
    Eri Wills & al. versus Daniel Greely.
    In a suit upon a promissory note, given for intoxicating liquors sold, it appearing from tlie plaintiff’s bond (put in as evidence by tbe defendant) tbat it had been approved, as the law required, the recital in it, that the plaintiff had been licensed to sell, is sufficient evidence, to warrant the inference of authority to sell, in the absence of any proof to the contrary.
    Reported from Nisi Prius, Rice, J., presiding.
    This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note, and was submitted to the ful'1 Court, upon a report of the evidence, — the Court to exercise jury powers in drawing inferences.
    The note was given for intoxicating liquors. The defendant offered the bill of the plaintiffs acknowledging payment, which is of the same amount and date as the note. Also their several bonds, approved by the licensing board, — the portions of which, material to the case, will appear from the opinion of the Court.
    It was admitted that Eri Wills made the sale of the liquors named in the bill.
    
      Lancaster, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Qr'eely, for the defendant.
   The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Walton, J.

The note in suit having been given for in-

toxicating liquors, the defendant contends that the plaintiffs ought not to prevail. • 1st. Because the evidence is insufficient to show that either of them was authorized to sell. 2d. Because, if authorized, their authority was several, and would not authorize a joint sale by them as co-partners.

The bonds put into the case by the defendant are such as were required by law to be" given by persons licensed to sell intoxicating liquors. On the back of each bond is a certificate showing that it had been received and approved by the licensing board; and the bonds recite that each of the plaintiffs had that day been duly licensed to sell intoxicating liquors. There being no evidence to the contrary, these bonds and the recitals they contain, and the certificates on the back of them, signed by the aldermen and city clerk, sufficiently establish the fact, that each of the plaintiffs was legally authorized to sell. Each being authorized to sell separately, would a joint sale by them, as co-partners, be illegal ?

It is unnecessary to determine this question, for, although the bill for liquors was made in their joint names, from which, if there was nothing in the case showing the contrary, the Court might infer that the sale was a joint one; yet, it is admitted as a fact in the case, "that Eri Wills made the sale of the liquors named in the billwhich was undoubtedly intended, and does in fact, exclude ary such inference. If the sale was in fact made by Eri Wills, as is admitted; and he was at the time licensed to sell, which is sufficiently established by the evidence, the sale was legal; and afterwards making a bill of the liquors in the joint names of the plaintiffs, would not render it illegal.

Although the note in suit was given for intoxicating liquors, it sufficiently appears that the sale was made, not in violation of law, but by a person duly licensed.

Judgment for plaintiffs.

Appleton, C. J., Rice, Cutting and Kent, JJ., concurred.  