DocketNumber: No. 27,421.
Citation Numbers: 228 N.W. 166, 178 Minn. 613
Judges: STONE, J.
Filed Date: 12/13/1929
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The mortgage and note were executed and became effective August 15, 1923. The $2,500 loan matured five years from date, but with the obligation on defendants as the debtors to make payments of $100 on the principal every six months. The loan was negotiated by Lane and the note made payable at his office. That was not enough to give him authority to collect for plaintiff. State v. *Page 614
Lawrence,
An unusual complication comes from the fact that plaintiff was ignorant of the prepayment provisions entitling her to semi-annual payments on principal. She did know that she was to have her interest every six months. The seven payments in question, both principal and interest, were made to Lane. He promptly gave plaintiff her interest but kept the principal, appropriating it to his own use. Defendants were equally ignorant and in consequence equally negligent. Defendant Morris Goldberg (his codefendant being his wife) testified:
"I didn't know anything about Miss Farnham [plaintiff]. That [Lane's office] is the place I got it, and that is the place I paid. I thought Lane paid me the money, and I thought I paid Mr. Lane. I didn't know anything about it. He gave me the money, and I thought I was to pay him."
Plaintiff's ignorance of the fact that the instalments of principal were being paid to Lane and the testimony of Goldberg negativing the idea that his continued payments of principal were made in *Page 615
reliance upon anything done or permitted to be done by plaintiff, there is no room for an estoppel. In principle the case is similar to and controlled by Rutherford v. Morgan,
Judgment affirmed. *Page 616