Riley v. Woodall

¹²⁶ Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the 'Court. This case arose from the following facts as recited in the bill of complaiot: Thomas C. Riley acquired in 1906 a farm of about one hundred acres in the sixth election district of-Cecil 'County. Afterwards Thomas C. Riley and wife acquired from Wm. IT.

Riley an undivided one-half interest in 'another farm or tract. At the time of the purchase of the first tract Riley-borrowed the sum of four thousand dollars for the purpose of consummating the purchase. This mortgage is alleged from time to time to have been assigned' to successive parties,, and finally became the property of Charles W. Simpers. The original loan of four thousand dollars was at- the rate of five per cent, interest, and the assignee of the mortgage desired to increase that rate from five per cent, to six per cent.

Mr. and Mrs. Riley accordingly looked around to see if they could not get the money — four thousand dollars- — at the previously existing rate of five per cent or better. Application for the new loan was made to Wm. T. Warburton of Cecil County, who, after a short time, notified them that he had procured the loan as they desired, and two weeks later they received notice- from Warburton to call at his office in Elkton for the consummation of the. new mortgage and a release of the old. The loan was said to have been made by- James E. Wood-all through Mr. Warburton as agent and attorney.

The papers were duly signed for the new mortgage in Mr. Warburton’s office, but Mr. Woodall, the alleged mortgagee, was, not present. The bill further alleged that Mr. Warburton had in a number of transactions represented as agent persons making loans. Several days ’before the new loan Mr. Woodall sent his check for $4,000 drawn to Mr. Wafburton’s order, for the purpose of making this loan and the paying off of the then existing mortgage. Thi-s loan was consummated by Mr. and Mrs. Riley, believing Mr. Warburton to be- agent for Mr. Woodall.

No money was paid to the plaintiffs at the time of'the execution of the new mortgage papers, it being represented to them that the money would be used to p-ay off the ¹²⁷ existing mortgage. They gave Mr. Warburton a cheek for $138.26 as the interest then due on the original mortgage, and a relatively small cheek to pay for the cost of recording, notary’s fees, and Mr. Warburton’s fee. It is further alleged that at the time of the making of this new mortgage transaction it was represented to Mr. and 'Mrs. Riley that Warburton was acting as agent of Woodall. The mortgage affidavit was sworn to by Mr. Warburton as “agent and attorney” of Mr. Woodall, it being understood that the money