
    Cheshire, )
    April 7, 1908.
    Israel v. Finkelstein & a.
    
    Assumpsit, for the price agreed to be paid for an assignment of the plaintiff’s claim against one Levine. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the April term, 1907, of the superior court by Stone, J.
    The defendants Samuel and Julia Finkelstein are partners, and the contract sued upon was made by Julia. A motion for a non-suit as to Samuel was denied, subject to exception.
    
      Gain Benton and David Stoneman (of Massachusetts), for the plaintiff.
    
      Frank T. Vaughan, Joseph Madden, and Albín Sawyer,.for the defendants.
   Peaslee, J.

The defendant Samuel relies upon two propositions to support his exception. He says there was no evidence of consideration for, nor of authority to make, the promise sued upon. Neither claim is well founded. There was evidence that one thing the defendants were to receive and did receive was an assignment of the plaintiff’s claim against Levine. It is conceded that such an assignment is a sufficient consideration for a promise.

Upon the issue of authority the case stands no better. There was evidence that at about the time of this transaction the defendants were engaged in the business of buying up claims against Levine. This would warrant the conclusion that each partner had authority to bind the firm by such a purchase. National State Capital Bank v. Noyes, 62 N. H. 35.

_Fxception overruled.

All concurred.  