Commerce Life Assurance Company v. Resolution Trust Corporation

68 F.3d 480 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. COMMERCE LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-15386. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 14, 1995. * Decided Oct. 16, 1995. 1 Before: D.W. NELSON, T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SAMUEL P. KING, ** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 The district court's ruling that appellant Commerce Life Assurance Company sustained no damage from the bank's conduct was correct. The check was payable to Commerce, was sent to Commerce's lawyer, who then sent it to James Marlar, Commerce's Secretary-Treasurer. If Commerce sustained any loss, it was as a result of Marlar's actions, not the bank's. As the district court explained, payment to an authorized agent constitutes payment to the principal, and discharges the debt, whether or not the agent turns the money over to the principal. Seely v. Hagen, 508 P.2d 343, 344 (Az. Ct. App. 1973).…