Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/316

 BNKTBD STATBS ». KNOVEB. 309 �take this to your master." If, now, the next day it is diseov- ered that the note had been already paid, and therefore that A. had no right to receive the money, nor any right to au- thorize his servant to receive it on his behalf, yet B. would have no claim on the servant, who bas done only what he consented to his doing in paying the money to his master. He must look to A., with whom, in fact and in contemplation of law, the transaction was had. The weight of the authori- ties is clearly in favor of this view of the law. HoUand t. Russell, 30 L. J." (Q. B.) 312; 32 L. J. (Q. B.) 297; Skandy. Grant, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 322-324; Newallv. Tomlinson.Ij.'B,. 6 C. P.405; BMMerv.iîarrisoîijCowp. 565-569; Fryey.Lockwood,i Cow. 454-456; Oranger y. Hathaway, 17 Mioh. 500; Morralv. McCleUan, 1 Wend. 173 ; Costigan v. Newland, 12. Barb. 456. �If the agent acts in had faith, or with knowledge of his principal's want of right to receive the money, or is himself a party to an illegal exaction of the money, or is not author- ized by his assumed principal to act for him as where his power of attomey is a forgery, payment of the money over ■will be no defenee. Miller v. Aris, 3 Esp. 231; Snowdon t. Davis, 1 Taunt. 359; Edwards v. Hodding, 5 Taunt. 416, [*815 ;] Seidil v. Peckworth, 10 S. & E. 442. See, also Story'a Agency, (8th Ed.) §§ 300, 301, and notes. �If the party receiving the money, though an agent in fact, does not disclose his agency to the party making the pay- ment, there is of course no presumed consent or direction that he pay over, and payment to his principal will be no defenee. In such a case, having acted as a principal, he will not be permitted to defend on the ground that he was not the principal. Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany,. 1 Hillj 287, 293, 294. �This last case was followed in the case of Bank of Cow,' merce v. Union Bank, 3 N. Y. 230-237. This case, however, puts the liability on the equitable ground that "money paid by one party to another through mutual mistake of facts, in respect to which both were equally bound to inquire, may be recoT- ered back. " It was a case of money paid upon a forged in- dorsement to a collecting bank, which did not, so far as ����