Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon; Charles E. Wolverton and Robert S. Bean, Judges.

Suit by the Ford Motor Company against E. M. Hathaway and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

The appellants, a partnership, were local agents of the appellee to sell Ford automobiles under a contract which provided that either party might cancel the same upon giving the other party written notice. On May 25, 1916, the appellee canceled Hie contract, and on .Tune 3, 1916, it brought replevin to recover possession of certain described Ford automobiles which it had consigned to the appellants, alleging that it had offered to repay the appellants $36,-077.50 advanced by them on the automobiles. On September 13, 1916, judgment was entered in that action against the appellee herein for $16,077.50 and $0,000 damages.

When the automobiles Involved in the replevin action were originally received by the appellants, they borrowed from the First National Bank of Eugene, Or., money to pay the bills of lading upon the machines consigned, and they gave to the bank chattel mortgages upon the machines. In order to relieve the title to the cars involved in the replevin action from the lien of the bank, the motor company paid to the bank $12,676.25 and procured a cancellation of the notes and mortgage. Thereafter the appellee sought to offset against the judgment of the appellants in the replevin action the sum so paid to the bank. Being denied the right to do so, the appellee was compelled to pay the appellants the full amount of the judgment. Hence the present suit, which was brought to recover that sum on the theory that the appellee is entitled to he subrogated to the bank as against the makers of the chattel mortgage. The appellants in their answer to the complaint alleged that the payment to the bank was voluntary and without their consent, and that it could not be recovered. The trial court held that the appellants wore not en til led to double payment of this sum and that the appellee should be sub-rogated to (lie bank as against: the appellants. The appellants in thdr answer alleged also that they were entitled to earned and unpaid commissions under (he terms of the contract in the sum of $3,900.60, for which they demanded judgment. Upon that; demand the court below found that the gross amount of the commissions which the appellants were entitled to claim was $2,325.58, upon which there had been a payment of $987.48, leaving a balance of $1,338.10, which the court in (lie final judgment allowed as an offset against the money which the appellee had paid to the bank.