And the general rule is that where the payee of a note leaves it with a bank for collection, the bank becomes his agent to receive the money, and payment at the bank discharges the maker, though the bank fail to remit the amount to the payee. Smith v. Essex Co. Bank, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 627. 1. Williams v. Evans, 1 L. R., Q. B. 352; 35 L. J., Q. B. 111.

I

An authority to collect is not an authority to commute the debt. Pars. Cent. 42. Nor to release it upon a composition, nor to pledge it, nor to obtain a judgment on it for the agent's own use. Padfield . Green, 85 Ill. 529; Eaton v. Knowles, 61 Mich. 625; Kingston v. Kincaid, 1 Wash. (U. S.) 448. Nor to take payment by a release of the agent's own debt to the debtor. Smith v. Morrill, 39 Kan. 665; Bostick v. Hardy, 30 Ga. 836; Maynard v. Cleveland, 76 Ga. 52; Chase v. Buhl Iron Works, 55 Mich. 139; Parsons v. Webb. 8 Me. 38; s. c., 22 Am. Dec. 220; Williams v. Johnston, 92 N. Car. 532; s. c., 53 Am. Rep. 428; Underwood v. Nicholls, 17 C. B. 239; 25 L. J., C. P. 79.

Nor to take a note or other commercial paper for it. And if the debtor pays the debt by giving his note payable to the agent, which note the agent sells before maturity, and the maker pays, this does not prevent a recovery by the principal. Lochenmeyer v. Fogarty, 112 Ill. 572. To same effect, Harbach v. Colvin, 73 Iowa 638; British etc. Mortgage Corp. v. Tibbals, 63 Iowa 468. Compare Mulcrone v. American Lumber Co., 55 Mich. 622; Anderson v. Hillies, 12 C. B. 499; 16 Jur. 819; 21 L. J., C.

chase for the auctioneer's individual debt to such purchaser, not to exceed the amount of his commission. Harlow v. Sparr, 15 Mo. 184.

An agent who is authorized to collect a note cannot receive in payment anything but money; and if the agent receive from the debtor other notes or claims on third parties, they will not constitute a payment unless actually collected by the agent. Mudgett v. Day, 12 Col. 139; Locke v. Mackinson, 14 La. Ann. 361; Spence v. Rose, 28 W. Va. 333; Anderson v. Boyd, 64 Tex. 108. Nor can an agent accept in full payment any less than the amount due. Rohr v. Anderson, 51 Md. 205; Chalfants v. Martin, 25 W. Va. 394.

Where an attorney receives notes or evidences of debt in payment of claims placed in his hands for collection, the claims are not thereby paid. And if the attorney proceeds to collect such notes and evidences of debt, the money arising therefrom is at the risk of the debtor, so long as it remains in the hands of the attorney. Kenny v. Hazeltine, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 62.

An agent authorized to collect a debt, received from the debtor his note payable to the creditor. The agent indorsed it as the creditor's agent, and sold it to a third person, to whom it was paid by the debtor. The creditor never received the money. Held, no authority of the agent to indorse being shown, the debt was not discharged. David v. Neven, 10 La. Ann. 642.

If the owner of goods allows the broker through whom he sells them to sell as principal, the purchaser will be discharged by a payment to the broker in any way which would have been sufficient had he been the real owner. Coates . Lewes, I Camp 444.

And if the principal has, in the course of dealing, allowed his broker to take payment for goods sold by drawing bills upon the purchaser in his own name, without mention of the principal, a payment thus made is good, though the broker fail before the money is actually paid to the principal. Townsend v. Inglis, Holt 278.

Where the agent is a bank of deposit, it may receive its own certificates of deposit as money, and the

or on demand.1

debtor has no election to make it pay able at different times and in different years. O'Donnell v. Leeman, 43 Me. 158; s. c., 69 Am. Dec. 54.

Where a contract provided that a sum should be "payable as convenient," this cannot be construed so that it snall not be payable at all, but only as an extension of credit. Black v. Bachelder, 120 Mass. 171.

1. Bank of Columbia v. Hagner, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 455; Payne v. Mattox, I Bibb (Ky.) 164; Slack v. Price, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 272; Colburn v. First Baptist Church, 60 Mich. 198; Dorland v. Dorland, 66 Cal. 189.

A promissory note which states no time of payment is payable on demand, even though the interest is made payable annually. Converse v. Johnson, 146 Mass. 20.

A debt acknowledged to be due, without mentioning any time of payment, is payable immediately. Payne v. Mattox, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 164.

On an award or a covenant to pay money, without any day fixed, no demand is necessary, and the money is due forthwith. Šlack v. Price, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 272; Kendall v. Talbott, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky) 321.

But if it is expressly agreed, or established by custom, that payment is to be made only after demand or notice, a reasonable time after demand or notice is allowed for the debtor to bring the money. Benj. on Sales (1 Am. ed.), § 709; citing Brighty v. Norton, 32 L. J., Q. B. 38, s. c., 3 Best & S. 305; Jones v. Wilson, 32 L. J., Q. B. 33, 382; S. C., 4 Best & S. 442, 455; Massey v. Sladen, L. R., 4 Exch. 14; Loughborough v. Nevin, 74 Cal.

250.

In the case of Toms v. Wilson, cited by Mr. Benjamin, plaintiff being indebted to the defendant, executed to the latter a bill of sale of his household furniture, whereby he agreed to pay the debt "immediately upon demand

thereof in writing," and in case of failure to so pay, defendants were authorized to take possession of and sell the furniture. Defendants placed in the hands of a sheriff's officer a written demand of payment, who delivered it to plaintiff at his house, and upon his failure to make immediate payment, seized the furniture. It was held that the seizure was premature. Says COCKBURN, C. J.: "By the terms of the bill of sale plaintiff was under an obligation to pay this money immediately upon demand in writing, and, if he did not, then the defendants were entitled to take possession of and sell the goods. Here such a demand was made. The deed must receive a reasonable construction, and it could not have meant that the plaintiff was bound to pay the money in the very next instant of time after the demand, but he 'must have a reasonable time to get it from some convenient place. For instance, he might require time to get it from his desk, or to go across the street, or to his bankers for it." 4 Best & Smith 453.

And BLACKBURN, J., said: "By a reasonable time must be understood time enough to ascertain the will of the creditor, or of a person authorized by him to receive the money."

The demand in this case having been made by an agent of the creditors, it was further held that the debtor must have a reasonable opportunity to inquire into the authority of the person making the demand.

2. 1 Whart. on Contr., § 582; Petty v. Church of Christ, 95 Ind. 278.

3. Benj. on Sales (1 Am. ed.), §§ 706, 707; Endsley v. Johns, 120 Ill. 469; s. c., 60 Am. Rep. 572; Wright v. Wabash etc. R. Co., 120 Ill. 541; Lentz v. Flint etc. R. Co., 53 Mich. 444; Hill v. Gayle, • 1 Ala. 275; Falls v. Garther, 9 Port. (Ala.) 605; Robbins v. Harrison, 31 Ala. 160; Robinson v. Marney, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 329; Kirby v. Stude

baker, 15 Ind. 45; Terwilliger v. Murphy, 104 Ind. 32; Hundley v. Buckner, 6 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 70; Peabody v. Maguire, 79 Me. 572; Genin v. Tompkins, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 265; Cook v. Ferral, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 285; Mc Combs v. McKennan, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 216; s. c., 37 Am. Dec. 505; Fitzpatrick v. Fain, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 15; Bliss v. Arnold, 8 Vt. 252; s. c., 30 Am. Dec. 467; Fay v. Fay, 43 N. J. Eq. 438.

The buyer has no right to delay till a demand is made, nor till the vendor actually offers to deliver; nor till he sends or carries the articles purchased to the purchaser. Benj. on Sales (1 Am. ed.), § 707.

In Vermont, a sale for cash by a commission merchant is held to mean that the money is to be paid on delivery of the property. Bliss v. Arnold, 8 Vt. 252; s. c., 30 Am. Dec. 467.

1. Ebersole v. Redding, 22 Ind. 232; Jefferson v. Fox, 1 Morr. (Iowa) 48. But this applies only to negotiable paper. Merritt v. Cole, 9 Hun (N. Y.) 98.

And has no application to paper made payable "on or before" a certain day. Stoddard v. Burton, 41 Iowa 582. The fact that an attorney has authority to receive payment of a note, does not authorize him to accept payment before the note is due. Smith v. Kidd, 68 N. Y. 130; s. c., 23 Am. Rep. 157. Compare Merritt v. Cole, 9 Hun (N. Y.) 98.

One J, in order to obtain a loan from M, procured S to execute to M his promissory note. Thereupon J and his wife executed to S their joint promissory note for the same amount, which latter note was secured by a mortgage on the wife's land. The joint note and mortgage, indorsed by S, were delivered to M, together with Š's note to M, both payable in bank, and both given solely to procure said loan. Certain payments made to M by J were indorsed on the individual note of S, but not on the joint note of J and his wife. Afterward

M surrendered to S the note executed by him, retaining only the joint note secured by the mortgage. This note he indorsed, and sold it and the mortgage for value before maturity to one who had no knowledge of the payments and who procured judgment on the note and foreclosure of the mortgage. J being insolvent and the mortgaged property having been sold to satisfy the judg ment, J's wife brought an action against M to recover the amount of the payments which he had failed to credit on the joint note. Held, that she was entitled to recover. Moorman v. Shockney, 95 Ind. 88.

2. Johnson v. Willis, 7 Gray (Mass.)

164. See also SUNDAY.

3. King v. Finch, 60 Ind. 420; Gale v. Corey, 112 Ind. 39; McKinder v. Littlejohn, 4 Ired. (N. Car.) 198; Sanders v. Norton, 4 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 464.

The maker of a note payable at an Ypsilanti bank deposited money with his own bankers in Ann Arbor, requesting them to get the note from Ypsilanti and pay it. The Ann Arbor bankers wrote to Ypsilanti for the note, which was sent to them indorsed “for collection." They did not, however, remit the money, and upon their failure shortly afterwards, the note was found among their collection

paper, uncanceled. Held, that the note was not paid. It was the maker's "duty to see that the note was paid at maturity, and instead of paying it himself he intrusted the money to his own bankers, who never applied it.. We can see no plausible ground for holding the note paid." Sutherland v. First Nat. Bank, 31 Mich. 230.

Where payment was to be made in grain on a day fixed, but no place of delivery was designated, the parties may subsequently agree on a place, and this agreement will be binding, though the original contract was in writing and the place was fixed by parol. Miles v. Roberts, 34 N. H. 245.