- 14 -
that no valid gift was made. The court stated that "an agent may
not make a gift to himself or a third party of the money or
property which is the subject of the agency relationship."
Semmler v. Naples, supra [citations omitted].
In Porges v. United States Mortgage and Trust Co., 96 N.E.
424, 426 (1911), the New York Court of Appeals invalidated an
agent's transfer of his principal's money to himself. The court
held that a power of attorney cannot be "enlarged by implication
or construction" to authorize a transfer of the principal's
property to the agent. Porges v. United States Mortgage and
Trust Co., supra at 427 [emphasis added]. It further held that a
power of attorney is to be construed:
according to the natural meaning of the words in view
of the purpose of the agency and the needs to its
fulfillment. The authority within it under such
construction is not to be broadened or extended and the
sole right of a court is to ascertain, through the rule
stated, and apply the authority. [Porges v. United
States Mortgage and Trust Co., supra at 426; cf. Matter
of Zalewski, 55 N.E. 2d 184, 187 (1944); 3 NY Jur.
Agency and Independent Contractors sec. 66 (1979).]
Petitioner's power of attorney authorized the attorney-in-
fact to "do anything he or she considers necessary and proper to
conduct this business with the Bank". [Emphasis added.] "[T]his
business" refers to the explicit grant of authority to open and
close accounts, deposit and withdraw money, and write checks.
Applying the holdings of New York's lower courts and
considering the New York Court of Appeals' holding in Porges that
powers of attorney are not to be "enlarged by implication or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011