
    CRANE v. HALFORD.
    Error — payment to an agent — bill of exceptions.
    Payment to an authorized agent is payment to the principal.
    A court of error will only look at those facts which the bill of exceptions actually places upon the record.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas. Halford sued Crane in the court below for money had and received, paid, &e. Upon non assumpsit joined, Halford offered to prove the contents of a lost paper, purporting to be a receipt from one Green for $35.17, in full of an award in favor of Green v. Crane, of prior date to the receipt. To this it was objected, that the receipt was not competent without proof of Green’s authority from Crane, and that Green was not a competent witness to prove the payment. The court decided that the evidence was admissible if the plaintiff proved a request to pay by Crane. This was assigned for error.
   BY THE COURT.

The simple question in this case is, whether payment to a third person, authorized to receive the money, will discharge the demand. There can be no doubt it will. If the bill of exceptions was designed to raise any other question, it has failed of its object. We can only look to the matters of fact which by it are in fact placed upon the record.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.  