The  conclusion  finally  arrived  at  by  the  court  seems  to  have
been  that  the  transfers  in  the  case  before  the  court  were
void,  as  not  being  authorized  by  a  previous  resolution ;  but
that  the  purchasers  and  pledgees  of  the  company's  bonds
secured  by  such  transfers,  were  "  purchasers  for  a  valuable


^  2  Key.  Stat  (7th  ed.)  p.  1866,  §  S ;  see  Hoy t  y.  Thompson,  1  Seld.  820.
■  2Rev.  Stat  ahi  iupra.  •  15  N.  Y.  9.
'  Shankland,  J.,  Id.  174;  Paige,  J.,  Id.  189,  190;  Selden,  J.,  Id.  249,  200.
'  Gonutock,  J.,  15  N.T.  47-50;  Brown,  J.,  Id.  184-188.
•  »


102  WHO  MAY  Itf AKIs  an  ASSIGNMENT.         [CHAP.  17^

.    •  •  •

consideration  and  Wi^out  notice,"  and  therefore  within  the
saving  clause  of  tlie' feighth  section  already  cited.^

It  was  ftl^k^l4^ 'Tield  in  the  case  just  cited,  in  accordance
with  previoiip'-aecisidns  in  this  State,  that  banking  assoeid-
tivns  orgfrnized  under  the  general  banking  law  of  1838,*
are  CQfjpprdtions^  and  therefore  within  the  provisions  of  the
RevfeeS* Statutes  relating  to  moneyed  corporations*

;%/.^'67.  Power  of  Pan^Paera  to  Aasign.-^In  cases  of  co-
';.  pfiortnership,  an  assignment  for  the  benefit  of  creditors  may
be  made  in  the  name  of  the  firm  by  a  single  partner,  by
the  authority  or  with  the  consent  of  his  copartners,  with
the  same  effect  as  if  made  by  all.*  But  to  what  extent  one
partner  may  bind  the  firm  by  an  assignment  of  the  part-
nership property,  in  the  name  of  the  firm,  wUhovi  the
Tcnowledge  or  consent  of  his  copartners,  does  not  seem  to  be


^  See  15  N.  Y.  11,  reporter's  abstract.  Compare  the  case  in  the  court  below^
17  Barb.  809;  and  see  GUlet  y.  PhiUips,  18  N.  Y.  114.
