264 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �in an ppinion written on the former trial of the case, and I need but add a few lines more. It will be seen I then based my decision on the doctrine established by the supreme court in the case of Hoover, Assignee, v. Wise, 91 U. S. 308-13, and upon that case I now stand. �While it is true the facts in that case are not altogether similar to the facts here, yet that case did fairly present the question as to privity of action between the principal and an agent appoin te d by his agent, and it was decided that no such privity existed. �On page 311 the court say: "Without attempting to har- monize or to classify the conflicting authorities, we think the case before us falls within a particular range of decisions in •which the preponderance is undoubted. Among these are the foUoTving: Reeves e Co. v. State Bank of Ohio, 8 Ohio St. 465; Mackersy v. Bamsays, 9 Clark & Fin. 710-818; Montgomery Go. Bank y. Albany City Bank, 7 N. Y. 459 ; Allen v. Merchants' Bank, 22 Wend, 215 ; Corn. Bank v. Union Bank, 11 N, Y. 203." �It will be seen, from the opinion itself, that the cases which are eited approvingly by the supreme court establish the doc- trine that a person or bank employed by a principal to màke a collection cannot appoint another person or bank to trans- act the business, and make the latter the sub-agent of the principal. The court then says: "These cases show that where a bank, as a collection agency, receives a note for the purposes of collection, that its position is that of an independ- ent contractor, and that the instruments employed by such bank in the business contemplated are its agents, and not the Bub-agents of the owner of the note, * * • There are, doubtless, cases to be found holding to the contrary of these views, but the principle ihey decide is nevertheless well established. Cases, no doubt, may also be found where actions have been sustained by the oreditor against the last agent, or where he is charged with his acts, in which the point before us was not raised or brought to the notice of the court. Buch cases are not authority on the point. Nor do we think that any great difficulty arises from the case of Wilson v. ����
