Kime v. . Brooks
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Randolph County, at the Fall Term, 1848, his Honor Judge Cax.d-well presiding. This is an action of debt on a bond of one Hamlin and the defendant’s testator, and was tried on non est factum pleaded.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Randolph County, at the Fall Term, 1848, his Honor Judge Cax.d-well presiding. This is an action of debt on a bond of one Hamlin and the defendant’s testator, and was tried on non est factum pleaded. To establish the execution of the bond by the testator, his daughter was called'as a witness and she deposed, that a servant of Hamlin brought a letter to her father, the testator, at his house, inclosing]the paper now sued on, which was then signed and sealed by Hamlin, and had a seal for another name, and requesting the testator to sign it, with a view…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
This Court does not concur in the instructions to the jury. The Touchstone 57, states the rule upon which the case depends in a short, but very clear, manner. “Where one person delivers an instrument as the act of another person, who is present, no deed conferring an authority is requisite. But a person cannot, unless authorised by deed, execute an instrument as the act of a person who is absent; and every letter of Attorney must be by deed.” The plain meaning of the passage is, that what a person does in the presence of another, in his name and by his direction, is the act of the latter, as…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ledford v. HubbardCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926
- Moose v. . CrowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Murray v. . ShanklinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838
- Whether the President May Sign a Bill by Directing That His Signature Be Affixed to It, Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel2005