Henry v. Allen

This action was originally commenced against Norman M. A11 err and Hoyt M. Allen as co-partners engaged in the business of banking, at Dayton, N. Y., under the firm name of Norman M. Allen & Son, but since this appeal ivas taken Hoyt M. Allen died.

The action was brought to recover the sum of $27,999, being the amount of thirty-three instruments in writing, each of which was in the following form, omitting dates and amounts :

“ $...... Dayton, N. Y.,..........188. *

“ Norman M. Allen & Son, Bankers.

“ Pay to the order of F. Monson,............dollars.

“N. NX. ALLEN & SON.”1

The plaintiff resided in the village of Gowanda, distant about four miles from the residence of the defendants, but had no personal

On the 12th day of Mai’ch, 1886, the plaintiff was the owner of three certificates of deposit issued by the Bank of Gowanda, one of which was for $1,163.54, and the other two for $1,000 each. Chiefly through the representations of Monson he had become suspicious of the solvency of the bank, and decided to withdraw his money therefrom. lie accordingly entered into an arrangement with Monson by which he was to deliver to him his three certificates of deposit for the purpose of having him withdraw the money from time to time in such manner as not to create a suspicion on the part of the officers of the bank of his purpose, or of where the same was to be placed, and to deposit the same with Norman M. Allen & Son. It was further arranged that from time to time thereafter he should send or deliver to Monson the money which he might be able to save from his business as showman whilst upon the road, and that Monson, acting for and on his behalf, should take it to the defendants’ bank and there deposit it, and, as the referee has found, to send or deliver to him for each deposit so made either his individual check or the check of the defendants indorsed by Monson for the amount of each deposit; that Monson should have charge of that branch of his business and of making deposits with the defendants, and of negotiating with them in reference thereto, and of looking after the same, and when the amount so deposited should aggregate the sum of $5,000 a loan to the defendant Norman M. Allen should be made therefor upon a bond secured by a mortgage upon real estate, ¿sa part of such arrangement it was agreed that Monson should pay him six per cent interest on all sums delivered to him for deposit. Pursuant to this arrangement he delivered to Monson the three certificates of deposit, and from time to time thereafter up to the 4th day of March, 1889, sent by’letter and delivered to Mon-son various sums of money for deposit with the defendants, amounting in the aggregate to $27,999, which sums he charged to Monson as the same were remitted to him from time to time.

On the 12th day of March, 1886, Monson opened an account with the defendants in their bank by making a deposit to his own credit therein of a part of the proceeds of one of the certificates of deposit

Some criticism has been made upon the findings. It is said that the plaintiff never agreed to accept the individual check of Monson. For the first money derived by Monson upon one of the certificates of deposit delivered to him by the defendants, he mailed to the plaintiff his individual check inclosed in a letter, in which he appears to have apologised for not procuring it to be certified, pleading as an excuse that he had forgotten to do so. To this the plaintiff replied, saying: “ There is no earthly need of your having your check certified. Why, what an idea. I don’t want your checks at all.” Thereafter Monson appears to have procured the defendants’' checks payable to his order, which he indorsed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that in his conversation with Monson, Monson ' wanted to know of him if N. M. Allen’s check would be security ; that he told him he would make inquiries, and subsequently told him that he would take N. M. Allen & Son’s checks provided he would indorse them, and that they began the business with that, understanding. It is, therefore, apparent that the plaintiff did not. agree to take the individual check of Monson, but that the understanding was that he should take the check of the defendants indorsed by Monson.

It appears that Monson paid jfiaintiff the interest, the referee finds,, down to January 1, 1890. That is the last date of payment shown by the receipts; but it is claimed by the appellant that it appears from the letters written by the plaintiff to Monson that the interest was paid down nearly to the time that Monson absconded. Under the view taken by us this variance is unimportant. The plaintiff knew that Monson was paying the interest upon his deposits. He testified that he supposed that Monson in some way obtained the* interest from Allen. But his letters leave this question in some doubt, for he had the defendants’ check for each deposit in his possession, and these checks contained no promise to pay interest. In

And again, from Perth Amboy, October fifth (the year not given) he writes: “ I don’t feel right to take interest from you on money that is actually a bother to you. I don’t want your friendship to extend to such matters.” We shall, however, assume, for the purposes of this review, that the plaintiff supposed that Monson had procured the interest which he paid him from Allen & Son.

It is also claimed that the referee erred in finding that the defendants had no knowledge that the money deposited with them by Monson belonged to the plaintiff. It is claimed that Henry wrote a letter to Allen & Son about the time that Monson commenced depositing the money with them, in which he stated in substance that Monson had influenced him to withdraw his funds from the Bank of Gowanda and to place them in the defendants’ bank; that Monson was a great friend of his and very enthusiastic over his success, but wanted the matter to be strictly a business matter. He, however, kept no copy of the letter ; could not tell at what place he wrote it; his correspondence was very voluminous, and that he could not be certain as to the exact contents of the letter. N. M. Allen testified that he remembered receiving a letter from the plaintiff; that he was unable to find it among his files; that lie thought he had passed it over to Monson; that he could not recall the contents of the letter further than that it conveyed to him no idea that the plaintiff had withdrawn any money from the Bank of Gowanda to be deposited with them through Monson. The referee appears to have believed the defendants’ testimony, and where there is a conflict between two interested parties it is our usual practice to follow the, findings.

We must, therefore, treat the instruments in suit as memorandum checks issued by the defendants to Monson, without consideration,

Story on Agency, at section 140, says: “ Upon a similar ground notice of facts to an agent is constructive notice thereof to the principal himself, where it arises from, or is at the time connected with, the subject-matter of his agency, for, upon general principles of public policy, it is presumed that the agent has communicated such facts to the principal, and, if he has not, still, the principal having intrusted tlie agent with the particular business, the other party has a right to deem his acts and knowledge obligatory upon the principal; otherwise, the neglect of the agent, whether designed or undesigned, might operate most injuriously to the rights and interests of such party.”

And again, at section 419, he says: “ This doctrine applies a fortiori to every case where the agent does not contract in his own name, but solely in the name of his principal, for, in such a case, the principal is not only the contracting party, but he is the sole contracting party, exclusive of the agent, and is alone competent to sue or enforce any other remedy thereon. In all cases of this sort, however, the principal, while he is entitled to all the advantages and benefits of the contract of his agent, must take them with all the attendant burdens and subject to all the attendant just counterclaims and defenses of the other contracting party. Thus, if the contract of the agent is impeachable on account of the fraud, imposition, misrepresentation or other misconduct of the agent, the principal is affected with all the consequences thereof, and cannot avail himself of his own innocence to support what would otherwise be an unfounded or defective title. So, if the agent has sold goods in 1ns own name, no other person being known as principal, and the agent agrees at the time of the sale that the vendee may set off against the price a debt due to him by the agent, that set-off will be as good against a suit brought by the principal as it would be if the suit was brought by the agent for the price.”

And again, at section 420, he says: “Neither will it make any difference in such cases * * * that the principal, at the time of entering into the contract, is known or unsuspected, nor that the third person has dealt with the agent, supposing him to be the sole

Mechem, in his work upon Agency, at section 773, says: “ But if the principal would avail himself of the benefits of a contract made by an agent in his own name, without disclosing his principal, he must also assume the responsibilities of the contract. He must take the contract as it exists at the time he interposes, and subject to all the rights which the other party then possesses against the agent. In the homely but expressive language of a learned judge, the principal must ‘ step into the shoes of the agent.’ Hence, where a third person, who has entered into a contract with the agent in ignorance of the fact that he was not the real principal, as he assumed to be, is sued upon the contract by the principal, he may avail himself, as against the principal, of every defense, whether it be by common law or statute, which existed in his favor against the agent at the time the principal first interposed and demanded performance tohimself. This right is not affected by the fact that the agent in thus entering into the contract in his own name, without disclosing his principal, acted in contravention of the express directions of his principal.”

In the case of The Bank of the United States v. Davis ( 2 Hill, 451 ) the action was brought to recover the amount of two bills drawn by the defendant. It appears that these bills were transmitted by the drawer to "Williams, one of the directors of the bank, for the purpose of having them discounted for the benefit of the former; that "Williams put his own name upon the paper, and procured it to be discounted for himself and appropriated the avails. At the time he was one of the five directors of the bank constituting the board of discount. His associates had no knowledge of his fraudulent use of the bills. It was held that the bank could not

In Hyatt v. Clark ( 118 N. Y. 563 , 569) it is said by Yann, J., after quoting from Story on Agency: “In other words she was

In Adams v. Mills ( 60 N. Y. 533 , 539) it is said that “his notice and knowledge must be regarded as notice to and kno wledge of the wife according to the well-settled principle that a principal is chargeable with all the knowledge the agent possesses in the transaction of the business he has in charge.” (See, also, Myers v. The Mutual Life Ins. Co., 99 N. Y. 1 -11; Hogan v. Shorb, 24 Wend. 458 ; Laing v. Butler, 37 Hun, 144 ; affd., 108 N. Y. 637 ; School District in Greenfield v. First Nat. Bank in Greenfield, 102 Mass. 174 ; Farmers & Mechanics' Nat. Banh v. King, 57 Penn. St. 202 .)

The learned referee is of the opinion that the plaintiff could not recover for the reason that he parted with nothing of value at the time he received the instruments upon which he brings his suit; that he first sent his money to Monson and charged him therefor in his book; that some days later Monson returned the checks and was then given credit therefor; that at that time the plaintiff received and credited the checks on a pre-existing debt against Monson, and that in consequence thereof the defendants were not precluded from interposing the defense that they had thereto, citing Clark v. Gallagher ( 20 How. Pr. 308 ); Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church ( 81 N. Y. 218 ); Potts v. Mayer (74 id. 594).

The referee also appears to have been of the opinion that the long time intervening after the plaintiff received the checks before he presented them to the defendants for payment, furnished evidence that the plaintiff did not receive them in the regular course of business, citing Claflin v. Bank ( 25 N. Y. 293 ).

We have not deemed it'necessary to consider these questions, for under the view taken by us the plaintiff is chargeable with knowledge of the agreement of Monson with the defendants, and consequently they may avail themselves of their defense the same as if the action was prosecuted in the name of Monson.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Dwight, P. J., and Lewis, J., concurred.

(dissenting):

The plaintiff handed his certificates and money to Monson to> deposit in the bank of N. M. Allen & Son. This was to be done for the plaintiff, and such was the authority and direction given by him to Monson. The .purpose of the plaintiff was to have the responsibility and liability of those bankers for his money. And by their checks or bills drawn by them on themselves which came to the plaintiff he was advised that the deposits were made, that the amounts thus represented would be paid on presentation of such checks, and that until then a balance would remain in their bank to pay them. This was the import of the instruments, and the situation represented by them to the plaintiff. "While the plaintiff may in the outset have intended that the money should be deposited to his own credit, he was at liberty when the bankers’ negotiable checks came to him indorsed by Monson, to treat the object as practically accomplished. The purpose of Monson’s authority was apparently fulfilled when he had furnished to the plaintiff such evidence of the liability of the bankers to pay the respective amounts so deposited. And the plaintiff had no reason to apprehend that those instruments were intended by the drawers to have another or different legal effect than that which they by their terms purported to give to them. But it seems that the bankers had an understanding with Monson that the checks were not to be treated as effectual for any purpose, and that he should be permitted to draw the money from the bank without the production or presentation of them. When the plaintiff after-wards presented those checks for payment to the bank, payment was refused.

The question, therefore, is whether or not the plaintiff was affected by such understanding between the bankers and Monson.

It is urged on the part of the defense that the plaintiff was chargeable with knowledge of the purpose for which the instruments were issued to Monson because the latter was his agent in the transaction of depositing the money.

The fact is that Monson had authority to deposit the money in the defendants’ bank for the plaintiff and not elsewhere, and when he did that and thus secured the liability of the bankers to the plaintiff he had accomplished all that his authority from the plaintiff permitted. He, however, assumed to deposit the money as his own,

It would seem that when Monson departed from the purpose for which he was commissioned by the plaintiff to act for him, and acted for himself, he got beyond the scope of his authority derived from the plaintiff; that in making the arrangement in respect to the character the bankers’ checks should have he was engaged in the commission of an independent fraudulent act on his own account; and that notice of it was not imputable to the plaintiff, as to whom and his interest he was thus, and for his fraudulent purpose, acting adversely. (Innerarity v. Merchants’ N. Bank, 139 Mass. 332 ; Atlantic Mills v. Indian Orchard Mills, 147 id. 268-278; Allen v. South Boston R. R. Co., 150 id. 200-206.)

The defendant, however, having no knowledge of the relation of the plaintiff to the transaction of the deposit of the money, would not have been liable to the latter if the checks or drafts of his banking firm had not been made and issued to Monson. They, as their import represented, were the negotiable undertakings to pay the amount of the deposits, and they were, as they seemed to the plaintiff, the products of the deposit of his money in the bank. They were so received and treated by him in good faith. The trouble which has occasioned this controversy arises from the unusual and probably unprecedented action of the bankers in issuing their negotiable checks or bills to Monson in reliance upon his promise to retain and return them., If they had not been furnished to the plaintiff for the respective deposits of his money his remittances to Monson for that purpose would have ceased. For the bankers to say that they supposed their checks would be held by Monson is not a very satisfactory answer in a legal sense, as there was no restriction other than in his worthless promise that he would not let them pass from him.

The proposition that the plaintiff was chargeable with notice that the bankers made and delivered the drafts to Monson pursuant to ■an agreement which destroyed their validity or rendered them in effect other than that which was plainly their purport, has, as viewed by me, neither reason nor principle for its support.

It was in the scope of the power of the directors to discount, paper. And the court said: “It is not to be denied that if a-principal employs several agents to transact jointly a particular piece of business he is equally responsible for the conduct of each and all of them while acting within the limit and scope of their power.” In that case, while representing the bank as its director, the bills were transmitted to and received by Williams, as such director, to be discounted for the drawer, and by causing it to be done he secured an advantage to himself. And it was held that his relation to the bank was such, in the matter of discounting the bills, that notice of the purpose for which they were received by him was imputed to the bank as the bills were discounted by it through the action of the directors.

The principle of the case, in view of the facts presented by it, is referred to and somewhat exemplified by Judge Gray in Casco Nat. Bank v. Clark ( 139 N. Y. 301 ).

It may be observed that in the U. S. Bank case, Williams was

The promise of Monson to retain and return the checks-was made to procure them for the purpose of defrauding somebody, and the issuing them, with permission to draw the money from the bank without their production and surrender, enabled him to do so. He evidently did not care which, the bankers or the plaintiff, suffered the consequences. He knew it was only through the means afforded by the irregular and inexcusable method which the bankers consented to adopt that he could consummate his fraudulent purpose. It certainly would be a most remarkable presumption that would impute to the plaintiff notice that the bankers did not intend that their checks should have the character of their import.

In Allen v. South Boston R. R. Co. ( 150 Mass. 206 ), after stating the general rule of constructive notice to the principal of facts within the knowledge of the agent affecting the character of the transaction while acting for him, the court added : “ There is an exception to this rule when the agent is engaged in committing an independent fraudulent act on his own account, and the facts to be imputed relate to this fraudulent act. * * * It has been suggested that the true reason for the exception is that an independent fraud committed by an agent on his own account is beyond the scope of his employment, and, therefore, knowledge of it, as matter of law, cannot be imputed to the principal, and the principal cannot be held responsible for it. * * * Whatever the reason may be the exception is well established.” And in Innerarity v. Merchants’ N. Bank ( 139 Mass. 332 ), upon the subject of the reason for,the exception to the general rule, the court observed: “ While the knowledge of an agent is ordinarily to be imputed to the principal, it would appear now to be well established that there is an exception to the construction or imputation of notice from the agent to the principal in case

It may be stated as a theory or ground upon which notice is imputed to the principal of facts which come within the knowledge of the agent, while acting in the scope of his authority, that the duty of the agent is to communicate such facts to his principal, and the presumption is that he had done so. (C. N. Bank v. Clark, 139 N. Y. 307 -313.)

When the agent is attempting to do that which if .effectual would be a fraud upon his principal, the presumption that he has communicated to or will advise him of the facts of the transaction certainly cannot be presumed, nor can it be assumed by the person with whom the agent is dealing that such purpose or conduct of the agent is within the scope of his authority. It is quite evident that if N. M. Allen & Son had been advised that Monson was acting for the plaintiff in depositing the money, it would have been apparent to them that an arrangement to the effect that the checks should be nugatory as such, and for that reason Monson might draw out the money without the presentation of them, would be in fraud of the plaintiff, and, therefore, not within the scope of his authority to Monson.

The proposition upon which the defendants seek to charge the plaintiff with constructive notice, being that of agency and his relation of principal, is for the purpose of the question not other than it would be if the bankers had then known that Monson was acting for the plaintiff in depositing the money.

And it seems quite clear that no support for the defense can be founded upon imputation of notice to the plaintiff arising out of the relation of agency, because the very nature of the understanding, to the effect that the cheeks or drafts were to be deemed nullities, was such as to advise the bankers that it was not within the scope of the agency of Monson to fraudulently defeat the purpose of the authority given him by the plaintiff.

So far, therefore, as the defendants seek to defend upon the ground of constructive .notice to the plaintiff arising out of the agency

It seems to follow that the defense has no support in the position that notice was imputed to the plaintiff that the bankers’ checks were made pursuant to an understanding, fraudulent on the part of Monson, which would defeat their apparent purpose and effect as such.

The plaintiff received those instruments for value, and is a holder of them in good faith.

They in fact were the product when made of his money deposited, and were transmitted to him as such. By them was expressed the liability and undertaking of the makers to pay the respective and equivalent amounts so deposited with the bankers who made them. The plaintiff was at liberty to assume that the liability to pay them would continue until they were presented for payment. This, as between them and the plaintiff, the bankers were in view of the usual methods and course of business required to understand. No reason appears for apprehension on the part of the plaintiff to the contrary. Nor is it seen that the indiscreet and remarkable confidence of the bankers in Monson’s promise to return the drafts can legitimately be available to prejudice the plaintiff’s claim founded upon them.

For these reasons, being unable to concur in the opinion adopted by a majority of the court, I think the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. •

Judgment appealed from affirmed.