Court Opinion

ID: 6414487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:55:08.261061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:29.489752
License: Public Domain

Bigelow, C. J.
The instruction asked for by the defendant was rightly refused. It appeared distinctly from the evidence that the plaintiff authorized Howe to receive the money from *209the defendant; but it was not shown that this authority was subsequently revoked. The mere fact that the plaintiff álso authorized another person to receive the same money did not prove a revocation. There may be two persons appointed to exercise the same power as agents for a principal. If there is nothing in the nature of the agency to render an authority in one person inconsistent with a like authority in another, both may well be authorized, and the acts of either or both, within the scope of the agency, will be valid and binding on the principal. So it was in the case at bar. The defendant paid to one agent of whose authority he had had notice. This authority was not revoked by the notice given to the defendant that the plaintiff had also appointed another agent with similar authority. There was no other evidence of revocation.

Exceptions overruled.