KEST NAT. BK. Oï CHICAGO V. BENO OONNTY BK. 201 �Hoover, Assignee, v. Wise et al. 91 ÏÏ. S. 308, whichmust now be considered. That was a suit in bankruptcy. Wise & Greenbaum owned a money demand, which they delivered for collection to a collection agency in Nebraska. That agency transmitted the claim to an attomey, who, knowing the insolv- ency of the dehtor, persuaded him to confesa judgment. It was held that the attorney was the agent of the collection agency which employed him, and not of the creditors, and that therefore his knowledge of the insolvency of the debtor was not chargeable to them. The case undoubtedly holds that there is, in such cases, no privity between the last agent and the owner of the paper, and, therefore, if it be necessary for plaintiff, in the present case, to establish such privity be- tween it and the defendant, this action must fail. Of course it was necessary, in the case of Hoover v. Wise, to show such privity, since that is the very foundation of the doctrine in- voked in that case, that notice to the agent is notice to the principal; but in this case we are to consider whether the plaintiff's right to recover is not made out by showing that the bills collected by defendant were plaintiff's property, and that defendant had, in the restrictive indorsement on the paper itself, notice of plaintiff's ownership. That the bills were the property of plaintiff cannot be questioned. There is no pretence that it sold them to Hetherington & Co., or ever transferred any interest in them, or oontrol over them, except the right to collect them for plaintiff's use and benefit. Isit not equally clear that defendant had notice of plaintiff's own- ership ? The indorsement by which plaintiff transferred the paper is in these words: �"July 29, 1878. Pay to the order of W. Hetherington & Co., Atchison. Account of First National Bank, Chicago. �"L. J. Gage, Cashier." �This was clearly a restrictive indorsement, the effect of which was to restrict the further negotiability of the bills, an^ to give notice to the defendant that the plaintiff did not thereby give title to them, or to their proceeds, when col- lected. 1 Daniell on Negotiable Instruments, § 698, and cases cited. Such an indorsement "shows plainly that the ����
