Sec 947

Executors and administrators are empowered by law to give receipts for purchase-money on sales made by them, and the purchaser is, therefore, not bound to see to the application of the purchase-money.2 And for debts generally, any one of several executors or administrators is entitled to give receipts which, if the transaction be bona fide and the payment in full, will operate as a discharge.3 Even " a devastavit by one of two executors or administrators shall not charge his companion, provided he has not intentionally or otherwise contributed to it."4

Sec 948

A debtor who has notice that his nominal creditor is a mere trustee for another person of whose title he is advised, has been held bound to pay the money to the party beneficially interested, supposing that there is nothing in the power creating the trust authorizing the trustee to give receipts.5 A power, however, to a trustee to give receipts, will make the trustee's receipts, received bona fide, a discharge, provided the terms of the power be followed;1 and a power to give receipts may be implied from a power to sell for the payment of debts.2 - In England, by statute, a trustee has power to give receipts unless precluded by the power under which he holds.3

Executors may give receipts.

Trustees have only limited power to give receipts.

6 M. & S. 156; Gordon V. Ellis, 7 M. & G. 607; Nottidge V. Prichard, 2 Cl. & F. 379; Duff V. East India Co., 15 Ves. 198; Morse V. Bellows, 7 N. H. 568; Noyes V. R. R., 30 Conn. 1; Pierson V. Hooker, 3 Johns. 68; Shepard V. Ward, 8 Wend. 542; Boswell V. Green, 1 Dutcher, 390; Salmon V. Davis, 4 Binn. 375.

1 Piercy V. Fynney, L. R. 12 Eq. 69.

2 Leake, 2ded. 908; Lewin on Trusts, 329; Williams on Ex. 6th Am. ed. 245, 946-8, 1820; and cases cited in next note.

3 Leake, 2d ed. 908; Williams on Ex. 6th Am. ed. 946-8; Jacomb V. Har-wood, 2 Ves. Sen. 265; Charlton V. Durham, L. R. 4 Ch. 433; Williams V. Nixon, 2 BeaV. 472; Edmonds V. Crenshaw, 14 Pet. 166; Oilman V. Healey, 55 Me. 120; Shaw V. Berry, 35 Me. 279; Tuckerman V. Newhall, 17 Mass. 581; Ames V. Armstrong, 106 Mass. 18; Douglass V. Satterlie, 11 Johns. 16; Bulkley V. Dayton, 14 Johns. 387; Murray V. Blatchford, 1 Wend. 583; Jackson V. Robinson, 4 Wend. 436; Bogert V. Hertell, 4 Hill, 492; 9 Paige, 52; Shreve V. Joyce, 7 Vrooin, 48; Devling V. Little, 26 Penn. St. 502; Worth V. M'Aden, 1 DeV. & Bat. Eq. 199; Welkerson V. Wootten, 28 Ga. 568; Gaultney V. Nolan, 33 Miss. 569; Nettman V. Schramm, 23 Iowa, 521; Weir V. Mosher, 19 Wis. 311.

4 Wms. on Ex. 6th Am. ed. 1820.

5 Lewin on Trusts, 4th ed. 310; Leake, 2d ed. 907.

Sec 949

When one of several joint debtors pays the joint debt, this discharges the other debtors from liability to the common creditor.4 If, however, the payment turn out not to be operative, as where a bill is given by one of the debtors which is dishonored at maturity, the debt is revived as against all the joint debtors;5 and it has been even held, that where a payment by one joint debtor is avoided as a fraud on his creditors, and the money recovered by other creditors of the debtor making the payment, this does not discharge a co-debtor who is a mere surety for the debt.6 A part payment by one joint debtor operates only pro tanto in favor of the other joint debtor, though it was accepted in satisfaction of the claim against the debtor so paying.7 "Whether taking a bill or not from one of several partners, discharges the partnership debt in case of dishonor of the paper, has been much discussed. It has been held that it does if it was so intended by the parties.8 The question whether this was the intention, is to be determined inferentially from all the facts.9