Whitney v. Merchants' Union Express Co.

Colt, J. Under the instructions given to the defendants, at the time they received this draft for collection, it was their duty to collect it, or to return it at once to the plaintiff if not paid. It was duly presented by the defendants’ messenger for payment on the fourteenth of October, and payment refused. Instead of returning the draft at once, they retained possession of it, in order to enable the drawees to .obtain, by correspondence, some explanation from the plaintiffs as to the amount for which it was drawn. Satisfactory explanations Were received in due course of mail, and Plummer & Company, the drawees, were ready on the morning of the sixteenth of the same month, to pay the full amount. But the draft was not again presented and on the nineteenth they failed and have since been unable to pay. It is the first duty of an agent, whose authority is limited, to adhere faithfully to his instructions, in all cases to which they can be properly applied. If he exceeds or violates or neglects [155] them, he is responsible for all losses which are the natural consequence of his act. And we are of opinion that there is evidence of neglect in this case, upon which the jury would have been warranted in finding a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defendants would clearly have avoided all liability, by returning the draft at once, upon the refusal to pay. It is urged, that the defendants had done all they were bound to do, when they had presented the draft and caused the plaintiff to be notified of its nonpayment; that the notice which was immediately communicated by the letter of Plummer & Company, asking explanation, was equivalent to a return of the draft; that this notice was given by the procurement or assent of the defendants, as early as they would be required to give it, if they had themselves done it instead of intrusting it to Plummer & Company ; and that, after the receipt of it, it was the duty of the plaintiffs to give new instructions, if they desired the draft presented for payment a second time. There would be force in these considerations, if the letter of Plummer 5c Company was only a simple notice of nonpayment, with no suggestion of further action in regard to it. It expresses and implies much more. The reason for the refusal to pay is stated, and the plaintiffs are told that the defendants will hold the draft until they, Plummer & Company, hear from them. Plainly, if the defendants avail themselves of the letter as a performance of their obligation to give notice, they must abide by the whole of its contents. They make Plummer 5c Company their agents in writing it, and authorize the plaintiffs to rely on the assurance which substantially it contains, that upon the receipt by Plummer 5c Company of their explanation the draft would be paid, or returned or notice of its nonpayment given. There is no suggestion in it, that the defendants were awaiting further instructions from the plaintiffs, or needed or expected them. It clearly implies that the defendants had only suspended, at the suggestion of Plummer 5c Company, and for their accommodation, the further performance of the duty they had undertaken, until an answer and explanation could be returned to Plummer 5c Company. The plaintiffs had no new [156] instructions to give, nor had the defendants any right to expect them. They trusted to others, instead of corresponding themselves with the plaintiffs, who in this matter are in no respect chargeable with neglect. The loss is wholly due to the neglect of the defendants, and must be borne by them. According to the agreement of the parties, the entry must be Judgment for the plaintiffs.