Court Opinion

ID: 9825666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:54:08.521009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:15.954688
License: Public Domain

Johnson; C. J., (concurring). I concur only in the result reached by the majority. The law is, as I understand, that one who presents for payment a promissory note and delivers possession thereof to the maker has prima■ facie authority in the premises, but, when delivery of the instrument is not made to the maker, the presumption does not follow. The true rule is stated as follows in 2 C. J., p. 624, § 260. “In the absence' of actual authority, an agency to receive payment upon a note or security can -be implied only where the one assuming such authority has possession of the instrument, and capacity to deliver the same upon payment, etc.” The majority opinion does not differentiate in this respect, and for this reason I cannot concur therein.