Scott

sum of $1,600 and appropriated the same” to its own use. Other appropriate allegations are made. The purpose of the action is to recover the difference between the partnership indebtedness of $900 and the amount which the partnership otherwise would have received from its sublessees.

The answer denies most of the allegations of the complaint. It denies the alleged assignment from the partnership to the plaintiff. No effort was made by the plaintiff to prove the alleged assignment. It appears that this failure of proof was not a mere oversight, because the plaintiff’s attention was called thereto by the defendant’s motion for a nonsuit on the ground, among others, “that the evidence wholly fails to show any right in this plaintiff to maintain the action.” The plaintiff made no request for permission to supply the missing proof. Since the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the assignment, the court properly found against him on that issue.

It is clear from the record that the plaintiff was not suing in behalf of the partners or the partnership, but only in his individual behalf and that, without proof of the assignment to him, he had no standing to maintain the action. As the…