Spangler

The action is on three promissory notes, for two thousand dollars, one thousand dollars, and five hundred dollars respectively—all executed by defendant N. R. Spangler. The theory of the plaintiff is that at the time of the execution of the notes the two defendants were co-partners engaged in the butcher business and that said notes represented the obligation of the firm although signed only by N. R. Spangler. The court found this theory to be true as to the two notes aggregating three thousand dollars but that the five hundred dollar note represents the sole obligation of N. R. Spangler, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The appeal is by Rose B. Spangler from the portion of the judgment against the firm, and she makes two points; one, that there was a misjoinder of causes of action, and the other, that the evidence does not support the finding that the money was borrowed for the use and benefit of the copartnership.

As we view the matter, there is no merit in either contention.

In reference to the first, the position of appellant is -that a cause of action against N. R. Spangler on the note for five hundred dollars was improperly joined with one against the partnership on…