Laidlaw

Two appeals, each independent of the other,—one being from the judgment and the other from the order denying the Pacific Bank a new trial,—are before us in this case. The appeal from the judgment has been heretofore considered, but a rehearing was granted, and the two appeals will now be disposed of in one opinion.

On the appeal from the order denying a new trial it is contended that the finding of the court to the effect that the appellant, the Pacific Bank, on or about the twenty-second day of June, 1893, became indebted to plaintiff's assignor, R. H. McDonald, in the sum of $97,003 for money theretofore paid, laid out. and expended by said McDonald for the use and benefit of said defendant, and at its" request, is not- supported by the evidence. • "We think this contention is well founded. From the evidence it appears .that the People’s Home Savings Bank was a depositor in the defendant bank to the extent of $150,000, and was pressing for payment, but defendant could not pay the same from its own means at that time; that thereupon, at the request of the Pacific Bank, the amount of the $150,000 was secured to the People’s Home Savings Bank by a mortgage given it upon 16,000…