Kidd & Co. v. Cromwell, Haight & Co.

Citations

• 17 Ala. 648

Syllabus

<p>1. It is the peculiar province of the court to construe written instruments and to declare their lrgal effect.</p> <p>%. K. & Co. being indebted by note to O. II. & Co. of New York, wrote to them to “return the note to It. S. & Co , our agents in Mobile, who will pay it on presentation.” The note was accordingly remitted to R. S. & Co., who in return sent their receipt to O. II. & Co , in which they promised “ to account” to them for the note. Held. — That R. S. & Co. did not thereby become the agents of C. II. & Co., and could not discharge K. & Co. from the debt without a payment to C. II & Co.</p> <p>3. Secondary evidence of the contents of a letter in the hands of a third person is not admissible, unless tho absence of the original is first satisfactorily accounted for.</p> <p>4. Proof that a party acted as the agent of another is admissible, v, hen accompanied by proof of other facts showing a recognition, of the agency.</p>