Maus v. Worthing

4 Ill. 26
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1841
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Maus v. Worthing, 4 Ill. 26 (Ill. 1841).

Opinions

Lockwood, Justice,

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hanford v. McNair
9 Wend. 54 (New York Supreme Court, 1832)
Blood v. Goodrich
9 Wend. 68 (New York Supreme Court, 1832)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Ill. 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maus-v-worthing-ill-1841.