Little v. Hazzard Prettyman
Superior Court of Delaware
The action was against the defendants as partners, on a sealed instrument, executed by only one of them. Mr. Cullen stated the case as before, [ante., p. 291,] and offered to prove the admission of Hazzard that he was present when the note was given, and assented to it. Mr. Layton objected to this. The authority of one partner to seal an instrúment for another, must be proved by deed; it cannot be pi’oved by paroi, and of course a recognition by paroi will not be sufficient.
Read the full summary
The action was against the defendants as partners, on a sealed instrument, executed by only one of them. Mr. Cullen stated the case as before, [ante., p. 291,] and offered to prove the admission of Hazzard that he was present when the note was given, and assented to it. Mr. Layton objected to this. The authority of one partner to seal an instrúment for another, must be proved by deed; it cannot be pi’oved by paroi, and of course a recognition by paroi will not be sufficient. The subsequent declarations of Rhodes Hazzard, even recognizing the authority of his partner to sign this note for the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Harrington, Judge.
As a principle of the common law, it is well settled that one partner cannot bind another by his deed, unless authorized to do so by the articles of co-partnership, or expressly by deed. No verbal contract or ratification will make it the deed of the person who does not sign it, unless he be present and consent to the signing; and then it is his deed on another principle, namely, that he in fact signs it by the other, as his agent.
The reason of this rule of the common law has been differently stated. By some writers it is regarded as merely technical, and based…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bridge v. Niagara Ins.The Superior Court of New York City · 1828