Meech v. Fowler
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Independence Circuit Court. The bond for costs being executed in the name of both partners, the legal presumption is, that both authorized or adopted its execution; and if a deed be executed by one partner, in the name of the firm, with their assent, it shall be deemed the deed of all. Story on Part., sec. 120, 121, 122, note 2. 3 Kent Com. 47-8. But it is certainly a valid bond, as to him who did sign and seal it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Independence Circuit Court. The bond for costs being executed in the name of both partners, the legal presumption is, that both authorized or adopted its execution; and if a deed be executed by one partner, in the name of the firm, with their assent, it shall be deemed the deed of all. Story on Part., sec. 120, 121, 122, note 2. 3 Kent Com. 47-8. But it is certainly a valid bond, as to him who did sign and seal it. Rector vs. Onstott, 1 Ark. 218. 4 Mason 232 and note. Dayetal. vs. Lafferty, 4 Ark. 452.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Watkins
The plaintiff in error has appealed from the judgment of the court below, dismissing his suit for the want of a sufficient bond for costs. The objections to the bond appear to be, that the day of the month of its date is left blank, and that it is given by a firm, signed by their firm name and style under seal. The suit was commenced on the 18th of September, 1851, and the bond for costs has the following endoi’sement, signed by the clerk: “The above bond approved by me, September 18,1851, and filed before writ issued.” On the hearing before the court of the issue upon the defendant’s motion…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Day v. LaffertySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1842
3Cited by5 opinions
- Smith v. ScarbroughSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Merrill v. SypertSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
- Rawls v. FreeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Rushing v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
- Montgomery Adm'r. v. ErwinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1867