Hawxhurst

Appeal from judgment and order denying a new trial. The action involves the rights of the parties in two certain notes and mortgages executed by one Kunz to defendant, which plaintiff claims to own by virtue of an assignment and delivery thereof to her, made in defendant’s name by one C. E. K. Royce, claiming to act as attorney in fact for defendant under an alleged power of attorney from defendant to said Royce.

The trial court found that defendant never executed the power of attorney to Royce, and that the latter had no authority to make the assignment of the securities, and gave judgment in favor of defendant.

Plaintiff moved for a new trial, on the ground, among others, of insufficiency of the evidence to warrant the findings. In passing upon this motion, the court made an order, the material part of which was as follows: “It is ordered that said plaintiff’s motion for a new trial of this action be and the same is hereby denied. This order is made solely upon the ground that, even assuming that the letter of attorney from defendant to Royce was executed by defendant, it conferred upon Royce no power to assign the note and mortgage therein mentioned to secure his individual…

Considering the terms of the order denying a new trial, I should feel bound to hold it erroneous if I thought that the power of attorney from Eathgeb to Eoyce—assuming it to be genuine—conferred any authority to hypothecate the mortgages as security for borrowed money. But I am satisfied that the power of attorney, though genuine, •conferred no such authority, and upon that ground I concur in the judgment of affirmance.

Hearing in Bank denied.