Opinion
(February Term, 1894.)
Attorney — Extent of Power — Not Authorized to Indorse Notes Held for Collection — Acquiescence in Indorsement by Principal.
1. An attorney to whom a note is sent for collection has, prima facie, no authority to indorse the same in the name of his client, and the purchaser should inquire as to the extent of the attorney's authority.
2. In such case the acquiescence by the client in such indorsement, supposing it to have been a mere sale of the note, does not constitute a ratification of the unauthorized indorsement.
CIVIL ACTION, tried before Whitaker, J., and a jury, at November Term, 1893, of IREDELL.
There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the (439) defendant appealed.
Robbins Long for defendant.
No counsel contra.
The authority of an agent to collect a note or bill does not authorize him to indorse the note or bill either in the name of his principal or on his own account, and the defendant's acquiescence in the approval of the sale, supposing it to be an out and (440) out sale simply, was not a ratification in fact of the unauthorized indorsement, of which he had no knowledge when he approved the sale. Hines v. Butler, 38 N.C. 307. The attorney, prima facie, had no authority to sell and indorse and the plaintiff, under the circumstances of this case, should have inquired as to the extent of his authority. Earp v. Richardson, 81 N.C. 5; Biggs v. Ins. Co., 88 N.C. 141; Smith, Cont., 311. There should be a
New trial.