
    John D. Boyd v. Daniel E. Corbitt.
    
      Indorsement for Collection.
    
    A collecting agent can sue in his own name upon a note drawn payable to order, and indorsed in blank for purposes of collection. The indorsement passes the legal title for these purposes, including any necessary suit.
    Case made from Kent.
    Submitted June O.
    Decided June 12.
    Assumpsit on a promissory note payable to the order of G. W. Janes and D. E. Corbitt, and indorsed in blank by them before maturity. Having been transferred, it was again indorsed in blank by its owner, J. W. Martin, and Boyd, the collecting agent, brought suit on it in his own name. Plaintiff recovered and defendant excepted to the rulings and judgment.
    
      Taggart, Simonds & Fletcher (on brief), for plaintiff,
    cited Hovey v. Sebring, 24 Mich., 232; Beekman v. Wilson, 9 Metc., 434; Golder v. Foss, 43 Me., 364; Patten v. Moses, 49 Me., 255; Baker v. Stinchfield, 57 Me., 363 ; Brown v. Clark, 14 Penn. St., 469; Gage v. Kendall, 15 Wend., 639; Way v. Richardson, 3 Gray, 412; Guernsey v. Graves, 25 Wend., 411; Pearce v. Austin, 4 Whart., 489; 1 Parson Notes and Bills, 436-7 and notes.
    
      P>. F. Corhitt (on brief), for defendant,
    urged that a judgment for plaintiff would not bar a future action by the owner, and cited Brigham v. Gurney, 1 Mich., 349; Blackwood v. Brown, 32 Mich,, 104; Nichols v. Gross, 26 Ohio St., 425; Moore v. Penn, 5 Ala., 135; Lockridge v. Nuckolls, 25 Ill., 178; Hartshorn v. Green, 1 Minn., 92.
   Per Curiam.

The only question in this case is, whether a collection agent who holds for collection a note payable-to order and which has been indorsed in blank by the owner for the purposes of collection, can bring suit in his own name. "We have no doubt he may do so. The indorsement by the owner must be understood as authority for this proceeding; it passes the legal title for the purposes of collection, and this must include any necessary suit.

Judgment affirmed.  