Welch v. Goodwin, 123 Mass. 71

Welch v. Goodwin

123 Mass. 71 | Mass. | 1877

Lord, J

This case differs from that of Carpenter v. Northborough National Bank, ante, 66, in two particulars only. The payment was received by the defendant in this case as the agent of another party. The instructions of the presiding judge on that subject were correct. One who acts as the agent of an undisclosed principal may be treated as principal by the party with whom he deals.

The other particular, in which the case differs from that of Carpenter v. Northborough National Bank, is that the forgery, by means of which Jackson accomplished the fraud, was that of the name of the plaintiff himself; and the only question is, whether that fact of itself is an absolute bar to the right of the plaintiff to recover. We do not understand that any other question than this was presented to the mind of the judge who presided at the trial. If any other questions were presented, it is to be presumed that proper instructions were given in reference thereto, and that the jury were required to make the proper distinction and discrimination between the payment upon a note, the forged signature to which was that of the payer, and not that of another party to the contract. '

It may well be held that a banking corporation, which issues notes as currency, upon such plates and with such securities as it deems sufficient, may be, from reasons of public policy, estopped to deny the genuineness of notes which it has redeemed as its own, while such considerations would have no bearing upon the question whether an individual should be permitted to show that a signature which he had treated as his own was, in fact, a forgery. Nor is it necessary in this case to go so far as to say, as was held by a majority of the court in National Bank of North America v. Bangs, 106 Mass. 441, that a bank may recover money paid upon the forged check of one of its depositors. In both those classes of cases, entirely different considerations may properly enter.

The question which we are called upon to decide is, whether, under any circumstances, a party may recover back money paid *78upon a security bearing a forged signature of himself, supposing it, at the time of payment, to be Ms own genuine signature. We can have no doubt that he may. This is entirely clear in case he was induced to make the payment by fraud or misrepresentation. Nor is it necessary that fraud or misrepresentation should exist. An innocent mistake, whether arising from natural or temporary infirmity or otherwise, made without fault upon his part, entitles him to the same relief. How far tMs right would be affected by neglect upon his part to give prompt notice of the mistake, or by any change affecting the situation or rights of the person to whom the payment is made, we are not called upon to consider. Here notice was given immediately upon discovering the forgery. Whatever securities were given up by the defendant, in consideration of the receipt of the forged note, had been given up before the payment was made. The discharge of the mortgage by Goodwin was the release of no substantial right. If Goodwin received any title to the mortgage or mortgaged premises by reason of the assignment to him, he received it in trust for another, and in no event for his own benefit. His discharge of it was therefore no injury in law to him. By the facts as they appear in the report, his discharge of the mortgage effected nothing except what by law or in equity he would be compelled to do. There is no reason, therefore, why the plaintiff should not recover; and there must be Judgrrient on the verdict.