Case Name: Merrit E. Sawyer, App'lt, v. Thomas J. Wayne et al., Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-02-15
Citations: 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 745
Docket Number: 
Parties: Merrit E. Sawyer, App’lt, v. Thomas J. Wayne et al., Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 6
Pages: 745–745

Head Matter:
Merrit E. Sawyer, App’lt, v. Thomas J. Wayne et al., Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February 15, 1887.)
Principal and agent—Power of agent to borrow money.
An agent clothed with general powers for the transaction of business-. does not have power to borrow money in the name of his principal.
This is an appeal from judgment ordered by Justice Barnard after a trial upon the merits before him.
The action was brought by the plaintiff, a lawyer, to charge the real estate of the respondent .with about the sum of $2,100, which the appellant claims he loaned to the respondent’s son to pay certain taxes due at the time upon the said real estate.
The defendant, respondent, denies that he ever authorized or empowered his son to procure such loan, or any other, and further that at the time mentioned he, the respondent, had in the hands of his said son large sums of money, out. of which his said son was authorized to pay taxes.
Robert P. Getty, Jr., for app’lt; John Fleming, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
The plaintiff seeks to charge the defendant and his property with the payment of money which the plaintiff advanced to the son of the defendant to be used for the payment of taxes levied upon the property of the latter.
The money was furnished by the plaintiff at the request of the son of the defendant who was engaged in the general transaction of his father's business, but without authority to borrow money.
The claim of the plaintiff is meritorious, but not against the defendant. It would be dangerous to permit an agent clothed with general powers for the transaction of business, to borrow money in the name of his principal..
In this case the defendant cannot be charged with the adoption of the act of his son, for he had no knowledge of the loan and never acquiesced in the transaction.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.