The first raises the objection that the plaintiff cannot maintain an action in his own name for the recovery of that item, because, at the time of its sale, he did not own it. But ownership is not the test, nor is it material whether the plaintiff contracted in respect of the execution as principal or agent; for if Boyce is to be regarded as the owner, it is enough to enable the plaintiff to maintain an action upon the defendant's promise that it was made to him personally by Boyce's appointment, and that he had an interest or property in the subject-matter of it. Porter v. Raymond, 53 N.H. 519, 526; Fisher v. Ellis, 3 Pick. 322, 325; Thompson v. Page, 1 Met. 565, 570; Kent v. Bornstein, 12 Allen 342, 343; Spencer v. Field, 10 Wend. 87; Whitehead v. Potter, 4 Ired. 257, 264; Sargent v. Morris, 3 B. Al. 277, per Bayley, J.; 1 Wait Act. Def. 280; 1 Ch. Pl. 7; Sto. Ag., ss. 393, 397. The second raises the question whether the plaintiff's account book, containing a charge to the defendant of the execution, was competent evidence to prove its sale.