It is not admissible as his account of what passes." In consequence

of the wording of the 9 Geo. 4, c. 14, it has been decided that an

acknowledgment written and signed by an agent will not take a

debt out of the Statute of Limitations, as against the principal. (cZ)

{x) Fitzherbert v. Mather, 1 T. R. 12. See Soaman v. Fonnereau, Str. 1183.

Roberts v. Fonnereau, Beawes, 266. Edwards v. Footner, 1 Camp. 530. Fillis v. Bar-

ton, Park. 182.

(y) Willis V. Bank of England, 4 A. <fe E. 21. Cowen v. Simpson, 1 Esp. 290

Brotherton v. Hall, Vernon, 5*74. Jennings v. Moore, 2 Ves. G09. See also Ambl. 438.

Sheldon v. Cox, 2 Eden, 224. Doe v. Martin, 4 T. R. 66. Toulmin v. Steer, 3 Meriv. 210

{z) These words have been added on account of the qualificaftion which this doc-

trine seems to have undergone from Cornfoot v. Fowke, 6 M. <fe Wels. 358 ; a case,

the authority of which seems however to be doubtful, and has now been denied in

Fuller V. AVilson, 3 Q. B. 58. This ease was reversed on error, but upon a different

ground ; 3 Q. B. 79 ; see Evans v. Collins, 5 Q. B. 804. Collins v. Evans, ibid. 820.

(a) Willis V. Bank of England, 4 A. & E. 21.

(6) Harding z). Carrer, Park. 4. Palethorp v. Furnish, 2 Esp. 511. Anderson v.

Sanderson, 2 Stark. 204. Gregory v. Parker, 1 Camp. 894. Clifford v. Burton, 1

Bingh. 199. Jacobs v. Humphrey, 4 Tyrwh. 2*72. 2 C. <fe M. 413.

(c) Fairlie v. Hastings, 10 Ves. jun. 123. Langhorn v. Allnut, 4 Taunt. 511.

Kalh V. Johnson, ibid. 565. See Garth v. Howard, 8 Bingh. 451. Snowball v. Good-

rieke, 4 B. & Ad. 541. It has been held, that if one man refer to the evidence or

opinion of another, that evidence or opinion is given by the other as his agent, and

Is receivable against him by way of admission. Daniel V. Pitt, Peake, 238. William

V. Innes, 1 Camp. 364. Sybray V. White, 1 Mee. & Wels. 435.

((f) Hyde v. Johnson, 2 Bingh. K C. 7*76.

190 Mercantile persons.

Rights of third Persons against Principal.

Payment or tender of payment to an agent in the course of his em-

phijment is 2)a2jment or tender of j^aijment to the principal, (e) but the

payment must be in the course of his employment, (/) for otherwise he

will liave no express authority, and tbere will be nothing whence

to deduce the existence of an implied one; therefore, if a man

comes to pay a mortgage debt to a merchant at his counting-liouse,

and Days it to a clerk, or if an executor pays a legacy left to a

tradesman to a shopman serving in his shop, who has been in the

habit of receiving liis weekly bills, in neither of these cases would

there be a good payment to the master, {g) It is not in the course

of a hroher's business to receive payment for goods, the sale of

which he has negotiated ; (A) unless he be acting for an undisclosed

principal, {i) An insurance broker has a right to receive payment

of a loss ; but he must not, in the absence of any evidence of con-

sent to such a course on the part of the assured, set it off against

his own debt to the underwriter ; (j) for "it is a general rule of

law, that if a creditor employ an agent to receive money of a debtor,

and the agent receives it, the debtor is discharged as against the princi-

pal; but if the agent, instead of receiving money, write off money due

from him to the debtor, then the latter is not discharged^ {IS)" Where,

(e) Favenc v. Bennett, 11 East, 38. See 6 G. 4, c. 94, s. 4, a7ite, p. 181 ; and where

an ao-ent has a right to receive payment, a tender thereof to him is a tender to his

principal. Goodland v. Blewith, 1 Camp. 477. Moffat v. Parsons, 1 Marsh. 55 ; 6

Taunt. 307. Kirton v. Braithwaite, 1 M. & Wels. 310.

(/) Sykes v. Giles, 5 M. & W. C45.