Osborne v. . Horner

33 N.C. 359
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 5, 1850
StatusPublished

This text of 33 N.C. 359 (Osborne v. . Horner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Osborne v. . Horner, 33 N.C. 359 (N.C. 1850).

Opinion

Pearson, J.

An agent, having a verbal authority to sell a slave, does sell and deliver the slave and receive the purchase money, and at the same time, executes a bill of sale, under seal with warranty, in his own name, without any reference to the principal; does the title of the slave pass to the purchaser 1 The Judge in the Court below held, that it did not. In this, we think, there is error.

His opinion, we presume from the argument made in this Court, was influenced by the suggestion that, as there was a bill of sale executed by tile agent at the same time, the title could not pass by the sale and delivery, and as the bill of sale was not binding upon the principal, the title did not pass in either way.

The proper view of the question, as it seems to us, is this: The principal says the bill of sale is inoperative, so far as he is concerned, because the agent was not author-ised to bind him by a deed. That is true, and therefore, it has no effect whatever, except so far as it may subject the agent upon his covenant of warranty. But it has no effect in reference to these parties. So the transaction is left as a mere sale and delivery of a slave, by one having a verbal authority to sell. Such a salfe is valid.

Pbr Curiam. Judgment reversed and a venire de novo issued.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 N.C. 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-horner-nc-1850.