Roger B. Taney

Name: Wilson v. Smith — Opinion of the Court
Author: Roger B. Taney

Summary

“Wilson v. Smith — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Roger B. Taney. It explores elements such as defendant, privity and plaintiffs.

Quotes from Wilson v. Smith — Opinion of the Court (Roger B. Taney)

Roger B. Taney, Wilson v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ John, the agent of plaintiffs.
On this state of facts, did the necessary privity exist? or, in other words, had defendant the right to retain after notice of plaintiffs' claim?
It is objected that delegated power cannot be delegated without authority for that purpose, because it implies trust and confidence, which cannot be assigned to a stranger. That the sub-agent has no claim upon the principal, for commissions, advances, &c., therefore is under no responsibility to him, his sole remedy being against his immediate employer, and therefore that his sole responsibility is to him. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Wilson v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ We think the rule very clearly established, that whenever, by express agreement between the parties, a sub-agent is to be employed by the agent to receive money for the principal, or where an authority to do so may fairly be implied from the usual course of trade, or the nature of the transaction, the principal may treat the sub-agent as his agent, and when he has received the money, may recover it in an action for money had and received. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Wilson v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ Wherever defendant has received money, the property of plaintiffs, which defendant is bound ex aequo et bono to refund, it may be recovered in this action. Moses v. McFarlane, 2 Burr., 1012. The true question is the right of plaintiff to receive, or of defendant to retain the money.
In the eye of the law, there is always such privity of contract as is necessary to sustain this action, between a person who holds the money of another, which in equity and good conscience he is bound to refund, and the person whose money is thus withheld. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Wilson v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ In this state of the case, whose agent was Smith? to whom would he have written to give information of the payment or non-payment of the bill? Certainly to St. John, who would have compelled him to pay over the money. A defence by Smith, that he was not the proper person to be paid, would not have been listened to. A sub-agent can be created, and in this case Smith must have been the agent of St. John. The question of agency must settle that of privity of contract. Story Agency, 395 to 400, where the subject is discussed.
An agent is responsible only to his employer. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Wilson v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ The cases in Taunton and 6 Vesey establish, that between a sub-agent and principal there is no privity. I do not deny the existence of the general rule which these cases support, but say that there are exceptions to the rule, of which this is one. (Mr. Berrien here examined the cases.) On of the exceptions is, where it is manifest that some other person would be employed.
As to the equities of the parties. Shall the defendant retain money which confessedly belongs to the plaintiff, when the position of the defendant has undergone no change in consequence of getting this money? ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Wilson v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ John remained in all respects the same as they would have been if this bill had never been transmitted to him. In the case of the Bank of the Metropolis and the New England Bank, it appeared in evidence that there had for a long time been mutual dealings between these two banks, in the collection of money for each other, and that balances were suffered to remain and credit given upon the faith of the paper transmitted or expected to be received, according to the usual course of their business with one another. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Wilson v. Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ The authority exclusively personal, unless from express provision, legal necessity, usage of trade, or fair presumptions growing out of particular transactions, a broader power was intended to be conferred. ”

Roger B. Taney

Summary

Quotes from Wilson v. Smith — Opinion of the Court (Roger B. Taney)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature