
    John Horton v. James Blair.
    The transfer by delivery, without indorsement, or other assignment in writing, of an unnegotiable promissory note, amounts to an authority to receive the money due on it, and if payment is refused, to sue in the name of the payee : but the authority is determined by payment; and if an action is brought after payment, in the name of the payee, without his knowledge, or consent, he is not liable for the costs, vide Myers v. James, post, next case.
    Before Mr. Justice Evans, at Kershaw, Fall Term, 1831.
    The defendant gave his note, which was not negotiable, to the plaintiff; who transferred it by delivery, without indorsement, or other assignment in writing, to John Sullivan. Sullivan afterwards died, leaving the note among his papers; and his administrator brought an action upon it in the name of the plaintiff, without his knowledge, or consent. At the trial, the jury, upon full proof that the defendant had paid the debt to Sullivan, in his life time, found a verdict for the.defendant; and judgment was entered up against the plaintiff, for the costs. At this term the plaintiff moved to set aside the execution, on the ground, that, under the circumstances, he was not liable for the costs.
    2 Faust, 215.
    The presiding Judge was of opinion, that the plaintiff was not liable. It was true, that the transfer amounted to an authority to sue in the name of the plaintiff. The note not being negotiable, and there being no assignment in writing, Sullivan could not bring an action upon it in his own name,under the act of 1798. Smith v. Lyons, Harp. 334. And the transfer by delivery must, therefore, be regarded as constituting Sullivan the agent of the plaintiff, to receive payment, or to sue for it in his name. Bennet v. M’Fall, 2 Mill, 198. But the agency terminated on the payment to Sullivan ; and the subsequent action was an unauthorized act, for which the plaintiff was not responsible.
    His Honor, therefore, ordered the execution to be set aside; and the defendant now moved to reverse his decision, as contrary to law.
    W. and C. Mayrant, for the motion.
    Branding, contra.
    
   Johnson, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The liability of a nominal plaintiff for the costs of a suit, brought by another for his own benefit, against a third person, proceeds upon the ground, and exists only, where the suit has been authorized by the plaintiff himself. His liability is that of the principal for the acts of the agent. The transfer of notes or other evidences of debt, without indorsement, is no unusual occurrence; and it has been uniformly held, that such a transfer authorizedjhe transferee to receive the money due on it, and if the debtor refused to pay, to sue in the name of the payee. Ware v. Key 2 M’C. 373.

It is scarcely necessary to refer to authorities to shew, that the principal is only bound for the acts of his agent,, so far as he has acted within the scope of his authority ; or that when he has performed what his authority authorized, his agency ceases, and the principal is no longer bound by his acts : and especially so, where the fact was known to the party' complaining of the act of the agent. What is this case 1 The plaintiff transferred the defendant’s note to Sullivan, who duly received the contents; and afterwards, his administrator sues for the same debt, in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant necessarily knew, that the debt was paid, and that Sullivan’s agency had ceased. He lsad received the money, and that was all that the plaintiff had authorized him to do. There is then, no foundation for the assumption that Sullivan’s administrator, in bringing his suit, acted under the authority of the plaintiff; and therefore the latter is not liable. Sullivan’s retention of the note, was the fault of defendant. When he paid it, he had a right to demand it.

Motion refused.  