Hudson v. Whiting
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of debt on bond. The declaration alleged, that said bond was executed by the defendant, under his hand and seal, by his lawful attorney, William H. Whiting, thereunto duly authorized, bearing date the 18th of October 1837; whereby the defendant acknowledged himself bound and obliged unto the plaintiff in the sum of 4132 dollars, 33 cents; to the payment of which sum to the plaintiff, on demand, with the interest thereon, the defendant did, in and by said…
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt on bond. The declaration alleged, that said bond was executed by the defendant, under his hand and seal, by his lawful attorney, William H. Whiting, thereunto duly authorized, bearing date the 18th of October 1837; whereby the defendant acknowledged himself bound and obliged unto the plaintiff in the sum of 4132 dollars, 33 cents; to the payment of which sum to the plaintiff, on demand, with the interest thereon, the defendant did, in and by said bond, firmly bind himself, and his heirs, &c. The defendant pleaded, that the writing mentioned in the declaration was…
1Opinion of the Court
Wait®, J.
The question reserved for our advice, in this case, is, whether the power of attorney given by the defendant, authorized the execution of the bond upon which the suit is brought.
The terms of the power are sufficiently broad and comprehensive for that purpose. The language is, “ and also for me and in my name and behalf, to make, execute, seal, and deliver any and all such bonds and deeds, as he shall judge expedient.” The authority to execute bonds, is, therefore, given in express terms. The attorney had power to execute all such as he should judge expedient.
But it is said, that…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Easterbrook v. Hebrew Ladies Orphan SocietySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
- Ely v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1886
- Raymond v. ClarkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1878