Warner

delivered tho opinion of the Court.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of nonsuit.

It is difficult to say on what precise point the Court below based its judgment, and there is no brief on behalf of - the respondents, showing the grounds on which they rely.

The motion for a nonsuit, as made in the Court Below, contains four distinct grounds:

1st. Misjoinder of parties plaintiff. This point is not well taken.

The assignment from Dunbar to -Buckley gave the express and undoubted right to sue.

Besides, a defect of parties, if it appear on the face of the declaration, must be taken advantage of by demurrer. (See Act Regulating Civil Cases, § 40, 44, 45.)

2d. Misjoinder of parties defendant. This objection should also have been taken by demurrer or answer. If the defendants’ answer could now be treated as a plea in abatement, it would defeat a proper recovery upon the facts, as *314 the testimony shows that the other defendants fully authorized their co-defendants to execute the contract sued on, and afterwards ratified it.

3d. The want of evidence to show that the witness had any authority to act as the agent of Dunbar or Warner.

This authority is fully shown by the…