pany, except that she was assured that the transaction was all right and proper, and acted upon the faith of that assurance. Her husband was, in this case, in no sense her agent; on the contrary, he dealt not for her but with her; was one of the parties asking the loan from her, and I think, therefore, that this is not a case in which the doctrine of notice to the husband is notice to the wife can have any force. It is also insisted that the trustee of Mrs. Burch, with respect to her separate estate, (De Cordova,) knew the facts, and that notice to him is notice to her; that is, that notice to the trustee is notice to the cestui que trust. The answer to that is that De Cordova, although her trustee with regard to her separate estate, was not her trustee with reference to this transaction at all. Holding as he did the naked title to her lands, and for her use and benefit, he joined with her in making the mortgage for the money to be loaned to these parties; but that was a separate transaction from the matter now in controversy, to-wit, the hypothecation of these bonds, and with that the trustee had nothing to do.
The result of my examination of the case is that the exceptions to the report of the master must be overruled.
Runkle v. The Lamar Insurance Company.
(Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio. ———, 1880.)
Motion to set aside and quash the service of the summons.
