after stating the case. In so charging the jury we think his Honor erred. Leatherwood was the attorney of plaintiffs, and had authority to receive payment of their debt due by defendants. He stood in their shoes and was the creditor for that purpose. A tender by the debtor and acceptance by the creditor completed the payment. In this case the plaintiff’s attorney had in his possession money belonging to defendants immediately upon the execution of their agreement about the Ladd debt by the relinquishment of the liens the defendants held upon Ladd’s property, which defendants had a right to have paid to them, 00 instanti; for it did not belong to plaintiffs except upon the consent of defendants. Dominium non acquisiiur nisi corpore et animo. But it was thereupon agreed between Leatherwood and Conley that he, Leatherwood, should appropriate that sum in settlement of plaintiffs’ debt. Defendants had then done all that was necessary upon their part, "corpore et ani-mo” in order to make a valid payment; the money to' be paid was in his hands, and they intended, and so expressly stated, that it should be paid over to the plaintiffs in extin-*321guishment of that debt, and the transaction became complete upon the agreement of Leatlierwood to accept it as such. It is true that the money was not actually banded to■ Conley, but its physical control was not necessary. For' Leather-wood to give a check and have Conley to draw the money out of the bank and bring it to him, and he then to place it back into bank and send his clients'a check for it, would have been simply useless and idle — equivalent to swapping dollars, or taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. Having agreed as to the appropriation of the money to plaintiff’s debt, Conley asked for a receipt, which he agreed to give, but was too busy just then to do so. It is clear that this completed the payment. Upon what principle of law could Conley have then recovered the money back from Leatlierwood, should he have changed his mind ?
In what way Ladd drew the money out of the bank does not appear; but does not concern defendants. Under their agreement with Leatlierwood, who had it in bank to his credit, it had been appropriated for the payment of plaintiff’s debt, and if by negligence or otherwise upon the part of the attorney or bank, 1/add got hold of the money, plaintiff must look to them and not to defendants. Plaintiffs were acting through their agents, having placed in him authority and trust, and are bound by his acts in dealing with defendants. In no sense was he the agent of the defendants, and they lost all control over, right to, and responsibility for the money when he agreed to, and did accept it, in payment of his client’s debt.
Error.