1788.
torney without power of fubftitution ; for, the attorney cannot exceed the letter of his authority, being nothing more than an agent himfelf. But each partner is a principal ; and it is implied in the very nature of their connection, that each has a right to depute and appoint a clerk to act for both, in matters relative to their joint intereft.
Verdict for the Defendant.
Ingerʃoll for the Plaintiff–Bradƒord for the Defendant.
STEINMETZ et al. verʃus CURRIE.
T
HIS action, brought by the indorfees of a bill of exchange, againft one of the indorfors, now came on for a ʃeecond trial. [♦] It was very ably difcuffed by Ingerʃoll for the Plaintiff, and Sergeant and Bradƒord for the Defendant ; but, as the circumftances and principles of the cafe, are accurately preferved in the charge of the court, it is unneceffary to give any other ftatment of the facts or arguments, than that delivered by the chief justice
M'KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice.– This is an action of very confiderable importance, not only as it affects the prefent parties, but as it affects every holder, drawer, or indorfor of a bill of exchange. The honor and juftice of the State are, indeed, likewife interefted, that the decifion fhould be conformably to the general mercantile law of rations, left a deviation fhould be impufed to our ignorance, or difrefpect, of what is right and proper. It fhould be remembered too, that the Defendant is a ftranger, and that the event of this fuit can be no further obligatory elfewhere, than as it correfponds with the univerfal and eftablifhed ufage of all countries ; for, upon the prefent queftion, that, and not the local regulations of Pennʃylvania, muft furnifh the rule of determination.
It appears, then, that one Whitelaw, on the 30th of October, 1775, drew a bill of exchange for Ł 339. 18. fterling, upon William Houʃton, matter, and Co. in Roƒrew, near Glaʃgow, in favor of James Witherʃpoon, or order, and payable on the 1ft day of Auguʃt, 1776. This bill, afterwards, but it is not certain at what period, Witherʃpoon indorfed to Currie the Defendant, who fometime in the year 1777 indorfed it to Melfrs. Archibald and John Blair, and thofe gentlemen, before the month of October, 1778, indorfed it to John Pringle, by whofe fubfequent indorfement, it became the property of Steinmetz and Bell, the Plaintiff in this caufe. It appears further, that Steinmetz and Bell on the 19th of October, 1778, indorfed the bill of exchange to Mr. Freeman, who is now dead, and by whom, in his lifetime, it was tranfmitted to William Cowpland of London. The bill feems to have been fpeedily and regularly indorfed after it came into the hands of the Plaintiffs; and Cowpland, having duly received it from Mr. Freeman, demanded payment of the perfons upon whom it was drawn on the 30th of December, 1778, when it was protefted on account of their refufal, for which they affigned
[♦]See ant. 134.
