108 N.J. Eq. 347 | N.J. Ct. of Ch. | 1931
Complainants brought this bill to foreclose two mortgages, aggregating $3,000 on the property of defendants. Complainants were assignees of these mortgages and their assignments were duly recorded, thereby giving constructive notice to the defendants that they were the owners thereof. Mayer v. McLaughlin,
The law seems well settled that no authority to receive payments on account of principal can be implied from the existence of an agency to receive interest. The court of errors and appeals in Steadman v. Foster,
"It is further claimed that the evidence showed that Feick was authorized to receive payments of principal as Mrs. Steadman's agent; but this claim cannot be supported. The practice of permitting attorneys-at-law to receive and give acquittances for interest payments is common; but the habitual payment of interest to any attorney-at-law who in turn remits it to the mortgagee, does not establish his authority to receive the principal or any part thereof, especially when he has not the custody of the papers. 27 Cyc. 1389; Cox v. Cutter,
The rule of Steadman v. Foster was followed and applied by the court of errors and appeals in Workman v. Eyler,
Although the defendants apparently acted in good faith in making payments on account of principal to Scott, under the circumstances shown here, the law places the burden of bearing the loss upon them, and accordingly they must pay the full amount of the principal sums due on the two mortgages. *349