Thompson v. Elliott

• Decision Date: 30 September 1874
• Citation: 73 Ill. 221,1874 WL 8962
• Parties: NORMAN C. THOMPSON et al.v.MANSFIELD ELLIOTT.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

73 Ill. 221

1874 WL 8962 (Ill.)

NORMAN C. THOMPSON et al.

v.MANSFIELD ELLIOTT.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1874.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. NATHANIEL J. PILLSBURY, Judge, presiding.

This was a suit brought by N. C. Thompson & Co. against Mansfield Elliott, before a justice of the peace, upon a promissory note for $70, executed by Elliott, dated Clifton, July 24, 1865, payable to the order of Thompson & Co., at the office of G. E. Boucher & Co., Clifton, on or before Nov. 1, 1865. The defendant relied upon a receipt, of which the following is a copy:

“CLIFTON, Aug. 21, 1865.

Received of Mansfield Elliott the sum of one hundred and thirty-five dollars, being payment of two notes held by Thompson & Co., Rockford, Ill., amounting to $135, with interest, notes due 1st October and 1st November, 1865.

E. G. BOUCHER & Co.,

Agents for Thompson & Co., Rockford.”

The above receipt cancels the notes as mentioned above.

The notes referred to were given for a machine sold by Boucher & Co., as agents for Thompson & Co. The members of the firm of Boucher & Co. testified that the firm were authorized to execute the receipt for Thompson & Co. to Elliott, and that he executed the receipt, and that Elliott paid him the money. Thompson testified that Boucher & Co. were the agents of Thompson & Co., for specific purposes, but not to collect notes due them, and that they had no authority to execute the receipt to Elliott for Thompson & Co.

The defendant recovered a judgment for costs before the justice of the peace, and also in the circuit court, where the case was taken, by appeal, by the plaintiffs, who appealed to this court.

Mr. W. H. RICHARDSON, Mr. H. L. RICHARDSON, and Mr. WILLIAM LATHROP, for the appellants.

Mr. T. S. SAWYER, and Mr. WILLIAM POTTER, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

We do not conceive that the question involved in the present case is so much one of law as of fact. The doctrine is pretty well settled, and is not controverted by appellee, that an agent employed to make or negotiate a contract is not, as of course, to be treated as having an incidental authority to receive payments which may become due on such contract. And it is further laid down by the authorities, that “an agent, intrusted to receive payment of a negotiable or other instrument, is ordinarily deemed entitled to receive it only when and after it becomes due, and not before it...