18 _ FEDERAL REPORTER.
_ Illinois; occasionally visited the board of trade in Chicago with the
plaintiff; and the plaintiff testifies unqualitledly that the defendant was
familiar with the methods of business .upon the board. This testimony
is not contradicted by the defendant, and he nowhere in his testimony
attempts to deny knowledge of such methods of business. He was in
constant communication, with the plaintiff, gave orders for purchases
and sales by letter and telegraph, received statements from the plaintiff
as often as transactions took place, and no other conclusion. is consistent
_ with all the facts, than that he must have known the manner in which
‘ various tradesmade in his behalf, were closed out. The case, therefore,
{ -in its facts upon this point, is unlike that of Wfilliar v. Irwin. ; V
Appreciating, as I do, as indicated in the outset, the hardship proba-
bly entailed upon thedefendant by an adverse rulingin this case,_the
" court feels constrained to hold, upon the testimony as it is presented,
and upon what it conceives to be the weight of authority-, especially in
this circuit, that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the amount
of the plaintiH"s   for advances and commissions inthe transactions
in dispute. s »V
V I “ f _` {Samoan v. Sraak and others." t, j,` . J
` `   _ (qirouit _'C’0urt, D. —·O0to·rdd0;’ May 4, 1887.) _ `   _
1. Psumuwhrntoarroug t — T I i`T°’· I "   . ·
» ~ - £A creditor isiatliberty-to apply payments of a debtorupon any one ot the
. ·gg;;t;;§?i0blig&tlP¥§‘,vgUl11E8S the debtor names the debt on whichhe is making
`2.`SAME-—SEcmtEnANn·,UnsEou1zEn' DEm*s.· I ‘ / `     ` °
-< Where there aretwo debts; one secured and the otherrun écured, thc court
V. r will as a ruleapply apayment upon tlmuusecured debt. 5. , ~ . ·.
,3. ·PARTNERSEIP—E’OiVYEIlB—RElWEWAL pv `N0*rEQ_ i h '_ _` q A i I » _
_The renewal by one partner of a‘ partnership note, after·dissolution`df the
  ‘ ‘ partnership,·is binding upon the co-partner, if the latterrecognized and con-
_. , .sentedt0it.   ; y     -¤
;';:;On Motion for New Trial. V z. , .   ` A
_   B. Carpenter, for plaintiff. t ,  
, J. W. Horner, for defendants. V y _
,, Bnawna, J. In this matter of Sanborn against Stark,_motion for new
trial on two grounds, iirstthat one payment of six hundred and odd dol-
· lars was not credited on,the note of $650, but on some other,.indebted—
ness of the other partner. There is nothing in that;, the creditor is at
hberty to apply payment upon anyone of the obligations of hisdebtor,
» unless the debtornames the debt on which he is making the payment.
Even if he had not made that application himself, where there are two
debts, one secured and the other unsecured, the court ordinarily will ap—
_ ply a payment upon the unsecured debt; and the claim here is that this