Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-03-18
supreme Court of Ohio.

| TUESDAY, MdICu 10, IoOS
Jacob Ish vs. John Crane and others. Re.
served in the District Court of Wood county.
Sutlif, j., delivered the opinion Of the Court
Where A. had by letter requested and author
lied B. to make sale of tract of wild land for
him, and B. in accordance with the request and
authority as expressed by the letter, made a
contract of sale and received part of the pur-
chase money, and gave possession of the land
to c. for A in accordance with the contract,
shortly after the death of A but without know.
ledge of that event, and afterwards C. had paid
the residue of the purchase money due on the
contract, to the guardian of the heirs of A. on
demand thereof; and afterwards the heirs hay-
ing brought an action to recover possession of
said lands, and c. having thereupon commenced
suit against them to enjoin their proceeding in
such action. Held:
1st That the death of the principal, as
general rule is revocation Of the agency by op-
Grafton of law.
2. That the transaction being matter IN pals,
and not by deed or necessary to be done in the
name of the principal, and being in good faith
on the part of B. and c., and within the appar-
ent authority of B. as so explained by A, with
out knowledge of his death, the heirs and rep
resentatives of A. are estopped to deny such ap-
parent authority of B. and the contract is obli-
gatory upon them.
Swan, c. j., and Peck, J., dissented as to the
second proposition.
Reeves, Stephens d Co. VS.. The State Bank
of Ohio Civil action. Reversed in Lucas
county.
BRINkERHoFF, J., delivered the opinion of the
majority of the Court. Held:
l. Where a bank in this State receives for
collection draft payable in New York, and
Al E. a.
correspondent in New York, the bank here is
responsible to the owner for the conduct of
such correspondent, and for the proceeds of
the draft Immediately upon its collection by
such correspondent. Such correspondent is the
agent of the bank here, and not the sub-agent
of the ownor of the draft; and payment to the
agent is payment to the bank, unless there was
some agreement or authority between the own
er and Che bank beyond the mere fact of the
draft being received for collection.
2 If, before the draft is collected, the bank
here becomes insolvent, its agency may be re-
voked, and the agent of the bank made, by no.
tice or otherwise, the agent of the owner of
the draff, and chargeable to the owner with the |
proceeds of the draft afterwards collected.
8. But if the bank here becomes insoIvent |
after the draft is collected by the agent, and if
before such insolvency, various sums are cell |
lected by the agent on drafts forwarded to him |
for collection, and various sums are paid to the |
bank on such collections before insolvency, and |
after the insolvency q part of the funds re-
naming from such collections in the hands of /
the agent are paid over to the assignee of the
insolvent bank, the owner of such draft has no
lien or claim upon the funds in the \
hands of the assignee as to give him prefer
ence over creditors of the insolvent bank
Judgment for defendent.
SUTLIFF, j., dissented.