FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKE CITY
v.
G. H. LANDRESS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A bank that acquired a conditional sales contract on an automobile sought to recover the unpaid balance, but the jury found that payments made by the buyer to an agent of the original seller were binding on the bank. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that payments to an agent are binding only if the agent had express or implied authority to collect.
Payments to an agent are binding on the principal only if the agent has express or implied authority to collect. Payment to an agent lacking such authority, even if made in good faith belief that the agent has authority, does not bind the principal absent ratification by the principal.
“payment to an agent, to be binding on the principal, must be made to an agent having expressed or implied authority to collect, and that payment to any other agent, even under the bona fide belief that such other agent has authority to collect, will not bind the principal in the absence of a ratification by the principal”
Establishes the controlling legal rule for when payments to agents are binding on principals in conditional sales contracts
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff bank acquired by assignment a conditional sales contract (retain title notes) on an automobile from the original seller. The buyer made …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retain Title Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a replevin case in which the issue submitted to the jury was; whether or not certain payments shown to have been made on the automobile replevined by the buyer to the original seller, after assignment of the original seller’s retain title contract on the car to the plaintiff bank, were binding on the bank, on the theory that they had been made to an agent of the conditional sales contract holder who had expressed or implied authority to collect the balance of the purchase price of the car as represented by the retain title notes in the bank’s hands' as assignee for value before maturity.
The verdict and judgment below were in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff bank contends on writ of error that the verdict and judgment for defendant was unauthorized by the evidence, citing as authority for its position the holding of the Court in Lakeside Press & Photo Engraving Co. v. Campbell, 39 Fla. 523, 22 Sou. Rep. 878.
In the case relied on, this Court held that payment to an agent, to be binding on the principal, must be made to an agent having expressed or implied authority to collect, and that payment to any other agent, even under the bona, fide belief that such other agent has authority to collect, will not bind the principal in the absence of a ratification by the principal-of such payment. '
We approve the rule stated and find that the trial court followed it in his instructions to the jury. There was evidence from which the jury could have.found either way on the issue. It found against the bank. We are unable to perceive wherein we would be warranted in reversing the *350judgment in this' case which is the result of a jury trial and decision on the facts approved by the trial court.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.