Exchange Bank v. Thrower
| Decision Date | 12 August 1903 |
| Citation | 45 S.E. 316,118 Ga. 433 |
| Parties | EXCHANGE BANK v. THROWER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Authority to borrow money is among the most dangerous powers which a principal can confer upon an agent, and must be created by express terms, or be necessarily implied from the very nature of the agency actually created.
2. An employé of a state insurance agent, who is given the title "cashier," is not thereby impliedly authorized to indorse and discount drafts in the name of his principal.
3. Power to make restricted indorsements will not authorize a general indorsement in blank.
4. That an agent is authorized to indorse checks with a stamp reading, and fill the blank therein with his own name does not empower such cashier to indorse checks and drafts in blank, so as to collect the money thereon.
5. The evidence was conflicting, and where there was testimony tending to show that the cashier was in full charge of the business during the frequent absence of the principal, and authorized to indorse other than for deposit only, a verdict finding for a bona fide purchaser of drafts so indorsed cannot be disturbed by this court.
Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Ried, Judge.
Action by the Exchange Bank against M. L. Thrower. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Rosser & Carter and J. A. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.
Westmoreland Bros., and W. T. Moyers, for defendant in error.
Authority to borrow money is among the most dangerous powers which a principal can confer upon an agent. Whoever lends to one claiming the right to make or indorse negotiable paper in the name of another does so in the face of all the danger signals of business. He need not lend or discount until assured beyond doubt that the principal has in fact appointed an agent who by the stroke of a pen may wipe out his present fortune, and bind his future earnings. The very nature of the act is a warning, and if the lender parts with his money, he does so at his own peril. If the power was not in fact conferred, he must bear the loss occasioned by his own folly. A power so perilous is not to be implied from acts which in other matters less hazardous might create an agency. It must be conferred in express terms, or be necessarily and inevitably inferable from the very nature of the agency actually created. So strict is the rule that it will not be presumed even from an appointment of one as general agent unless the character of the business or the duties of the agent are of such a nature that he was bound to borrow in order to carry out his instructions and the duties of the office. Civ. Code, § § 3004, 3021; Dobbins v. Etowah Mfg Co., 75 Ga. 238; Mecham on Agency, § 536; Tappan v Bailey, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 536; Jackson Co. v. Com. Nat. Bk. (Ill.) 65 N.E. 136, 59 L.R.A. 657; Doubleday v. Kress, 50 N.Y. 410, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sumner v. Sumner
-
Exch. Bank v. Thrower
... ... M. Ried, Judge.Action by the Exchange Bank against M. L. Thrower. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.Prince was the agent of the Manhattan Insurance Company for Georgia and Alabama. Brinsfield was his cashier. Two New York drafts, payable to James T. Prince, Manager, were indorsed by the latter, "James T ... ...