White v. . Hunt

Beade, J. By an agreement between the plaintiff and his debtor Claiborne, the latter was to leave in the hands of the defendant, for the plaintiff, the sum of seventy-five dollars, as a payment pro tanto of his debt. The debtor did leave the amount as promised, and the defendant accepted it for the plaintiff. The moment he did so it was a satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim against his debtor. The question is, what obligation did that impose upon the defendant to the plaintiff. If he had refused to receive the money for the plaintiff, then the plaintiff would have lost nothing, because he would, still have had his claim against Claiborne; but by receiving *498 it the defendant consented to become the agent of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s claim againstClaiborne was discharged. This loss to the plaintiff induced by the defendant’s accepting the money, was a sufficient consideration to imply a promise on the part of the defendant to pay the plaintiff: Winslow v. Fenner & Co., Phil. 565; Dixon & Co. v. Pace, 63 N. C. 603. Judgment reversed, and judgment here for the plaintiff. Pee Cueiam. Judgment reversed.