
    Dan H. Arnold, Appellant, v. Potter, Hamilton & Butler, Inc., Respondent.
   Judgment affirmed. Assuming that the question whether there was a loan to the defendant corporation, rather than an investment by the plaintiff, should have been submitted to the jury, the plaintiff failed to show that the loan was authorized by the defendant. Present — Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Martin, O’Malley and Proskauer, JJ.  