Deacon v. Greenfield

Citations

• 141 Pa. 467
• 21 A. 650
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1087

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. From the fact that a clerk of a lumber dealer was in the habit of signing Ms employer’s name to releases of the right to file mochamos’ liens, in cases where bills for lumber furnished were paid, no implication can be drawn of his authority to sign such a release where the money was not paid : Corr v. Greenfield, 134 Pa. 603.</p> <p>2. The distinction between releasing a mechanics’ claim alter payment, and releasing without payment, is obvious. In the former case, the payment extinguishes the lien, and the release amounts tono more than a receipt which a business manager or clerk, authorized to receive the money, might well give on behalf of the employer.</p> <p>3. But the ordinary duties of even a business manager would not authorize him to execute in his employer’s name a release under seal of a valid lien on real estate; and a release so executed is inadmissible against die employer, without proof that he authorized or subsequently ratified its execution by the employee.</p> <p>4. When one, in whose name an employee executed a release without authority, repudiated the release as soon as he heard of it, instructing his counsel so to notify the party holding the release, there is no room for the assumption of a subsequent ratification, even though the person who signed it was thereafter retained in his employ.</p>