Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/802

t8S FEDERAL REPORTER. �The question, as stated by the court in that case, is not so much whether the last decision was right as whether it should be followed. �These bonds having been purchased by the plaintifs before the decision in the Harrington Case, and no previous expression by the court other than that contained in State v. Town of Highland, are "clean obligations to pay" not affected by the last decision. �It is urged that the bonds are invalid in the plaintiffs' hands by the fact that they were purchased during the pendency of the suit in which the law was held to be unconstitutional. The answer to this proposition is that the plaintiffs were not parties to, and had no knowledge of, that suit ; and the rule that all persons are bound to take notice of a pending suit does not apply to negotiable securities. 97 U. S. 96. �The plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in each case, and it is so ordered. �MoCrabt, C. J. I concur in the conclusions reached in the fore- going opinion, as well as in the reasons by which they are supported. ���Cable v. Painb & Co. and others. {Circuit Court, D. lovia, 0. B. September 5, 1881.) �EviDENCH — WiTiŒssBS— Principal and Agent— Implied AutSomtt. �Where the evidence is contradictory and conflicting, it is no error to charge that " where there are witnesses in the case of equal intelligence, and with equal opportunitiea of knowledge of the facta, some of whom testify to acts done, and conversations and declarations had, giving in detail a full account of such acts, conversations, or declarations occurring in their presence, or done or uttered by them ; and others, who testify that they have no recollec- tion thtft such acts were done, or conversations or declarations uttered, — the affirmative testimony is, or ought to be, of greater weight in the minds of the jury than the negat^re testimony. Nor is there any error in an instruction that a general agent for the sale of manufactured lumber, etc. , has no implied authority to enter into contracts for his principal for the sale of timber in the rough. �Samb — Lkttkb-Peess Copieb. �The exclusion of letter-press copies, though no notice to produce the originals had been given, held, to be sufHcient reason for a new ti-ial, where the trial was before a judge, temporarily assigned, and where it is inaisted that a rule had been established in the district, with the concurrence of all the judges, making them admissible in evidence without such notice. �On Motion for New Trial. �Davison e Lane, for plaintiff. �J. C. Bills and Hubbard, Clark e Dawley, for defendants. ��� �