
    Newland vs. Oakley.
    A power of attorney to H, “to transact all the business” of the maker of the power “in Henry county in this State,” with no limitation, will authorize the attorney to transfer a promissory note belonging to his principal, which he has in his possession.
    When a general agent with sufficient authority to do. so, transferred a note belonging to his principal, and embezzled the money: Held, that the principal could not recover the money collected upon the note from ‘tile assignee, if he obtained it in the usual course of trade.
    - The plainliff in error appointed William M. Holliday his attorney in fact, to transact all his business in Henry county, in' this State, without any limitation or restriction upon the powers of his said attorney. Holliday, as at- • torney as aforesaid, held a note executed by George B. Wharton to the plaintiff, which he assigned to George W. Terrill, and which in the course of trade came into the hands of defendant in error, who collected the money from Wharton. The attorney in fact embezzled the proceeds of the note received by him from Terrill. This suit is brought to recover from the defendant the amount received by him from Wharton, on the note aforesaid. In the court below, there was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal in error to this court.
    
      D. Jennings, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. Harris and J. H. Dunlap, for defendant in error.
   Green, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

There is no doubt but that Holliday, by the power of attorney, had sufficient authority to transfer the note in question; and whether he accounted to his principal for the proceeds or not, cannot affect the rights which those to whom it had been transferred, had to the note. There is, therefore, no error in the record.

Judgment affirmed.  