Payment over, before notice, is said to be a defense to an executor or administrator as well as to an agent.4 But there is this significant difference - an executor or administrator must show not only that he has applied the money received by him to the payment of creditors, legatees, or distributees, but that the condition of the estate was such, when he learned of the mistake, that he could not reimburse himself.1 And in one case it is said that he must show that a reasonable effort has been made to induce the persons to whom he paid the money to return it.2
1 "Quasi-Contracts," p. 62.
2" Change of Position as a Defense," 20 Harv. Law Rev. 211.
3 It seems particularly unreasonable to hold that there is an implied warranty of principalship in a case where, as in Newall v. Tomlinson, supra, and Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany, supra, the agent is of a class the members of which customarily deal as principals but are known to act, generally, on behalf of others.
4 Beam p. Copeland, 1890, 54 Ark. 70; 14 S. W. 1094; Grier v. Huston, 1822, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 402; 11 Am. Dec. 627. See Phette-place v. Bucklin, 1893, 18 R. I. 297; 27 Atl. 211.