
    WILLIAM BAILEY ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (15 C. Cls. R., 490, 109; U. S. R., 432.)
    
      On the claimants’ Appeal.
    
    Congress make an appropriation for the claimants, subjects of Great Britain, resident abroad. An account therefor is stated at the Treasury, a warrant drawn, and draft issued. The draft is delivered to the claimants’ agent, who indorses it in their names as attorney in fact, and receives the money. His indorsement is by virtue of a power of attorney from them previously given. Subsequently the claimants bring an action against him, averring that it was their money paid to him for their use. He becoming insolvent, they discontinue the action before judgment and bring this suit.
    The court below decides—
    (1.) Where a payment is made by the officers of the Treasury upon apower of attorney properly, authenticated, actually given, and sufficiently comprehensive in terms, its validity or invalidity under the statute is no longer in question, and no party to the transaction is at liberty to deny the effectiveness of the payment.
    
      (2.) Where the officers of the Treasury paid, the claimants’ money to their agent and they ratified the payment by bringing an action against him, it discharged the defendants as completely as if the claimants had stood by and directed the payment, or had subsequently received the money from the agent.
    (3.) Though fraud is ordinarily an element of estoppel, nevertheless where a payment is made to an agent without due authority of the principal, his gross carelessness in not disavowing the payment, and long-continued neglect to put the defendants on their guard, and silence which operated to mislead and prevent them from pursuing their remedy against the agent, will constitute an estoppel.
    The judgment of the court below is affirmed, the Supreme Court holding 4^at payment to an attorney in fact so constituted by claimants before the allowance of their claim is good as between the parties, the power not having been revoked at the time of payment, notwithstanding the provisions of the Act July 29, 1846 (9 Stat. L., 41), and the Act February 26, 1853 (10 Stat. , 170).
   Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, December 30,1883.  