DeTurck v. Matz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March 15, 1897

DeTurck v. Matz, 180 Pa. 347 (Pa. 1897)

36 A. 861; 1897 Pa. LEXIS 927

Fell, Green, McCollum, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

By agreement of the parties, trial by jury was dispensed with and the decision of this ease submitted to the court under the provisions of the Act of 1874, P. L. 109. As shown by the record, the issue was carefully and correctly tried by the learned president of the common pleas, whose findings of fact and conclusions of law are concisely and systematically stated. A careful consideration of the record has satisfied us that there is no error in either, and hence the judgment in defendant’s favor *357must be affirmed. He was clearly right in holding that in the transactions connected with the execution, delivery, recording, etc. of the mortgage in suit, William P. Bard, since deceased, was the agent, not of the defendant’s testator, but of the plaintiff only, and that the latter was bound by his acts, declarations and representations, done and made within the scope of his apparent authority as such agent; and that defendant was not estopped by anything she or her testator had done from setting up the want of consideration for the mortgage and the fraud of plaintiff’s agent in the procurement thereof, and hence the plaintiff could not recover. That conclusion was a proper application of the familiar principle that where one of two innocent persons must suffer in consequence of the fraud of a third, he whose employee the fraudulent agent was, must suffer rather than the other. There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires special notice.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Susanna DeTurck v. Sarah C. Matz, of Allan J. Matz
Cited By: 12 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Fraud — Liability where one of two innocent persons must suffer. Where one of two innocent persons must suffer in consequence of the fraud of a third, he whose employee the fraudulent agent was must suffer rather than the other. Principal and agent — Mortgage—Fraud. B. was the general agent of T. in the management of her estate. He collected moneys for her, made investments at his discretion, kept balances in his own bank account, and accounted to her from time to time. Having embezzled some of the funds he covered up the deficiency by procuring a mortgage from M. to T.,which he handed over to her. M. had bought a house from K. and needed money to pay the balance due on it. He executed the mortgage in question and delivered it to B. who placed it upon record. B. did not pay any money but promised to pay it to K. in a few days. He putK. off, and never paid any money on account of the mortgage. Subsequently M., without knowledge that the money had not been paid to K., paid the first instalment of interest toB., as agent for T. B. died before the fraud was discovered. Held, (1) that B. was the agent of T. and not of M.; (2) that T. was bound by the acts of B. in connection with the mortgage, and that these were within the scope of his apparent authority; (3) that even if B. exceeded his authority, T. could not avail herself of the benefit of his acts, and at the same time repudiate his acts, declarations and representations; (4) that M. was not estopped from alleging a want of consideration for the mortgage; (5) that in law and in fact no consideration for the mortgage had passed, and T. could not recover from M.