1. Where A sells an automobile to B, under a title-retention contract, and receives B’s notes for the purchase-price, due on different dates several months thereafter, and where, before any note falls due, A sells the notes and the title-retention contract to O, A indorsing in blank the notes, and indorsing the contract over to 0, and where O, before the maturity of any of the notes, sells the notes and contract to D, C indorsing in blank the contract but not indorsing the notes, and where D subsequently brings suit against B and 0 for the balance of the purchase-price of the automobile, no cause of action is set forth against 0, and the petition is subject to dismissal on genex-al demurrer,

(a) The infirmity of the petition is not cured by an amendment which sets *430up that the indorsement in blank by C of the title-retention contract “was equivalent to indorsing the said notes in blank.”

2. A second count, offered as an amendment to the petition, alleged that when C sold the retention-of-title contract and the notes to D, C knew that B was insolvent, and that the notes and contract were worthless, and that D did not have such knowledge, and, therefore, that C is liable to D for a breach of his warranty. A third count, offered as an amendment, alleged that when C sold and delivered the notes and contract to D, C promised that if the notes were not paid by B, he (C) would pay them. Held: Conceding (but not deciding) that these two counts set forth a cause of action against C, it was a new and distinct cause of action, and the court did not err in disallowing the amendments, or in dismissing the petition on general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.