2 Pa. 350 | Pa. | 1845
— As the amount for wdiich this suit is brought was originally the money of the plaintiff, it lies on the defendants to show that, under the circumstances, they were authorized to appropriate it to themselves in payment of a debt due to them by Toulmin, on other transactions : otherwise, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover. There may possibly be a case where an agent, sending the money of his principal to a third person for an unauthorized purpose, might so act as to justify the appropriation of it by the latter to himself; though'it would undoubtedly be malafides in the agent to do so. But if there be no act of that kind done by the agent, and the third person to whom the money is sent stands in such relation to the principal that it is mala fides in him so to appropriate it, he cannot retain it. That Toulmin, who is to be considered in this transaction the agent of the plaintiff, did not intend to divert this money from its proper destination, seems apparent from his deposition, in which he states that he bought the Russell draft with the money received on the same day from the plaintiff, and that it was sent to the defendants, to liquidate the remittances received from the plaintiff; and with this statement his letters and account current sent to the defendants seem to concur. Then the question is, whether Toulmin’s letter of the 7th March, 1842, spoke differently, and authorized the defendants to treat
Toulmin received these remittances on the 7th March, 1842, and being ignorant, so far as we know, of the transactions that had occurred between Pearl and the defendants, but acting in strict conformity to the directions of Pearl, immediately sends on the Russell draft, purchased with the money remitted by Pearl, to the defendants, in the letter of that date, in which, after stating the receipt of the money from Pearl an hour before, he says, “ enclosed is A. Gracie on C. H. Russell & Co., 60 days’ sight, for $1700, at 12£ per cent., on your accountP Now the question is, whether this authorized the defendants to take that money to themselves, (the draft being afterwards paid to them,) to pay a debt from Toulmin to them, incurred in other transactions. However that might be if there were nothing in the case but this single letter, yet we think, in looking at this whole transaction from its commencement to its date, these words, “on your account,” are not necessarily to be construed as the defendants wish to do, but may imply another meaning. For we find that Pearl, in his first letters to the defendants, tells them he w’ould remit “for your account'1'1 to Toulmin, via Mobile, funds for the drafts, and if they would not accept them, to throw the risk of the remittance via Mobile on Pearl. And of this the defendants wrere apprized on or before the 28th February, 1842, before Toulmin wrote to them, and when they answered; and in this answer it clearly appears they understood the destination of these intended remittances, for they say, “We shall not accept or pay the two other drafts, but shall tell the holders that the funds are on the way from Mobile to meet them.” They must, we think, therefore have understood clearly, when these remittances afterwards came, that they were to be applied to the payment of Pearl’s drafts on them — by
Judgment reversed, and venire facias de novo awarded.