Lister v. Allen

• Decision Date: 21 December 1869
• Citation: Lister v. Allen, 31 Md. 543 (Md. 1869)
• Parties: THOMAS LISTER and William F. Supplee, Trading as Lister & Supplee v. EMELINE ALLEN, Use in Part of Daniel Ratcliffe.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

31 Md. 543

THOMAS LISTER and William F. Supplee, Trading as Lister & Supplee v. EMELINE ALLEN, Use in Part of Daniel Ratcliffe.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 21, 1869

Appeal from the Baltimore City Court.

The facts are sufficiently detailed in the opinion of the court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., BRENT, MILLER and ROBINSON, JJ.

William H. Cowan, for the appellants.

Three questions arise in the decision of this case: The first is was the claim purchased from Hanson negotiable or assignable so as to vest in a holder or assignee of it a good legal title?The second, had Hanson power, by endorsing or assigning the certificate of claim on the treasury of Maryland, to transfer the property therein to the holder or assignee?The third is, were the holders or assignees of the claim in any way answerable for the fraud of Hanson, if he defrauded the original party to the claim, or who was the beneficiary entitled to the proceeds thereof?

The design of modern legislation and adjudications has been to facilitate the transfers of all rights, claims, and demands so as to simplify trade and commerce.Vested legal interests in choses in action, by assignment in writing, are as common as the endorsements of promissory notes.The Treasurer of the State recognized the validity of the endorsement or assignment of Hanson to the appellants, by paying the claim to them.His recognition of the appellants as bona fide holders decides the question of fact, so far as his practice extends.Eichelberger v. Sifford,27 Md. 329.The transferee holds by an irrevocable power of attorney, or by a valid assignment authorized by the Acts of the Legislature bestowing the bounty.

The appellants were not bound to look beyond the paper conferring the power, and with the limits and extent of it, their rights were commensurate.

Daniel Ratcliffe, for the appellee.

Hanson was a special agent, appointed for a specific purpose, and it was the duty of the defendants or others dealing with him to ascertain the extent of his authority.Chitty on Contracts, 200, and the cases cited;Batty v. Carswell,2 John. 48-50;Rossiter v. Rossiter,8 Wend. 494-499.

The low price paid for this claim should have put the defendants upon inquiry as to Hanson's authority to sell; and the law is well settled that a principal will not be bound by any act of the agent not warranted expressly by, or by fair and necessary implication, from the terms of the authority delegated to him.Chitty on Contracts, 200, and the cases there collected.

Bartol C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee, plaintiff below, was entitled under the laws of the State, as widow of Richard Allen, late a soldier in the United States Army, to receive from the treasury the sum of $300 for bounty due the deceased.

Her claim made out in due form of law, with the requisite affidavits and proof annexed, was placed by her for collection in the hands of William E. Hanson; and appended thereto was the following order or draft:

"$300. 186--.

The Treasurer of the State of Maryland pay to the order of William E. Hanson the sum of three hundred dollars, being balance of State bounty due me as the widow of Richard Allen, a volunteer in Company H, in 30th Regiment U.S.C. Troops.Under the Act of the General Assembly of Maryland of 1864, ch. 15, and amendments thereto."

"Emeline Her + Mark.Allen."

"Witnessed by Joseph B. Ruth, J. P."

Evidence was offered to prove that Hanson paid nothing to the plaintiff for the claim, that he passed it over to one James Campbell, a bounty broker, but for what consideration does not appear.Campbell sold it to the appellants for $165, and they received the amount ($300) from the treasury.The object of the suit is to recover from them this sum, as money had and received for the use of the plaintiff.

At the trial the defendants asked the court to instruct the jury "that if they found the defendants purchased the claim for bounty in question at a fair market price, without any collusion with Hanson or his agent, and paid their money for the same, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover."

This prayer was refused, and the prayer of the plaintiff was granted, instructing the jury substantially, "that if they believed from the evidence the plaintiff placed her claim in the hands of Hanson, a claim agent, with an understanding that the same should be collected in the usual mode, and paid over to her; but without authority to sell the said claim; and that Hanson sold the same, or caused it to be sold, without her authority or consent, to the defendants, who afterwards collected the full amount from the State, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover said three hundred dollars with interest from the date of its payment."

The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff; and the appeal brings up for review the ruling of the court below, on the prayers.

The defendants claim exemption from liability, on the ground that they were bona fide purchasers of the claim for value.But the court asserted the right of the plaintiff to recover, provided the jury found that Hanson was her agent only to collect, without any authority to sell, and if he sold...