Sergeant v. Martin

Citations

• 133 Pa. 122
• 19 A. 568
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 881

Syllabus

<p>(a) Ruhl, a conveyancer, applied on behalf of Martin to Sergeant for a loan upon a mortgage. The money was to be used in satisfying a prior mortgage. Sergeant agreed to make the loan, and afterwards gave Ruhl a check for the money. Sixteen days after that, Martin executed the mortgage and gave it to Ruhl, who placed it on record. Ruhl embezzled the money paid him by Sergeant :</p> <p>1. In an action on the mortgage, each of the parties having denied that Ruhl was his agent to handle the money, and the testimony tending to prove that Sergeant paid it to Ruhl on the faith of his supposed integrity and financial responsibility, without any inquiry as to whether he was authorized by Martin to receive it or not, a refusal by the court to give binding instructions for the plaintiff was proper.*</p> <p>2. If, after stating certain things as facts, in the charge to the jury, the court, upon exception being taken to these statements before the retirement of the jury, at once address them again, withdrawing the statements excepted to and instructing that there is no evidence to sustain them, the Supreme Court will not reverse upon tire ground that the original statements were unsupported.</p>