The obligee in the bond sued on, delivered it to her son to deliver to a lawyer for collection; and the plaintiff says he bought it of the son, and he now holds it without endorsement. The question is, did the plaintiff acquire any title to the bond or any right to maintain an action on the same ?
Before the adoption of the Code, we suppose no one would have ventured the action. The Code, however, requires the “ real party in interest ” to sue. And if the plaintiff could show that he had any interest in the bond, he could maintain the action without an endorsement of the bond to him. But he has no interest whatever in the bond. The son was ’ not an agent to sell the bond, but simply to hand it over to a lawyer for collection. He was not the agent of the obligee to act for her generally; if he had been, there would have been some grounds for the plaintiff’s claim. But he was agent for a special object only, and his powers were limited by his instructions. Story on Agency, 126.
There is no error.
Judgment affirmed.