Godley v. . Taylor
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action for the breach of a covenant of quiet enjoyment, tried before his Honor Judge Norwood, at Pitt, on the last spring circuit.
Read the full summary
This was an action for the breach of a covenant of quiet enjoyment, tried before his Honor Judge Norwood, at Pitt, on the last spring circuit. The question made in the cause arose upon the pleas of the general issue, pleaded by both defendants, and the act of. 1715, (Rev. eh. 10, sec. 7,) “ concerning proving wills and granting “ letters of administration, and to prevent fraud in the “ management of intestates’ estates,” pleaded by the defendant Haddock, and upon these pleas a verdict was taken subject to the opinion of the court, upon the following case: — James Taylor by his will appointed…
1Opinion of the Court
Where an agent wishes to be excused from obligations or covenants into which he enters, he should affix the name of his principal to the deed. (Wilkes v. Back., 2 East, 142.) When he does not do so, but only signs his own name as agent, he is personally answerable. For in such case he undertakes for his principal. (Appleton v. Binks, 5 East, 148.) He undertakes as agent, or as surety for his principal, that if the latter will not perform the contract he will answer for him in the manner stipulated.
The case of Potts v. Lazarus, 4 N.C. 180, seems to have been decided in part upon the ground…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sumner v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Potts v. . LazarusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1815