Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-2/Chapter-III-Defences-Section-I-Payment-Of-Money-1-Of-the-Party-to-whom-Pa.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:02:13+00:00

Document:
8 C. & P. 862, it was ruled by Lord Tenterden, that an agent authorized to sell goods has, in the absence of advice to the contrary, an implied authority to receive payment. But see Jackson v. Jacob, 5 Scott, 79; Blackburn v. Scholes, 2 Camp. 343.
(b) Horsfall v. Fauntleroy, 10 B. & C. 765. In this case, the plaintiff, who was an importer of ivory, had caused cata1 Thus a payment to a corporation agent, held out as an agent with general powers, will bind the corporation. Howe Machine Co. v. Ballmeg, 89 Ill. 319. See Drinan v. Nichols, 115 Mass. 353; Swett v. Southworth, 125 Mass. 417; Kinsman v. Kershaw, 119 Mass. 140. Payment by a debtor to an agent, before notice of the revocation of the latter's authority to receive it, will discharge the liability. Packer v. Hinckley Locomotive Works, 122 Mass. 484 ; Ins. Co. v. McCain, 96 U. S. 84; Braswell v. Am. Ins. Co. 75 N. C. 8; Ulrich v. McCormick, 66 Iud. 243 ; Meyer v. Hehner, 96 Ill. 400; Rice v. Barnard, 127 Mass. 241. A principal must at once repudiate a payment made to an agent without authority to receive it. Harris v. Simmerman, 81 Ill. 413; Bertholf v. Quinlan, 68 Ill. 297; Aultman v. Lee, 43 la. 404. Payments to one supposed to be a principal, before notice of his agency, were held good as against the real principal in Peel v. Shepherd, 58 Ga. 365; Eclipse Windmill Co. v. Thorson, 46 la. 181. A broker, not being intrusted with the possession of goods, is not entitled to receive payment. Whiton v. Spring, 74 N. Y. 169; Irwine v. Watson. 5 Q B. D. 102,414 Payment to a selling agent by the buyer will not be good unless his principal has held him out as having such authority. Clark v. Smith, 88 Ill. 298. But payment to a travelling salesman, apparently authorized to collect, is payment to the principal, although the bills sent out for the goods were inscribed "Payable at office," the vendee not having seen these words. Putnam v. French, 53 Vt. 402. It has been held that payment to the servant of a contractor who is to furnish materials and labor, made without the contractor's knowledge and before any proceedings in the nature of a mechanic's lien have been begun by the servant, is not a payment to the contractor. Walker v. Newton, 53 Wis. 336 ; and that payment to a de facto officer appointed by a board of fire commissioners is a defence to an action by a de jure officer against a city for his salary during the time that he was wrongfully displaced, Terhune v. Mayor, 6c. of New York, 88 N. Y. 247. Payment to an agent in Confederate money was held good in Maloney v. Stephens, 11 Heiskell, 738.
And where one contracts to do work and sues for the price, the defendant may prove that the plaintiff had a partner in the undertaking, and that he has paid that partner. (e) Payment to the creditor's wife will not be a good payment; (f) unless she was his agent, either expressly or by course of business. (g) She has no authority, as wife, to receipt for her husband's claims, although she be the meritorious cause. (h) An auctioneer or other agent employed to sell real estate has no implied authority to receive payment. (i) In case of sales by auction, the auctioneer has usually, by the conditions of sale, authority to receive the deposit, but not the remainder of the purchase-money. (j ) 2 logues to be circulated, stating that a quantity of ivory was to be sold on his account on a certain day by auction, subject to the condition, among others, that payment was to be made on delivery of the bills of parcels. The defendant, having received one of the catalogues, instructed his broker to purchase certain lots on his account. The broker did so, and shortly after drew bills on the defendant for the amount, which were accepted and paid at maturity. In an action by the plaintiff against the defendant for the price of the ivory, the court held, that the payment of the bills drawn by the broker constituted a good defence, inasmuch as the plaintiff, by the condition of sale contained in his catalogues, had authorized the defendant to believe that the ivory had been paid for by the broker on delivery of the bills of parcels.
3 Stew. 23; Kirk v. Glover, 5 Stew. & P. 340; Wilson v. Wadleigh, 36 Me. 496.
(d) Yates v. Freckleton, 2 Doug. 623. For an attorney-at-law, by virtue of his ordinary powers, cannot delegate his authority to another, so as to raise a privity between such third person and his principal, or to confer on him as to the principal, his own rights, duties, and obligations. Johnson v. Cunningham, 1 Ala. 249; Kellogg v. Norris, 5 Eng. (Ark.) 18. So payment to a sheriff employed by an attorney to serve a writ will not discharge the debt. Green v. Lowell, 3 Greenl. 373; Waite v. Delesdernier, 15 Me. 144.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.