
    AS TO AUTHORITY FOR. PAYMENT OF CHECKS.
    Court of Appeals for Clinton County.
    J. C. Cumberland and Carrie W. Cumberland v. Farmer’s Exchange Bank.
    Decided, June, 1914.
    
      Banks and Banking — Checks Charged by Bank Against the Account of an Individual Partner — Estoppel Against Denial of Authority So To Do.
    
    Where a bank had charged a depositor against his account checks issued in payment of the expenses of a partnership of which he was a member, and where his bank book was balanced and his checks returned several times subsequent thereto and no protest was ever made until suit had been brought against him on a note which was renewed after the canceled checks had been returned to him. Held: That a jury was justified in a verdict against him.
    
      H. S. Pulse, for plaintiff in error.
    
      C. W. Swaim, contra.
    Jones, O. B., J.; Swing, P. J., and Jones, E. H., J., concur.
   While there were other points of error urged in the case, the one chiefly relied upon by counsel was that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and was not sustained by sufficient evidence.

The checks which defendant claimed had been without authority charged against his account by plaintiff below weré checks drawn by one Morris for expenses of a business1 in which he was engaged as a partner with the defendant below, and the bankbook was balanced several times and the checks returned without a protest from the defendant. No claim was made that they were improperly paid until after the filing of this suit and the note upon which suit was brought was renewed by defendant below without objection after the payment of these checks and without any claim for reduction on account of any unauthorized checks.

' We therefore think the jury were justified in their verdict as returned, and as a careful examination of the record fails to disclose any errors prejudicial to the plaintiff in error, the judgment is affirmed.  