Soule v. Rice

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Parties: Howard & Soule, plaintiffs in error. v. G. L. Rice, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

54 Ga. 52

Howard & Soule, plaintiffs in error. v. G. L. Rice, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1875.)

Principal and agent. Debtor and creditor. Paymemt. Before Judge Pottle. Madison Superior Court. September Term, 1874.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

T. W. Rucker, for plaintiff in error.

Gabriel Nash; Samuel Lumpkin, by John C. Reed, for defendant.

*WARNER, Chief Justice.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant on the following paper:

"January 11th, 1872. Eight months after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of Howard & Soule $95 00 without interest, payable at Athens office.

(Signed,) "G. L,. Rice."

It appears from the evidence in the record that the following words were printed on the heading of the note signed by defendant: "No credits allowed unless indorsed on note at time payment is made." The note was given for a sewing machine sold by Shaffer, who was the agent of the plaintiffs, and had an office in Athens where the note was made payable. The defendant paid Shaffer, the agent of the plaintiffs from whom he purchased the machine, at his office in Athens, the amount of the note in two payments, taking his two receipts for the same. Shaffer said he did not then have the note, that it was in the hands of the plaintiffs in Atlanta, and that he would get the note and deliver it up to him. The jury, under the charge of the court, found a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiffs made a motion for a new trial on the grounds specified therein, which was overruled by the court, and the plaintiff excepted. The error complained of is that the court erred in charging the jury "that if the defendant made the payments, evidenced by the receipts introduced, to Brown & Shaffer at their office in Athens, having purchased the sewing machine from Shaffer, that such payment was valid, and would bind Howard & Soule, the plaintiffs; there being no evidence that Brown & Shaffer were authorized by the plaintiffs to receive payment of the note." The question involved in this case is whether an agent, who is authorized to sell certain specific machines for his principals, and who sells one on time, and takes a note from the purchaser thereof, due at a future day, payable to his principals, and who sells one on time, and takes a note from the purchaser thereof, due at a future day, payable to his principals, and delivers the note to them, is then their agent to receive the payment of the note, the *same not being in the possession of such agent, but in the hands of its principals. In other words, was the payment of the note given by the defendant payable to the order of Howard & Soule for a sewing machine purchased of their agent, Shaffer, a good payment of that note as against them, when made to Shaffer, their agent, at his office in Athens, he not having the note in possession, but promising ...