Case Name: The Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., Resp't, v. Egbert C. Wilson, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-05-09
Citations: 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 623
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., Resp’t, v. Egbert C. Wilson, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 45
Pages: 623–623

Head Matter:
The Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., Resp’t, v. Egbert C. Wilson, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed May 9, 1892.)
¡Landlord and tenant—Termination of authority of agent to collect rent.
An ordinary agency to collect rents and pay them over is terminated by the death of the principal, and a payment of rent to the agent after that time is not good payment.
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon decision of the court without a jury.
Action for rent
Hugo Hirsh, for app’lt; Herbet B. Turner, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
William Maden in his lifetime was the owner of tenements Nos. 290 and 292 Fulton street, in the city of Brooklyn. The owner gave authority verbally to D. M. Corbett to rent the property. Corbett, in April, 1884, rented the property to the defendant for an annual rent of $3,500 payable monthly in advance. William Maden died in Cuba, in August, 1884, leaving a will by which he devised the property to certain infants for whom the plaintiff is guardian. Corbett continued to collect the rents after Maden's death, and the defendant paid the rent in ignorance of the fact that the owner was dead. The question presented is whether or not the payments made to Corbett after Maden's death are good. The general rule is that an agency is revoked by the death of the principal. This rule has been before the court of appeals in the case of Weber v. Bridgman, 113 N. Y., 604; 23 St. Rep., 674, and upheld. The court says that there can be no agent when there is no principal, and that to legalize a payment made to an agent after the principal's death, the agent must have an interest independent of the principal and not destroyed by his death. No such standing upon the part of the agent is disclosed. He was a mere agent to receive rents and pay them over; and while he may be assumed to have been entitled to a commission upon the collection, it is not to be - doubted but that the principal had full power to terminate the agency against the agent's wishes, at any time. No proof is given that the agent had made any repairs or had paid any taxes, which he was entitled to be paid out of the rents.' The case seems to show an ordinary agency to collect rents and pay them over to the principal.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.