after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
This сase turns largely upon the legal effect to be given to the death of Western, which tоok place a few days after the contract for the sale of the land was mаde, and before the first note became due. Had Western not died, there can be nо question that the payments to Kinney would have been good, and that Thayer would have been entitled to a deed.
Western’s death undoubtedly operated as a revocаtion of Kinney’s authority to act for him or his estate. The payments made to Kinney as his agent .would not be sufficient to discharge Thayer’s obligation to his estate, even if such paymеnts were made by him in actual ignorance of Western’s death.
Michigan Insurance Co.
v. Leavenworth, 30 Vermont, 11;
Davis
v.
Windsor Savings Bank,
46 Vermont, 728;
Jenkins
v.
Atkins,
1 Humphrey, (Tenn.) 294;
Clayton
v.
Merrett,
52 Mississippi, 353;
Lewis
v. Kerr,
Whether Western’s death also operated as a revocation of the verbal authority given by Skiles may admit of some doubt, although the weight of authority is that the death of one partner or joint owner oрerates, in the case of a partnership, to dissolve the partnership, and in the сase of a joint tenancy to sever the joint interest; and the authority of an agent аppointed by a firm or joint owners thereupon ceases, where such authority is not coupled with an interest. McNaughton v. Moore, 1 Haywood, (N. C.) 189; Rowe v. Rand, 111 Indiana, 206.
*523 But even if it did operate as a technical revocation of Kinney’s authority to act 'for Skiles, the presumption is, from Sidles’ long silence, in the absenсe of proof to the contrary, that Kinney accounted to him for his proportion of the money collected. The court below evidently proceeded upon this theory, and required Thayer, as a condition for calling upon Long for a deed, to rеpay one-half of the amount of the two notes with the stipulated interest at 10 per cent. These were certainly as favorable terms as Long could expect. Thayer had paid the money to Kinney, with whom the contract was made — the first payment in actuаl ignorance of Western’s death, and the second doubtless under’ the supposition, which а-person unlearned in the law might reasonably entertain, that payment to the persоn with whom tho contract was made was sufficient, and that Kinney would account to the prоper represeptatives of Western, and procure him a deed. All the equities of the case were in Thayer’s favor, and justice demanded that Long should be required to convey, upon being paid Western’s share of the consideration with interest.
There is another view of the case which does not seem to • have been presented to the court below, and which indicates that-Long received even more than he was really entitled to. The second note of $150, which is produced, appears upon its faсe to have been payable tó “ J. F. Kinney or hearer,” and while the first pote is not prоduced, Kinney swears that this ■was also payable in the same manner. Theprooabilities are that it was, both from the fact that the second note was payable to bearer and from the further fact that Kinney claimed that Western.jwas largely indebted’to him. If such were the case (and Kinney’s authority to take these notes is not disputed) it is difficult to see why the payments to Kinney, who himself held the notes, were not valid payments, which entitled Thayer to а deed to the land. So long as these notes were outstanding, he could not safely ‘pаy to any one else, and if he paid the holder, he did just what the contract required him to do.
Long clearly was-not an innocent purchaser of the land in question. Not bnly had Thayer bеen in the open, notorious, and unequivocal possession of the land' and its improvеment, *524 renting the premises and paying the taxes, but Long’s marriage into the Western family, bis taking a deed from the heirs through Mr. Meriwether,- the husband of one of'the heirs, who acted as attornеy both for Long and for the heirs, and the giving óf a promissory note unsecured by mortgage. upon thе land — a note which the heirs apparently never saw-—• indicate very clearly that he could not have been ignorant of the true situation.
The decree of the court below was clearly right, and must be
Affirmed.