Tuppela

(after stating the facts as above).

It is contended that it was error to deny the defendants’ motion for an instructed verdict in their favor for the reason that the defendant Cobb was not a proper party defendant, and judgment could not properly be entered against him upon the cause of action. We are not convinced that Cobb was not a proper party defendant. The instrument under which Tuppela’s property was transferred to him in trust contained the provision that the trus *182 tee was to pay out of the property transferred all debts due and owing or to become due and owing by Tuppela. But if indeed Cobb was not a proper party defendant, the objection for his misjoinder not having been made until the close of the trial, came too late. Mackay v. Fox, 121 F. 487 , 57 C.C.A. 439 . And in any view of the case, a misjoinder of one of several parties defendant is no ground for an instructed verdict in favor of all the defendants.

It is urged that the motion should have been granted for the reason that the plaintiff, not being a member of the bar of Alaska, w^s without capacity to perform the services stipulated in his contract with Tuppela, and therefore could not recover either on the…