118 FEDERAL REPORTER. �as to the circumstanees is proper to be considered, to enable ïhe court to see the transaction as the parties saw it. When this evidence is viewed the interpretation of the defendant's undertaking is not doubtful. �The orator would not rely upon the toUs, as they should corne to the defendant's hands, for the payment of the note,, and the defendant executed this instrument. Funds for the payment of the note must be taken as signifying funds for the payment of the whole note. The defendant agreed that he had the funds for that payment, which was an agreement in efïect that he might be treated as if he had, whether he had or not. He became situated like a receiptor of property, as if it was attached when there was none, or a person who has acknowledged the receipt and holding of property for some purpose otherwise, when none has been received, each of whom is held bound by the terms of the receipt or acknowl- edgement. Harmon v. Anderson, 2 Camp. 243; Stannard v. Vunkin, Id. 344; Lyman v. Lyman, 11 Mass. 317; Chapman V. Searle, 3 Pick. 38. If he had funds in his hands for the payment of the note at maturity, a court of equity would charge him with the payment of the amount of the note. He agreed that he had such funds, the orator took the note on faith in that agreement, and he must stand now as if he liad them charged with payment of the note. No account of the funds is necessary to be taken, for he is to be charged with the amount due on the note, which can apparently be- assertained by mere computation. �Decree for plaintiff. ���Saxonville Mills v. Kussell. {Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. January 7, 1880.) �KBVENDK — DUTÏ ON WOOL. — l'RESUMPÏION AS TO " InVOICE VaLUE. " — It �will be presuraed, in the absence of testimony, that where an importation of woc)l was appraised at its " invoice value," such appraisment did not include the cliarges upon the wool at the port of exportation, wheti the invoice contained the amount and cost of the wool separate from, such charges. ��� �
