Penacook Savings Bank v. Hubbard

58 N.H. 167
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided August 5, 1877·Published

Opinion

Foster, J.

By the plaintiffs’ delivery of the money to the defendant for the payee, the defendant was as fully authorized by the plaintiffs to carry it to the payee as if he had been the plaintiffs’ messenger. Without fault on his part, he is not liable for doing what the plaintiffs authorized him to do. There is no legal reason for transferring from the plaintiffs to the defendant the consequences of the plaintiffs’ error. Story on Agency, s. 300 ; Holland v. Russell, 1 B. & S. 424; 4 B. & S. 14; Shand v. Grant, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 324; Sadler v. Evans, 4 Burr. 1984; Edden v. Read, 3 Camp. 339; Bamford v. Shuttleworth, 11 A. & E. 926; Cox v. Prentice, 3 M. & S. 344; Buller v. Harrison, Cowp. 565; Tugman v. Hopkins, 4 M. & G. 389, 401; Penhallow v. Doane's Adm'rs, 3 Dall. 54, 87, 105, 114, 118; Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137, 153-158; Perkins v. Eaton, 3 N. H. 152; Hoit v. Hodge, 6 N. H. 104.

Verdict set aside,

Stanley, J., did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Penacook Savings Bank v. Hubbard, 58 N.H. 167 (N.H. 1877).

58 N.H. 167 (Penacook Savings Bank v. Hubbard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nelson J. Elliott v. Samuel Swartwout
35 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 1836)
Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators
3 U.S. 54 (Supreme Court, 1795)