the transaction, the creditor may after wards ratify it and then becomes a valid payment. Hoinire v. Rodgers, 74 Iowa 395; Strayhorn v. Webb, 2 Jones (N. Car.) 199; s. c., 64 Am. Dec. 580.

A ratification of a wrongful payment must be an entirety. Williams v. Jones, 77 Ala. 294.

The authority of the person to whom payment is made to receive it may be inferred from circumstances or from the course of dealing of the parties. Sax v. Drake, 69 Iowa 760.

If a mortgagor makes payment to the person to whom the administrator of the mortgagee says the mortgage and notes belong, he is protected thereby. Reynolds v. Smith, 57 Mich. 194.

Payment to the son of the agent authorized to receive payment is not binding on the creditor, if he does not actually receive the money. Lewis v. Ingersoll, 3 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 55

The collection of other securities or the interest, or a part of the principal debt, are insufficient to raise an implied authority to receive payment. Smith v. Kidd, 68 N. Y. 130; s. c., 23 Am. Rep. 157; Cox v. Cutter, 28 N. J. Eq. 13: Garrels v. Morton, 26 Ill. App. 433.

Where the creditor has authorized the debtor to send to a third person the money due, the debtor must notify the creditor that he has so sent it. And it is not sufficient that he writes a letter to the creditor, if the creditor never in fact receives it, and therefore loses the benefit of the payment. Holland v. Tyns, 56 Ga. 56.

A sold to B certain chattels upon which C had a lien, and B, in order to get possession of the chattels, was compelled to pay C's claim. Held, that this constituted a payment to A of the purchase-money pro tanto. Partridge v. Dartmouth College, 5 N. H. 286.

A payment to a person simulating the creditor, will not bar a recovery on the debt by the real creditor. People v. Smith, 43 Ill. 219; s. c., 92 Am. Dec. 109.

Where an insurance company in one of the Confederate States, during the pendency of the war, paid the amount due the insured for a loss to a quartermaster of the government, such pay ment being made by virtue of a military order of the commander of the Federal forces, this constituted a valid

payment, and a defense to an action by the assured on the policy. Slocomb v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 24 La. Ann.

291.

A compulsory payment of a debt to a receiver under the sequestration acts of the Confederate government is no defense to a suit by the creditor. Shortridge v. Macon, Chase Dec. (U. S.) 136.

The fact that the note is made payable at the recorder's office, does not confer authority on the recorder to receive payment. Aguilar v. Bourgeois, 12 La. Ann. 122.

And the same rule applies where the note is made payable at the office of a mercantile firm. Rowland v. Levy, 14 La. Ann. 219.

A justice of the peace in whose hands notes have been placed for suit may receive payment; and a payment to him will bar a subsequent suit on the notes. Johnson v. Hall, 5 Ga. 384.

Under the code of Ohio, where an execution has been issued by a justice of the peace against a judgment debtor, any person indebted to him may pay to the constable his debt, or so much thereof as is necessary to satisfy the judgment, and the constable's reciept is a sufficient discharge of the amount so paid. Hallanon v. Crow, 15 Ohio St. 176.

And see, under Wisconsin statute, Dunbar v. Harnesberger, 12 Wis. 373.

Payment of a debt due the school fund to a school commissioner who had been removed from office, and whose removal was known to the debtor, is not an extinguishment of the debt. Jameson v. Conway, 10 I 227.

Where the plaintiff is only a nominal one, and not the real party in interest, a payment of the judgment to him is not a satisfaction thereof. Triplett v. Scott, 12 Ill. 137.

A savings bank required that every depositor should sign the by-laws and agree to conform to them. Among the by-laws was one providing that the bank would not be responsible for loss sustained by payments made on presentation of the pass-book, when the depositor had not given notice of its having been lost or stolen, and that it would not be answerable for the consequences of any mistake as to identity of the person presenting it. A depositor received a pass-book containing the bylaws, but she was unable to read and signed them by her mark. She having died, the book was presented to the

different rule prevails. Johnston v. Allen, 22 Fla. 224; Heath v. Powers, 9 Mo. 774

See Murray v. Gibson, 2 La. Ann. 311; Johnston v. Lewis, 1 A. K. Marsh, (Ky.) 401; Gibson v. Pew, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 222; Bartholomew v. Hendrix, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 572.

A payment to a mere custodian of a note, when the debtor knows that the money represented by the note belongs to another, will not discharge the debt. Lochenmeyer v. Fogarty, 112 Ill. 572.

But a payment to the real owner of a note is good, though the note is at the time held by another, if the payee had no notice of that fact. Richardson v. Farnsworth, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 55.

And payment in good faith to the holder of a note indorsed in blank is good. Davis v. Lusitanian Portuguese Ben. Association, 20 La. Ann. 24.

1. Story on Prom. Notes (7th ed.), § 382; Edwards on Bills (3rd ed.), §§ 434438; Goodman v. Harvey, 4 Ad. & Ell. 870; Uther v. Rich, 10 Ad. & Ell. 748; Hall v. Wilson, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 548; Magee v. Badger, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 247; Ellsworth v. Fogg, 35 Vt. 355.

Compare 2 Pars. Bills and Notes, 212-215; Byles on Bills 271; Crooks v. Jadis, 5 B. & Ad. 909; Gill v. Cubitt, 3 B. & C. 456.

In a New York case it is held that the maker is protected in paying a lost note even to a stranger who produces no evidence of his title other than

possession after maturity. Cothran v. Collins, 29 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 113. 2. 2 Greenl. Evid. (13th ed.) § 578; Abbott's Trial Evid. 276 (5); 800 (4). The authority may be presumed from the authority to sell. Henry v. Marvin, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 71.

an

A payment by the maker to agent of the payee, before a transfer by the payee, may be a good payment. Renard v. Turner, 42 Ala. 117. The fact that the holder of the note receives money as the agent of the

maker does not constitute a payment of the note, unless the maker assents to such application of the money. McGill v. Ott, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 147.

A payment to a duly authorized agent of the holder is good, though the agent has not possession of the note at the time. Dunn v. Hornbeck, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 629; s. c., affirmed, 72 N. Y. 80. See Jones on Mortg., § 964.,

A payment to the party's attorney is in general sufficient. Jackson v. Rome, 78 Ga. 343; Yates v. Freckleton, 2 Dougl. 623; Hudson v. Johnson, I Wash. (Va.) 10. But not to the clerk of the attorney. Yates v. Freckleton, 2 Dougl. 623; Perry v. Turner, 1 Dowe Pr. Cas. 300; 2 C. & J. 89; 2 Tyr. 128.

Payment of a judgment to the attorney by whom it was obtained is good, though made more than a year after the judgment was received. Powell v. Litte, 1 W. Bl. 8; Branch v. Burnley, 1 Call (Va.) 147; Langdon v. Potter, 13 Mass. 319; Lewis v. Gamaje, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 347; Jackson v. Bartlett, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 361; Kellog v. Gilbert, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 220; s. c.,6 Am. Dec. 335.

em

The facts that an attorney was ployed to draw up a bond and mortgage, and that the money was advanced thereon by his client through such attorney, and that the attorney collected the interest, will not raise the inference that he is authorized to collect the principal, where the securities are not in his custody. Smith v. Kidd, 68 N. Y. 130; s. c., 23 Am. Rep. 157. The same rule applied to brokers. Stiger v. Bent, 111 Ill. 328.

While the authority of an agent to receive payment may be inferred from his having made the loan and retained the securities, this inference fails when the notes are withdrawn from his custody. Garrels v. Morton, 26 Ill. App. 433. To same effect, Lane v. chac, 75 Wis. 646; Roberts v. Matthews, 1 Vern. 150; Westenholm v. Davies,

Du

Freem. Ch. R. 298; Curtis v. Drought, I Molloy, 487.

A mortgagor at the time of making payment to the agent of the mortgagee inquired of him for the papers, whereupon search was made for them, but they were not found. The mortgagor then suggested that they might be at the recorder's office, to which the agent replied that they probably were. The mortgagee was insolvent and had assigned the mortgage. Held, that there was no presumption that the mortgagor knew of the assignment. Foster v. Beals, 21 N. Y. 247.

The burden of proof is on the debtor to show that the securities were in the custody of the agent at the time of payment. Williams υ. Walker, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 325; Smith v. Kidd, 68 N. Y. 130; s. c., 23 Am. Rep. 157; Garrels v. Morton, 26 Ill. App. 433.

A receipt given in the name of a firm, but in the form used by agents, puts the person making the payment on inquiry as to the authority of the party to whom payment is made. Chase v. Buhl Iron Works, 55 Mich.

139.

Payment to the clerk of a merchant is not valid unless it is within the scope of his employment to collect bills, and his mere statement that he has such authority is not sufficient, though the bill is made out on one of the merchant's bill heads.

"The usual employment of a clerk in a retail store is to sell goods to customers or purchasers, and it is implied from such employment that he has authority to receive pay for them on such sale. But there is no implication from such employment that he has authority, after goods are delivered and taken from the store, to present bills and collect money due to his employers, because it is not in the scope of the usual employment of such clerks." Hirshfield v. Waldron, 54 Mich. 649.

One Cox sold defendant an engine for plaintiffs, being their agent to sell. Another agent took notes from the defendant for the price of the engine, made payable to plaintiffs. These notes were indorsed by Cox. Defendant sent to Cox some carloads of shingles to sell and pay the notes off, but the notes were never paid. Held, not to constitute a payment. Hooks v. Frick, 75 Ga 715.

If a clerk is authorized to receive payment over the counter only, a pay ment made to him elsewhere is not

good. Kaye v. Brett, 5 Exch. 269; Jackson v. Jacob, 5 Scott 79.

Plaintiff placed goods in the warehouse of E. & Co. for sale, and two parcels were sold the defendant, who resided at a distance. After defendant had paid plaintiff for one parcel, he received a letter from one T, a clerk of E & Co., inclosing an invoice of the other parcel, and requesting payment, stating that E & Co. were authorized to receive the money for the plaintiff. The letter purported to be signed by E & Co. per per. of the plaintiff. Defendant remitted the amount in accordance with the request, but T intercepted the letter at the office of E & Co. and appropriated the money. T had authority from the plaintiff to receive payments over the counter only. Held, that not to constitute payment for the parcel. Kage v. Brett, 5 Exch. 296; 19 L. J. Exch. 346.

Payment to a person found in a merchant's counting house, ostensibly intrusted with the conduct of the business there, is a good payment to the merchant, though it turn out that the person was never employed by the merchant. Barrett v. Deere, M. & M.

200.

A factor made purchases for his principal, and the latter made him payments on account. The vendor wrote to the factor pressing him for payment, and the letter came into the hands of the principal, who transmitted it to the factor and with a knowledge of its contents paid the factor the balance of the purchase money. Held, that he was liable over to the vendor for the balance so paid. Powell v. Nelson, 15 East 65.

A payment to a broker is good, where the name of the principal is not disclosed, though the purchaser knew that the broker was selling for some principal. But to be valid it is necessary that the mode of payment should not vary from the terms of the original contract. Campbell v. Hassell, 1 Stark 233; Thornton v. Meux, M. & M. 43. See Drakeford v. Piercy, 7 B. & S. 515; 14 L. T., N. S. 443.

A purchased goods of B through a broker, and paid the broker for them partly by an advance on his general account with the broker before the delivery of the goods, and partly by cash on a settlement of accounts after delivery. The broker became bankrupt before paying over the money to B, and the latter brought an action

against A to recover such part of the purchase money as had not been paid to the broker in cash. Held, that it was a question for the jury, depending upon the custom of the trade, whether payment to a broker in advance was a good payment as against the principal. Catteral v. Hindle, 2 L. R., C. P. 368. Where goods are bought by a broker, the effect of a payment to the broker would seem to depend upon the time when it was made. If the principal is called upon for payment by the vendor at the time the payment is due, it is no defense that the principal had previously made payment to the broker; otherwise, if the day of payment is allowed to pass without a demand on the principal by the vendor. Kymer v. Suwercropp, Camp. 109. Compare Smyth v. Anderson, 7 C. B. 39; 18 L. J., C. P. 114; Armstrong v. Stokes, 7 L. R., Q. B. 598, 607; 41 L. J., Q. B. 253, 258.

If the broker does not mention his principal, the latter is liable to the vendor, though the broker becomes insolvent and is indebted to his principal. Waring v. Favenck, 1 Camp. 85.

An auctioneer has a right to collect the money due on his sales, and may maintain an action for it. Harlow v. Sparr, 15 Mo. 184.

A, being in the employ of B, and authorized to collect money for him, but without authority to deposit the money so collected, did deposit such money in a bank and took certificates of deposit in the name of "B by A." A afterward drew the money so deposited, and re-delivered the certificate to the bank. Thereafter B ascertained the fact that such deposits had been made, and brought suit to recover the amount thereof. Held, that he was entitled to recover. Honig v. Pacific Bank, 73 Cal. 464.

Money was deposited by the treas urer of a committee in a bank in his name as such treasurer. The bank paid it out to another party upon the order of the committee. Held, that the payment was a valid one. Jay v. Concord Sav. Bank, 60 N. H. 277.

A payment to an attorney after notice of substitution is not valid. Weist v. Lee, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 47. Or of revocation. Parker v. Downing, 13 Mass. 465.

Where a creditor has once author18 C. of L.-13

The

ized payment to an agent, he cannot revoke that authority after the debtor has, pursuant to the authority, given such a pledge to pay to the agent as would be binding in a court of law. Hodgson v. Anderson, 5 D. & R. 735; 3 B. & B. 842. See Pooley v. Godwin, 4 Ad. & El. 64; 5 N. & M. 466.

The authority of the agent to collect the debt is revoked by the death of the creditor. Lochenmeyer v. Fogarty, 112 Ill. 572; Cassiday v. McKenzie, 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 282 ; s. c., 39 Am. Dec. 76; Wallace v. Cook, 5 Esp. 117.

1. Whelan v. Reilley, 61 Mo. 565; Yazel v. Palmer, 81 Ill. 82; Padfield v. Green, 85 Ill. 529; Johnson v. Glover, 121 Ill. 283; Haines v. Pohlman, 25 N. J. Eq. 179; Camp v. Wiggins, 72 Iowa 643; Thomassen v. Van Wyngaarden, 65 Iowa 687. Compare Taylor v. Vingert, 33 Leg. Int., C. P. 238; Brown v. Taylor, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 135.

He is not authorized to receive payment before it is due. Smith v. Kidd, 68 N. Y. 130; s. c., 23 Am. Rep. 157. Compare Merritt v. Cole, 9 Hun (N. Y.) 98.

Possession of the agent indispensable authority to collect. § 964.

securities by the evidence of his Jones on Mortg.,