President of Appleton Bank v. McGilvray
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Action of contract to recover §370.42, received by the defendants to the plaintiffs’ use. At the trial before Bigelow, J., the plaintiffs, to prove their case, called a witness, who testified that he had been an express-man between Boston and Lowell for eleven years, and that was his whole business; that sometime previous to April 7th 1854 he received for collection from the defendants, a partnership doing business in Boston, two notes of J C. Hildreth 5c Co., a partnership…
Read the full summary
Action of contract to recover §370.42, received by the defendants to the plaintiffs’ use. At the trial before Bigelow, J., the plaintiffs, to prove their case, called a witness, who testified that he had been an express-man between Boston and Lowell for eleven years, and that was his whole business; that sometime previous to April 7th 1854 he received for collection from the defendants, a partnership doing business in Boston, two notes of J C. Hildreth 5c Co., a partnership doing business in Lowell, for $370.42 each, the one due on the 7th and the other on the 13th of April, and both payable…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, J.
The objection that this action cannot be maintained, for want of privity between the parties to the suit, is not sustained by the proof. The rule of law is well settled, that, in the absence of any authority, either express or implied, to employ a sub-agent, the trust committed to an agent is exclusively personal, and cannot be delegated by him to another, so as to affect the rights of the principal. In such case, if the agent employs a substitute, he does it at his own risk, and upon his own responsibility. The agent only is liable to the principal, and the sub-agent is responsible solely to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Eastland v. ManeyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1904
- Powell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1917