If any cause of action existed in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants, it arose out of the purchase by the defendants of certain goods of one Glazier. The plaintiffs claim that Glazier had obtained from them a large amount of merchandise, under circumstances which would stamp his possession of it as fraudulent, and the only claim against the defendants arose from their purchase of a portion of such merchandise from Glazier. There is nothing, however, in the affidavits to show that the defendants had any knowledge of the embezzlement of Glazier, or that he did not have full power to dispose of the merchandise which they bought. After-finding out the facts, they seem to have done all in their power to restore to the true owners the property which they had inadvertently received from Glazier. This fact seems to show that there was no well-grounded cause of action against them in this case.
Aside from that consideration, however, it is clear from the letter which the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants on May 16, 1888, that the order of the special term was correct, and should be affirmed. The letter was well calculated to deceive the defendants. It apprised the defendants that they were not liable for the payment of a check which they liad given to Glazier for certain goods, and this advice was based upon the allegation that such goods