Summary

Ward Hunt Hoover Assignee v. Wise — Opinion of the Court

The court hold that the receipt for collection imported an undertaking by the collecting agent himself to collect; not merely that he receives it for transmission to another for collection, for whose negligence he is not to be responsible. He is, therefore, liable by the very terms of his receipt for the negligence of the distant attorney who is his agent; and he cannot shift the responsibility from himself upon his client.
Source: Wikisource

Ward Hunt Hoover Assignee v. Wise — Opinion of the Court

The referee held that the knowledge of the condition of the bankrupt by the attorneys residing in Nebraska, who took the confession of judgment, was the knowledge of the creditors in New York. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals adjudged otherwise, holding them to be the agents of Archer & co., and not of Wise & Greenbaum, the creditors. It is upon this point of difference that the case in now presented for decision.
The general doctrine, that the knowledge of an agent is the knowledge of the principal, cannot be doubted.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature