Dougherty v. Hunter

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Thompson
• Citation: Dougherty v. Hunter, 54 Pa. 380 (Pa. 1867)
• Decision Date: 21 March 1867
• Parties: Dougherty <I>versus</I> Hunter.

54 Pa. 380

Dougherty versus Hunter.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 26, 1867.

March 21, 1867.

February 26th 1867.

Before WOODWARD, C. J., THOMPSON, STRONG, READ and AGNEW, JJ.

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia.

E. H. Hanson, for plaintiffs in error, cited Grafius v. The Land Co., 3 Phila. R. 447; Bank of U. S. v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 89; Allegheny City v. McClurken, 2 Harris 81; Sterling v. Marietta and S. Trading Co., 11 S. & R. 179; Farmers' Bank v. McKee, 2 Barr 318; Del. and Huds. Canal Co. v. Penna. Coal Co., 9 Harris 131.

P. McCall, for defendants in error, cited Angell & Ames on Corp. 302; Penna. Co. v. Dandridge, 8 Gill & J. 218.

The opinion of the court was delivered, March 21st 1867, by THOMPSON, J.

If Bean, the president of the "Albert Freestone Company," was in the habit of acting as a business agent for the company with its knowledge and without objection, making sales, settling accounts and collecting debts, actual authority might be inferred from such acts and the company would be bound by them: 12 Wheat. 64; 11 S. & R. 179; and 2 Harris 81. The primary question on the trial of this cause in the court below, we think was whether the president did act as business agent of the company, and while so acting did settle the company's account against the defendant and take from him his negotiable due-bill in "full satisfaction" of the balance ascertained to be due the company, and gave him a receipt to that effect. He swears he did and is uncontradicted, and moreover, that shortly thereafter he negotiated the due-bill for cash, and that the proceeds went to the credit of the company. If these facts are true, was there not an extinguishment and satisfaction of the account? This was not only the tenor of the receipt, but how is it possible that anything else could have been intended? If the agent (assuming the agency established), negotiated the bill and applied the proceeds to the credit of the company, it must have been intended to be satisfaction by the company when it thus disposed of its paper for value. Ordinarily it is true that a note or due-bill will not extinguish such a claim ipso facto, but if the parties intend differently and so express themselves, the law will not interfere to prevent it. If the agency and satisfaction of the account be shown and the company be satisfied with it, and it has shown no dissent and no fraud or collusion be shown between it and Dougherty, I see not how creditors can set aside...