References: (1855) 10 Exch 845, [1855] EngR 220, (1855) 10 Exch 845, (1855) 156 ER 683
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Parke B
Ratio:It is a good answer to a plea of set-off, that the amount has heen paid by a person professing to act as agent for and on account of the plaintiff, though without his authority, and that the latter ratified the act at the time of the trial. The treasurer of a corporation paid their clerk (the defendant) the amount of his year’s salary, both parties believing at the time that the treasurer had the authority of the corporation to make such payment, but the treasurer had no such authority, and the corporation afterwards repudiated the payment and dismissed the defendant from their service. In an action against the deferidatit for the recovery of certain monies paid to him on account of the corporation — Held, that the corporation was entitled, at the trial, to ratify the act of their treasurer, and, consequently, that the defendant could not set off the amount of his salary as due to him from the corporation.
The court found no evidence that as between himself and the landlord, or between himself and the plaintiff, the defendant had acted or purported to act or regarded himself as acting as agent for the plaintiff when making payments of what the tenant claimed had been his rent.
Held: Parke B said: ‘The general rule as to payment or satisfaction by a third person, not himself liable as a co-contractor . . appears to be, that it is not sufficient to discharge a debtor unless it is made by the third person, as agent, for and on account of the debtor and with his prior authority or subsequent ratification.’
This case is cited by:
- Applied – Smith v Cox ([1942] 2 KB 558)
The tenant, Mr Smith, refused to pay rent to the elderly landlady, Ms Rolf, because she had not repaired the property. The defendant agent paid the rent from his own pocket, expecting to recover it when the rent was eventually paid. When he failed . . - Cited – Treasure & Son Ltd v Dawes TCC (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 2181 (TCC))
The defendant had been ordered to pay substantial fees to the claimant by the adjudicator. The defendant claimed that payment had been made on his behalf. . . - Cited – Park v Cho and Others ChD (Bailii, [2014] EWHC 55 (Ch), [2014] PTSR 769, [2014] WLR(D) 27, WLRD)
The parties disputed the chairmanship of a charity. The claimant succeeded, but a third party later intervened saying that permission had not first been obtained from the Charity Commission as required. The defendant now appealed against the lifting . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 21-Jul-16
Ref: 276500
