There are numerous authorities which declare that, in order to support an action of this character, there need be no privity of contract, except that which results from one man's having another's money which he has no right to keep; and that in all such cases the law implies a promise that he will pay it over. Mason v. Waite, 17 Mass. 563; Caussidiere v. Beers, 2 Keyes, 200; Kreutz v. Livingston, 15 Cal. 346; Wells v. American Exp. Co. 49 Wis. 229; S. C. 5 N. W. Rep. 333; Lockwood v. Kelsea, 41 N. H. 478; Eagle Bank v. Smith, 5 Conn. 75; Wiseman v. Lyman, 7 Mass. 288; Tutt v. Ide, 3 Blatchf. 249; Harper v. Claxton, 62 Ala. 46; Bahnsen v. Clemmons, 79 N. C. 556. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

END OF VOLUME 6.