Levy

The defendant in error objects to a consideration of the merits of this writ on the ground that the assignment of errors was not filed in the court below until after the allowance of the writ. From the printed transcript the point appears to be well taken, but an examination of the original record shows that at the time the order allowing the writ became effective the assignment of errors was on file in the trial court.

The action was brought by the defendant in error to recover $2,000 deposited by him through his Seattle bank in the bank of the plaintiffs in error at Valdez, Alaska, and which the plaintiffs in error shortly afterwards paid out to one McGovern, upon his representation that he was authorized to draw Larson’s money. The latter denied any such authority, and the question of agency was the real issue tried before the court and jury.

Objection is here made to the sufficiency of the complaint; it is said that it does not state facts sufficient to *284 constitute a cause of action. A reference to that pleading shows that there is no merit in the contention. It appears therefrom that the defendants were conducting a banking business at Valdez, and that on a certain…