Maus v. Worthing

4 Ill. 26
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1841·Published

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

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

4 Ill. 26 (Maus v. Worthing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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