BOUNDY v. SPAULDING• 43
ard had no title to the land, that did make it so, and the statement
of that irrelevant matter is not an allegation by the plaintiff that he
was not the owner thereof. Neither does it appear that the bank
ever made any assignment of this note and mortgage to the plaintiff
or of any claim that may have accrued to it against the defendant for
a loss sustained by it on account of any error in this certificate. The
allegation that the plaintiff is now the "assignee" and "owner" of the
"assets" of the bank is far too vague and indefinite to include this
note and mortgage, or such claim, if there is one. The owner of `
what "assets ?" For aught that appears, the bank may have parted
with this note and demand before the plaintiff became the owner of
its assets. Unless it is shown when the assignment was made and
that the bank was then the owner of this "asset," the plaintiff does
not show itself entitled to maintain this action, even upon its theory
of the law and the defendants liability. The allegation that the
plaintiff is "now" the assignee and owner of the assets of the bank,
implies, it is true, an assignment at some time, but it cannot be as-
sumed in favor of the plaintiff that it was more than a day before the
commencement of this action—January 9, 1884. But there is no `
direct allegation in the statement of any loss on the mortgage or of
the facts necessary to show one. The statement that the loan was
lost to the bank, appears to be a mere inference from the fact that
the bank was of the opinion that the mortgagee had no title. And
if there was such allegation, and it appeared therefron:1 that the loss
was sustained by the plaintiff, the defendant is not liable for it; while
if it was sustained by the bank the defendant is not liable to the
plaintiff therefor, unless it should further appear that the right of
action thereon has been duly assigned to it.
The demurrer is sustained to both statements.
Houumz and another v. Smnnnme, Collector.
‘ (Uircuil Court, N D. I llincla. April 23, 1884.)
C¤s·roMs Durms. ‘ ·— -
Bullion fringe held dutiable under Schedule N, act March 3, 1883, as bull-
ions or cnnetille, and not as a *‘manufact.ure not specially enumerated or pro-
vided for, composed wholly or in part of metal."
At Law. t
Percy L. Shuman, for plaintiffs. A
C'hcster_M. Dawes, Asst. U. S. Atty.,for defendant.
Bnonemr, J. The court finds that the article in the declaration
mentioned was charged a duty of 45 per cent. ad valorem as a "man—
ufacture not specially enumerated or provided for, composed wholly