Hines v. Butler
| Decision Date | 31 December 1844 |
| Citation | 3 Ired.Eq. 307,38 N.C. 307 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | PETER HINES v. THOMAS BUTLER.A |
The authority of an agent to collect a note or bill, does not authorize him to indorse the note or bill, either in the name of his principal, or on his account.
Much less is an agent authorized to endorse another paper for the debtor, to enable the latter to raise money to pay the debt to the principal.
Before an agent can insist that his principal has adopted, as his own, acts, which the agent had no authority to do, it is necessary to shew that the principal was fully apprised of all the facts and circumstances attending the transaction.
The cases of McElwee v. Collins, 4 Dev. & Bat. 209. Taylor v. Smith, 2 Hawks, 465; and McBrayer v. Roberts, 2 Dev. Eq. 50, cited and approved.
This was a bill filed for an account in Wake Court of Equity, which, having been set for hearing, was at the Fall Term, 1843, transferred by consent to the Supreme Court.
The facts of the case are stated in the opinion delivered in this Court.
Badger and W. H. Haywood for the plaintiff .
Alexandor and Iredell for the defendant .
The plaintiff employed the defendant as his agent to manage his landed estates in the county of Burke, to receive the rents and pay the expenses of the same; also, to see to the renewal and payment of certain notes, which the plaintiff then owed in the bank at Morganton. The plaintiff, being much pressed for money, also employed the defendant as his agent to take eight of his slaves to Alabama, and sell the same for cash. The defendant carried the said slaves out to Alabama, and sold them at high prices on credits, and took bonds for the purchase money. When the plaintiff was informed of the said sale, and the manner it had been made, he adopted it. And when the said bonds became due, the defendant was again employed by the plaintiff as his agent, to go to that State, and collect the money due on the bonds. The plaintiff, then being in great distress for money, urged the defendant by letters, to make remittances to him. But collections in that State then being difficult to be made, the defendant, for the accommodation of one of the debtors, Solomon Adams, who could not then pay his bond, endorsed a bill of exchange for $4000, drawn by the said Solomon Adams and one Benjamin Adams, on Adams and Taylor, of Mobile, payable to the defendant, nine months after date, in order to enable Solomon Adams to raise the money to pay his bond. The bill was accepted by the drawees, and all the parties to it were considered good. This bill, endorsed by the defendant in his own name, was sold by Adams to Sheffield and Co. for $3200 only, which money Adams paid to the defendant, and he remitted it to the plaintiff. The bill of exchange, when it arrived at maturity, was protested for non-payment. The holders, Sheffield and Co., then brought suit against the defendant on his endorsement. The defendant says, that he was ignorant, when he endorsed the bill, that he would be in law liable to the holders for the amount of the said bill, but that, being advised by counsel, that he was liable, he then paid the holders the whole sum mentioned in the face of the bill. It does not appear to us from any evidence in the cause, that he, at the time, mentioned to his counsel all the facts and circumstances, under which the bill had been made, endorsed and discounted by Sheffield and Co. If he had done so, his counsel must have informed him, that he could have effectually resisted the holders' action on the bill, on the ground of usury; as, by the statute (year 1819,) of Alabama, it was in fact void for usury; or, if he did not wish to plead the statute of usury, he could have resisted the plaintiff's recovery of $800, at least of the sum, on the ground of its being without consideration. This might have been done at law, if the New York rule is followed in Alabama, Ham v. Hendricks, 7 Wend. Rep. 569. MeElwee v. Collins, 4 Dev. & Bat. 209. Or it might have been done in Equity, if the Alabama courts follow the English rule, by bringing the money actually received on the bill of exchange, and interest, into court, and then the Court of Equity would have relieved by a perpetual injunction, or a decree to surrender up the bill to the endorser; Taylor v. Smith, 2 Hawks, 465. McBrayer v. Roberts, 2 Dev. Eq. 50. But, says the defendant, if I did blunder and imprudently pay the holder of the bills $800 more than I received on it, I did it through ignorance of the law, when I thought I was doing the best for the plaintiff, and that I have not personally received one cents' benefit by the transaction; and furthermore, the plaintiff has since adopted my endorsement and subsequent payment of the bill. The answer we have to give to all this is: First, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Folger
...thereof. Goodman v. Quaker City Insurance, 254 F.2d 844, 846 (1st Cir.1958) quoting Eddy v. London Assurance Corporation, 143 N.Y. 311, 38 N.C. 307 (1894) (emphasis added). That Eddy is the law in North Carolina is a proposition that cannot be controverted. See Bank v. Insurance Company, su......
-
Cason v. Cason
... ... time of such supposed ratification, he had notice of all the ... circumstances of the transaction.--Hines v. Butler, 38 N.C ... (S. C ... 1816) Where an agent purchases of his principal the subject ... of the agency, a confirmation ... ...
-
Sherrill v. Weisiger Clothing Co
...simply, was not a ratification in fact of the unauthorized Indorsement, of which it had no knowledge when it approved the sale. Hines v. Butler, 3 Ired. Eq. 307. The attorney, prima facie, had no authority to sell and' indorse; and the plaintiff, under the circumstances of this case, should......