Case Name: BOSTICK vs. HARDY
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1860-06
Citations: 30 Ga. 836
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOSTICK vs. HARDY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 836–837

Head Matter:
BOSTICK vs. HARDY.
A payment to an agent by releasing kis personal debt, is not a payment to the principal.
Complaint, from Sumter county. Tried before Judge Allen, at April Term, 1860.
The plaintiff in error brought this action to recover the sum of $350 00, alleged to be the balance due him on an account for a negro slave sold by plaintiff to defendant.
On the trial, the plaintiff introduced the defendant, Hardy, who testified, that on the 25th day of May, 1859, he, defendant, bought of William Spencer, as agent of plaintiff, a negro woman named Sarah; that Spencer made him a bill of sale, as agent of plaintiff, under a power shown in a letter from plaintiff-to Spencer — which letter was also put in evidence. Defendant further testified, that he agreed to give $850 00 for the slave, $400 00 of this was paid in cash, a portion of it in an order on Sims & Neely, which was taken as cash and was soon paid, and the balance, viz: about $70 00 in an account which defendant had on Spencer. The $400 00 cash was paid by defendant by giving his note, which Spencer immediately got the money on at the Savannah Bank Agency. Does not know who the note was payable to, whether to Spencer or plaintiff. A day or two after the trade was made, McCoker, the bank agent, brought him the note, saying it was not written right in some way; witness took up that note and gave another, written as the agent desired. Does not remember that the difficulty was that the note was pajmble to the order of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff having then closed, counsel for defendant moved for a non-suit, which motion was sustained by the Court, and counsel for defendant excepted.
McCay & Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.
Scarborough, for defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Stephens, J.,
delivering the opinion.
The non-suit was awarded in this case when the idea that the plaintiff's own proof showed that he had been fully paid. The payment of the seventy dollars to the agent of the plaintiff by simply acquitting the agent of a debt of that amount which he owed to the defendant, was no payment to the plaintiff. A payment cannot be made to an agent who is known to be such by acquittances of the agent's personal debts.
Judgment reversed.