« PreviousContinue »
deed by the deed itself ; not by an instrument dehors.
His Lordship doubted whether it would be sufficient; but he called upon the plaintiffs to support the execution of the defendants “ for self and partner.” They proposed to prove that one of the Eggintons gave authority to the other to execute the deed for him; and that the partner, who did not execute, had subsequently acknowledged the agreement.
Lens and Gaselee contended that this was a substantial execution.
GIBBS, C. J.--The authority to execute must be by deed. If one partner, who does not execute, acknowledge that he gave an authority, I must presume that it was a legal authority; and that must be under seal and produced. One man cannot authorise another to execute a deed for him but by deed. No subsequent acknowledgment will do. The defendants have pleaded that it is not their deed.
The plaintiffs afterwards proceeded on the common counts, and recovered a verdict.
Lens, serjeant, and Gaselee, for plaintiffs.
Vuughan and Parke, for defendants.
[Attornies, Gregson-Rosseryand Son.]
If A. execute a deed for ecute it in the name of his
1815. himself and his partner, by the principal. Combe's case, 9 authority of his partner, and Rep. 76.
Rep. 76. Frontier v. Small, STEIGLITZ in his presence, it is a good 2 L. Raym. 1418. 1 Strange, execution, though only sealed 705. White v. Cuyler, 6 T.R. EGGINTON. once. Ball v. Dunsterville, 4 · 176. But though the act done T. R. 313. In that case, the must be the act of the principal, Court relied principally on the and not of the attorney who is deed having been executed by authorised to do it; yet, if the one partner, for himself and deed be executed in the prin. the other, in the presence of cipal's name, it matters not in the other. See Lord Lovelace's what form of words such execase, Sir W. Jones, 268. One cution is denoted by the signa- . partner cannot bind another by ture of the names; as if oppodeed. Harrison v. Jackson, 7 site the seal be written " for T.R. 207. So, one who exe- J. B. (the principal.) M. W. cutes a deed for another under (the attorney) L. S.” Wilks v. a power of attorner, must ex. Back, 2 East, 142.
FIRST SITTINGS IN HILARY TERN,
POOLE 0. Smith.
In an action
THIS was an action by the indorsee of a bill by theindorsee of a bill of ex- of exchange against the acceptor. The bill change against the acceptor, had been drawn more than six years, and the that, after ac. action was commenced in 1813. A few days pretion brought vious to the trial, the bill, (which was indorsed in trial, the bill, blank) had been picked out of the pocket of the which was indorsed in attorney's clerk, and had not since been found. blank, had been lost.
There was evidence that it had been shewn to the Held, that although the acceptor after the action was brought, who adbill had been mitted the acceptance to be his hand-writing, but than six years, said he had no obligation to pay, inasmuch as bethe plaintiff
tween him and the drawer it had been satisfied by titled to recover without other bills. producing it at the trial.
The Chief Justice thought that this evidence was not enough without producing the bill.
was not eu
Best, serjeant.-- The plaintiff had a clear right of action : notice of trial was given : the bill had been drawn several years, and the statute of limitations can be pleaded to any action which may be henceforward brought upon it.
GIBBS, C. J.-Upon the ground of the non-production of the bill, I think I am called upon to nonsuit the plaintiff. The rule is an extremely salutary one, and ought not to be relaxed.
This was an undefended cause.
Best, and Marshall, serjeants, and C. Marshall, for the plaintiff.
In case a bill be lost, the action can be brought upon it. finder may confer a title by And the offer of an indemnity transferring it; in the same will not render such action manner if it be stolen. Miller maintainable. See Pierson v. 1. Race, Burr. 452. So, in Hutchinson, 2 Camp. 211., in Lawson v. Weston it was de- which Lord Ellenborough held, cided, that the holder for value that an action at law could not of a bill indorsed in blank by be maintained against the acthe payee, was entitled to re- ceptor of a bill of exchange cover against the acceptor, al- which was lost, after being inthough the bill appeared to dorsed, although a bond of inhave been stolen from some demnity had been tendered to prior holder, who immediately the defendant. In ex parte advertised his loss. 4 Esp. 56. Greenway, 6 Vesey, 1812, But if the bill be not assign- Lord Eldon, C. said, “ he able otherwise than by indorse- could never understand by ment, the finder cannot trans- what authority Courts of law fer a title. Where however it compelled parties to accept an is transferable by mere deli- indemnity." very, and has been lost; or Where a bill or note has where, being transferable by been destroyed, or where it is indorsement, it has been lost transferable by indorsement, after a blank indorsement, no and has been lost before in. Vol. I.
dorsement, or after a special detain it in his hands, the