Mynick v. Bickings

Citations

• 30 Pa. Super. 401
• 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 85

Syllabus

<p>Mortgage — Principal and agent — Payment to agent.</p> <p>The mere fact that a mortgagee employs an attorney as a conveyancer to prepare the mortgage papers, does not invest the attorney with authority to collect the principal of the mortgage from the mortgagor. This is especially so where the mortgagor knows that the mortgage papers are not in the hands of the attorney, although the attorney had received payments of interest from time to time and such payments had been accepted by the mortgagee.</p> <p>Generally speaking, it is the duty of a debtor, who is bound by an obligation in writing to see that the person to whom he pays the money for his creditor has possession of the evidence of indebtedness, unless he can show express authority in the person to whom the payment is made to receive the money.</p> <p>The position of an investor would be most precarious if the fact that he employs an attorney from time to time when making loans and authorizes him to make collections of interest, and in special cases of the principal due on securities, is sufficient to warrant a finding of authority generally to collect the principal of all his client’s mortgages, and that, too, when the latter keeps possession of his obligations.</p>