John Catron

“ If the agency of a stranger, for receiving payment for his principal, will thus authorize the receipt of such securities as money, why may not an agent, having a common interest with his principals, do the same thing?
In construing the authority conferred on Hood by the plaintiffs in error, we must look to the circumstances of the parties, their place of residence, their relations to the subject of the agency and to each other, their common interest in the transaction ”

“ If two be jointly concerned in merchandise, to be sold for profit, and one takes and appropriates it to his own use, he is liable to the other for his proportion of the net profits, in this form of action. ”

“ A certificate of deposit is like a check on a banker, of which it is said, (Chitty on Bills, 323,) 'in practice they are taken as cash, and it has been decided that a banker in London, receiving bills from his correspondent in the country, to whom they had been endorsed to present for payment, is not guilty of negligence in giving up such bills to the acceptor, upon receiving a check on a banker for the amount, although it turn out that such check is dishonored.'Russell v. ”

“ The makers of the note lived in Ohio, where they wanted to use their funds; and for their convenience and accommodation this negotiable certificate of deposit of cash, answering their purpose as cash, was granted.
10. The class of cases relied on by the plaintiffs in error, such as Bartlett v. Pintland, (10 Barn. and Cres., 758; Atkins v. Owen, 4 Ad. and Ellis,) merely hold that a naked agent, authorized to receive payment, cannot do so by discharging a debt due from himself to the party by whom the payment should be made. ”

“ Here, Woodward & Dusenberry had six thousand dollars in bank, or a broker's office, and the cashier gave a certificate to that effect, and promised to pay the money to the holder of the certificate who should present it. Hood could have taken out the money the next hour. ”

“ They have even gone farther, and sustained this action in cases where there was no negotiable money security received by the defendant, but where, in the nature of the transaction, he ought, in equity, to respond for money received.
Thus, in State Bank v. Hurd, (12 Mass., 172,) an endorsee of a negotiable note recovered against the endorser. The action was also sustained in behalf of the endorsee against the maker (Ramsdell v. Soule, 12 Pick., 126.) And, even where the maker signed the note for the accommodation of the payee. (Cole v. Cushing, 8 Pick., 48.) ”