Payment to the wife of the creditor is not a discharge of the debt, unless she is expressly or impliedly his agent ; 2 Scott N. R. 372; Thrasher v. Tuttle, 22 Me. 335; as to Payment to the husband, see O'Callaghan v. Barrett, 66 Hun 633, 21 N. Y. Supp. 368. One who purchases the property of a married woman through the agency of her husband, must pay for it precisely as if he had pur chased through an agent who sustained no such relation ; Runyon v. Snell, '116 Ind. 164, 18 N. E. 522, 9 Am. St. Rep. 839. An auc tioneer employed to sell real estate has no authority to receive the purchase-money by virtue of that appointment merely ; 1 M. & R. 326. Usually, the terms of sale authorize him to receive the purchase-money ; 5 M. & W. 645. Payment was made to a person sit ting in the creditor's counting-room and ap parently doing his business, and it was held good ; 1 M. & M. 200 ; but payment to an ap prentice so situated was held not to be good ; 2 Cr. & M. 304. Payment to a person other than the legal owner of the claim must be shown to have been made to one entitled to receive the money; Seymour v. Smith, 114 N. Y. 481, 21 N. E. 1042, 11 Am. St. Rep. 683. Generally, payment to the agent must be made in money, to bind the principal; 10 B. & C. 760 ; Nicholson v. Pease, 61 Vt. 534, 17 Atl. 720; Scully v. Dodge, 40 Kan. 395, 19 Pac. 807. Power to receive money does not authorize an agent to commute ; Kings ton v. Kincaid, 1 Wash. C. C. 454, Fed. Cas. No. 7,822; Lewis v. Gamage, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 347.
An agent authorized to receive money can not bind his principal by receiving goods; 4 C. & P. 501; or a note ; 5 M. & W. 645; but a subsequent ratification would remedy any such departure from authority ; and it is said that slight acts of acquiescence will be deemed ratification. Payment to one of sev eral joint creditors of his• part will not alter the nature of the debt so as to enable the others to sue separately ; 4 Tyrwh. 488. Pay ment to one of several executors has been held sufficient ; 3 Atk. 695. Payment to a trustee generally concludes the cestui que trust in law; 5 B. & Ad. 96. Payment of a debt to a marshal or sheriff having custody of the person of the debtor does not satisfy the plaintiff ; 4 B. & C. 32. Interest may be paid to a scrivener holding the mortgage deed or bond, and also the principal, if he deliver up the bond ; otherwise of a mort gage-deed as to the principal, for there must be a re-conveyance ; 1 Salk. 157. It would seem, then, that in those states where no• re-conveyance is needed, a payment of. the.
principal to a person holding the security would be good, at least prima facie.
Subsequent ratification of the agent's acts is equivalent to precedent authority to re ceive money ; Pothier, Obl. n. 528.
, When to be made. Payment must be made at the exact time agreed upon. This rule is held very strictly law ; but in equity payment will be allowed at a time subse quent, generally when damages can be es timated and allowed by way of interest; 8 East 208; City Bank v. Cutter, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 414. Where payment is to be made at a future day, nothing can be demanded till the time of payment, and, if there be a condition precedent to the liability, not until the condition has been performed. And
where goods had been sold "at six or nine months' credit," the debtor was allowed the option ; 5 Taunt. 338.
Where no time of payment is specified, the money is to be paid immediately on de mand ;• Bank of Columbia v. Hagner, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 455, 7 L. Ed. 219 ; Bailey v. Clay, 4 Rand. (Va.) 346. When payment is to be made at a certain time, it may be made at a different time if the plaintiff will accept ; Viner, Abr. Payment (H) ; and it seems that the debtor cannot compel the creditor to receive payment before the debt is due. The time of payment of a pecuniary obliga tion is a material provision in the contract, and a creditor cannot be compelled by stat ute to accept payment in advance ; People v. O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, 18 N. E. 692, 2 L. R. A. 255, 7 Am. St. Rep. 684.
Where to be made. Payment must be made at the place agreed upon, unless both the parties consent to a change. If no place of payment is mentioned, the payer must seek the payee ; Moore, P. C. 274; Shepp. Touchst. 378 ; 2 M. & W. 223.
The debtor, if no place is specified in the contract, must seek the creditor, unless he shall have left the state in which was his domicile when the contract was made, in which case, readiness to pay within the state will suffice; Hale v. Patton, 60 N. Y. 23,6, 19 Am. Rep. 168 ; Dockham v. Smith, 113 Mass. 320, 18 Am. Rep. 495. But where an insur ance company owed money on a fire policy (with the option of replacing the building) it was held to be the intent of the parties that payment should be made at the domicile of the insured ; Pennsylvania L. M. F. Ins. Co. v. Meyer, 197 U. S. 407, 25 Sup. Ct. 483, 49 L. Ed. 810, where it was said that all debts are payable everywhere, unless there be some special limitation or provision iu respect to the payments ; debts, as such, have no sites or locus, but accompany the creditor everywhere, and authorize a de mand upon the debtor everywhere, and that in general the debtor is bound to seek the creditor.
Refusal to receive payment offered at a place other than the stipulated place of pay meat, except upon certain conditions, is an implied waiver of the right to have the pay ment made in the place agreed on ; Union M. L. Ins. Co. v. Plaster Co., 37 Fed. 286, 3 L. R. A. 90. Where there is a covenant for the payment of rent, the tenant must seek the landlord ; 8 Exch. 689. A lessor must de mand the rent upon the land on the day when it becomes due at a convenient time before sunset, in order to re-enter for breach of condition upon non-payment ; Camp v. Scott, 47 Conn. 366 ; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 63 Ind. 415, 30 Am. Rep. 229. It has been held that a licensor of a patent must apply to the licensee for an account and payment ; Dare v. Boylston, 6 Fed. 493. 4 telephone subscriber is bound to pay for services at the office of the company, and cannot require presentment of bills at his home; Magruder v. Tel. Co., 92 Miss. 716, 46 South. 404, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 560.