2S4 FEDEBAIi BEFOBTBC, �relation to it. He must be deemed as having withdrawn therefrom in behalf of Straw, who, from thence, was the only party interested in the cause, and who, by the complainaut's ■withdrawal from and abandonment of the cause, was at lib- erty to make such disposai thereof as he saw fit, The only party to be recognized by the court in the management and control of the action was Straw, and he must from theuce- forth, being the owner of the action and the claim, be per- mitted to do as he will with his own property, as he is not charged by the complainant with having practiced auy fraud or deception in obtaining his title thereto. Such decree as he desires may be entered, but in making this order the court must not be understood as intimating any opinion as to the effect of the decree upon any subsequent proceedings which mayhereafterbe iustituted in behalf of complainant. Whether, under the rulings in Badger v. Badger, 1 Clifford, 237, it will or not be a bar, must remain undetermined until the question is so presented as to require the court to pass upon it. Bill dismissed, without costs. ���WooD and others v. Seitzinoeb and othera. �{Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. Aprll 30, 1880.) �Promissobt Note — CoLLATEnAL Skcukity — Holdek por Valite. — The holder of a promissory note, taken as security for a pre-existing debt, Î8 a holder for value, and entitled to be protected as such. �Thomas Hart, Jr., for plaintiff. �Samuel Dickson, for defendant. �Pbb Cueiam. Is the holder of a negotiable note, who bas taken it as a security for a pre-existing debt, a holder for value, and so protected against any equities subsisting between the original parties to it? This is the only question presented by this case. �If the ruie established in Pennsylvania by the decisions of her highest court is to be followed, it must be answered in tho ����
