so as to show, prima fade, a .perfect title in the indorsee, thus enabling the latter to use it as its own, and to get credit on the faith of absolute ownership. It is olear that had the indorsement been re- stiicted in its character, so as to show the continued owner- ship of the New England Bank, the resuit would have been different. Of the effect of restrictive indorsements I ehall speak hereafter. �In the case of Wilson dt Co. v. Smith, 3 How. 763, ît was held that if the owner of a bill send it to an agent not resid- ing at the place where it is payable, for collection, the agent bas an implied authority to employ a sub-agent at that place, and, if the sub-agent receive the contents, the owner can sue him for money had and received, although the sub-agent had no notice, when he collected the money, that the agent was not the owner. �And it was also held that in such a case the sub-agent can- not retain part of the proceeds on aceount of a debt of the agent, unless he has given credit on the faith that the agent owned the bill. It is admitted that this case is decisive of the case at bar, unless it has been overruled by the recent case of ����
