Constant v. . University of Rochester
111 N.Y. 604, 19 N.E. 631 (1889)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an agent's knowledge acquired in a prior transaction to be imputed to a principal in a subsequent transaction, the party asserting imputation must provide clear and satisfactory proof that the knowledge was present in the agent's mind at the time of the subsequent transaction.
Facts:
- Joseph Constant retained an attorney, Joseph Deane, to invest money on his behalf.
- In February 1883, Deane, acting as Constant's agent, secured a mortgage for Constant on a specific property.
- Deane failed to record the mortgage he secured for Constant.
- Eleven months later, in January 1884, the University of Rochester retained Deane as its agent to invest its own funds.
- Deane, acting as the University's agent, secured a mortgage for the University on the same property that was subject to Constant's unrecorded mortgage.
- As consideration for this new mortgage, the University surrendered a prior mortgage it held, along with accrued interest.
- Deane's office handled a very large volume of mortgage transactions for Constant, amounting to over three million dollars in total.
- After the University's mortgage was executed and recorded, Constant's unrecorded mortgage was found in a pigeonhole in Deane's office where satisfied mortgages were typically kept.
Procedural Posture:
- Constant's estate sued the University of Rochester in the state trial court (Special Term) to establish the priority of Constant's unrecorded mortgage.
- The trial court found in favor of Constant.
- The University of Rochester appealed to the intermediate appellate court (General Term).
- The General Term affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The University of Rochester, as appellant, appealed the decision to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an agent's knowledge of a prior unrecorded mortgage, acquired while representing a different principal, get imputed as constructive notice to a subsequent principal in a separate transaction, when there is no clear proof that the agent remembered the prior mortgage at the time of the subsequent transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Peckham, J.
No. For an agent's knowledge from a prior transaction to be imputed to a subsequent principal, there must be clear proof that the knowledge was present in the agent's mind at the very time of the transaction in question. The modern rule, modifying the old English standard, allows knowledge from a separate transaction to be imputed, but the burden falls on the party asserting notice to prove the agent's active recollection. In this case, the plaintiff (Constant) failed to provide clear and satisfactory evidence that Deane remembered the prior unrecorded mortgage when he secured the mortgage for the University. The eleven-month time lapse, the enormous volume of similar business Deane conducted, and the fact the mortgage was found among satisfied documents all suggest he had forgotten. Therefore, the University of Rochester is a bona fide mortgagee for value without notice, and its recorded mortgage has priority.
Dissenting - Gray, J.
Yes. An agent's knowledge, if existing at the time of the transaction, is imputed to the principal. The trial court found as a matter of fact that Deane had knowledge of the Constant mortgage, and the evidence supports this finding. Deane's failure to record Constant's mortgage and his subsequent failure to disclose its existence to the University was a breach of duty and a fraud. This fraud is visitable upon his principal, the University. Therefore, the University should be treated as having constructive notice of the prior mortgage and cannot be considered a subsequent purchaser in good faith, making its mortgage subordinate to Constant's.
Analysis:
This decision refines the doctrine of imputed knowledge in agency law by establishing a clear evidentiary standard. It moves away from the rigid 'same transaction' rule but avoids a rule of automatic imputation for any knowledge an agent ever possessed. By placing a high burden of proof on the party claiming notice to show the agent's actual recollection, the court protects principals from being bound by forgotten information. This precedent makes it more difficult to defeat a subsequent purchaser's claim by asserting notice through a common agent, thereby strengthening the protections of recording statutes for parties who act in good faith.
Unlock the full brief for Constant v. . University of Rochester