Ahrend v. Odiorne
This text of 125 Mass. 50 (Ahrend v. Odiorne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The objection that Sturges had no authority to sign the bond in the name of the firm, and thereby to bind his partner, cannot avail the defendant George Odiorne. Both of the partners are defendants in this suit, and their default is an admission that the instrument declared upon was duly executed by them. It must be taken, therefore, as a fact in the case, that the signature by Sturges was affixed to the bond, either with the previous authority or subsequent ratification of his copartner, a circumstance which distinguishes the case from Russell v. Annable, 109 Mass. 72.
The bond was signed and sealed by the defendant, and was delivered to the obligee in that condition. The jury have found that he signed it as a party to the instrument. Under such a state of facts, it is immaterial that he was not named in the bond itself as a party. Smith v. Crooker, 5 Mass. 538.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
125 Mass. 50, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahrend-v-odiorne-mass-1878.