Sec 943

Payment made in the usual course of business, either to a general agent of the principal, or to an agent specially authorized to receive the debt, concludes the principal.1 - The conditions of a general agency, or special agency in the above sense, are discussed in detail in another work.2 - Authority to receive payment does not authorize payment by a set-off in an account between the agent and the debtor of debts due from the agent, unless this be in conformity with a course of dealing of which the principal has notice.3

Payment to an agent duly authorized is payment to principal.

1 Inst. I. 3, tit. 29, 1.

2 See discussion, supra, sec 787.

3 See for further authorities, infra, sec .

1008; see supra, sec 785 et seq. for controversy on this question in general.

Sec 944

When a solicitor is employed to bring suit, a payment to him of the sum in controversy extinguishes the debt.4 The same rule applies in this country to attorneys-atlaw;5 and both here and in England an attorney-at-law may compromise a suit in litigation so as to bind his client, if the transaction bebona fide.6 But payment to a solicitor's clerk, without special authority, does not bind the principal.7 And the possession of mortgages or other securities by a solicitor does not imply authority to the solicitor to receive the debt due on the security.8 And an attorney-at-law can only receive currency in payment of debt.9

Payment to solicitor or attorney is payment to principal.

1 See Wh. on Agency, sec 206, 580, 741, 783; Catterall V. Hindle, L. R. 1 C. P. 186; S. C., L. R. 2 C. P. 368; De Valengin V. Duffy, 14 Pet. 282; Corlies V. Cummings, 6 Cow. 181; Sangston V. Maitland, 11 Gill & J. 286; Marsh V. Laforest, 1 La. An. 7.

2 Wh. on Agency, sec 135 et seq.; and see Noble V. Nugent, 89 Ill. 522.

3 Leake, 3d ed. 909; Bartlett V. Pentland, 10 B. & C. 760; Todd V. Reid, 4 B. & Ald. 605; Stewart V. Aberdein, 4 M. & W. 211; Underwood V. Nicholls, 7 C. B. 239; Catterall V. Hindle, L. R. 2 C. P. 368; Greenwood V. Burns, 50 Mo. 52. An agent, also, can only receive payment in lawful currency. Wh. on Ag. sec 210. That an agent is limited to the reception of currency in payment of debt, see Fa-venc V. Bennett, 11 East, 38; Todd V. Reid, 4 B. & Ald. 210; Bartlett V. Pentland, 10 B. & C. 760; Underwood V. Nicholls, 17 C. B. 239; Williams V. Evans, L. R. 1 Q. B. 352; Lumpkin V.

Wilson, 5 Heisk. 555; Chapman V. Cowles, 41 Ala. 103; Renard V. Turner, 42 Ala. 117; and see infra, sec 961.

4 Wh. on Ag. sec 590; Powel V. Little, 1 W. Bl. 8; Crozer V. Pilling, 4 B. & C. 28; Bevins V. Hulme, 15 M. & W. 96: Swinfen V. Swinfen, 2 De G. & J. 381; Strauss V. Francis, L. R. 1 Q. B. 379; Erwin V. Blake, 8 Pet. 18; Brack-ett V. Norton, 4 Conn. 517.

5 Wh. on Ag. sec 583.

6 Wh. on Ag. sec 590.

7 Wh. on Neg. sec 604; Kirton V. Braithwaite, 1 M. & W. 310.

8 Viney V. Chaplin, 2 D. & J. 468.

9 Wh. on Ag. sec 583. That an attorney is liable to his client if he receive anything but legal currency in payment of a debt sued on, see Savoury V. Chapman, 8 Dow. 656; Lord V. Bur-bank, 18 Me. 178; Patten V. Fullerton, 27 Me. 58; Carter V. Talcott, 10 Vt. 471; Kellogg V. Gilbert, 10 Johns. 220; Huston V. Mitchell, 14 S. & R. 307; Kent V. Ricards, 23 Md. Ch. 392; Wil-.