Maus v. Worthing
This text of 4 Ill. 26 (Maus v. Worthing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The appellee moves to dismiss this appeal, because the appeal bond appears to have been executed on the part of the surety therein, by an attorney in fact appointed by letter or power of attorney not under seal. The authority to execute the appeal bond is contained in the record, and is as follows, to wit: “ Mr. John A. Jones, Dr. Sir, I hereby authorize you to sign my name to a bond to be given by Jacob S. Maus, in an appeal case to the Supreme Court, at the last term of the Circuit Court. J. H. Worthing, for the use of John McCann, vs. Jacob J. Maus.
“W. S. Maus.”
The rule of law seems to be well settled, that an agent or attorney cannot bind his principal, by deed, unless he has authority by deed so to do.
In the cases of Hanford v. McNair,
These authorities are conclusive on the point. The appeal must therefore be dismissed, with costs, for the want of a sealed power to execute the deed on the part of the surety.
Chit, on Cont. 57, and the English authorities there referred to.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Ill. 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maus-v-worthing-ill-1841.