19 Ala. 114 (Ala. 1851), Arrington v. Burton

Citation19 Ala. 114
Opinion JudgePARSONS, J.
Party NameARRINGTON v. BURTON.
AttorneyMURPHY for plaintiff in error. J. B. CLARKE, contra:
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Page 114

19 Ala. 114 (Ala. 1851)

ARRINGTON

v.

BURTON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January Term, 1851

ERROR to the Circuit Court of Greene. Tried before the Hon. Jno. D. Phelan.

Covenant by the plaintiff in error against the defendant, in a bond for sixty dollars, purporting to have been given for the hire of a negro. The circumstances under which the bond was executed sufficiently appear in the opinion.

MURPHY for plaintiff in error.

J. B. CLARKE, contra:

1. No one can fill up a blank in a sealed instrument, so as to bind a person who has signed his name simply to the blank without special authority to do so.--Manning & Adams v. Norwood, 1 Ala. 429; 2 Brock, 64; 17 S. & R. 438; 6 G. & J. 250; 7 Black. 413; 6 M. & W. 214-15.

2. One authorized to fill up a blank is a special and limited agent, and if he exceeds his authority, his principal is not bound. Story on Agency 115.-- Fisher & Johnson v. Campbell, 9 Por. 210; Gullett v. Lewis, 3 Stew. 23.

PARSONS, J.

The contract was made between the defendant and the plaintiff's agent. At the time of the contract, the defendant was in the act of leaving for Virginia, and informed the agent, that he had left a blank with his signature, with Mr. Whitworth, who would sign as his surety, and requested the agent to fill it up for the hire according to the agreement; and the agent proved on the trial, that it was done accordingly, but stated expressly, that nothing was said about the character of the instrument, nor whether it was to be under seal or not. The bill of exceptions is rather obscure in some respects, but it is to be construed most strongly against the plaintiff in error. Our inference from it is that the blank was filled up so as to make it an instrument under seal, by the agent, in the absence of the defendant. It is clear that it did not bind him.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • 149 S.W. 485 (Mo. 1904), Tate v. Sanders
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 de julho de 1904
    ...C.) 218; Cross v. Bank, 5 Pike (Ark.) 525; Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Nott. & McC. 125; McMurty v. Frank, 5 Munr. (Ky.) 59; Arrington v. Benton, 19 Ala. 114; Perminter v. McDaniel, 1 Hill (S. C.) 267; United States v. Nelson, 2 Brock. 64, 122; Hord v. Taubman, 79 Mo. 101. The deed being void, and ......
  • 19 Iowa 273 (Iowa. 1865), Simms v. Hervey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • Invalid date
    ...379; Davenport v. Sleight, 2 Dev. & Batt., 381; Ingram v. Little, 14 Ga. 173; see case cited 14 U.S. Dig., 155; Arrington v. Burton, 19 Ala. 114; 13 U.S. Dig., 546; 5 Pike 523; 9 Am. Law Reg., 608; 2 Pars. on Cont., II. For its execution, writing and delivery,--and the delivery must be ......
  • 29 N.J.Eq. 587 (N.J.Err. & App. 1878), City of Elizabeth v. Force
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • Invalid date
    ...337; Newlin v. Beard, 6 W.Va. 110. Compare, also, Matson v. Booth, 5 M. & S. 223; Adsetts v. Hives, 33 Beav. 52; Arrington v. Burton, 19 Ala. 114; Boyd v. Boyd, 2 N. & M. ( S.C. ) 125; Jordan v. Nelson, 2 Wash. ( Va. ) 164; Decker's Case, 6 Cow. ( N.Y. ) 59; Van Amringe v. Morton, 4......
  • 14 Kan. 175 (Kan. 1875), Ayres v. Probasco
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • Invalid date
    ...Agency, § 49; 2 Johns. 430; 9 Allen, (Mass.) 387; 19 Iowa 273; 24 N.Y. 230; 14 Ga. 173; 1 B. Monroe, 199; 5 How., (Miss.) 71; 4 Kent 462; 19 Ala. 114; 29 Ill. 306; 33 Tex. 139; 8 Blackf. 413; 14 Wis. 631; 12 Am. Law Reg., (N.S.) 689, and note, 711; 23 Grattan, (Va.) But if we concede for th......
4 cases
  • 149 S.W. 485 (Mo. 1904), Tate v. Sanders
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 de julho de 1904
    ...C.) 218; Cross v. Bank, 5 Pike (Ark.) 525; Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Nott. & McC. 125; McMurty v. Frank, 5 Munr. (Ky.) 59; Arrington v. Benton, 19 Ala. 114; Perminter v. McDaniel, 1 Hill (S. C.) 267; United States v. Nelson, 2 Brock. 64, 122; Hord v. Taubman, 79 Mo. 101. The deed being void, and ......
  • 19 Iowa 273 (Iowa. 1865), Simms v. Hervey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • Invalid date
    ...379; Davenport v. Sleight, 2 Dev. & Batt., 381; Ingram v. Little, 14 Ga. 173; see case cited 14 U.S. Dig., 155; Arrington v. Burton, 19 Ala. 114; 13 U.S. Dig., 546; 5 Pike 523; 9 Am. Law Reg., 608; 2 Pars. on Cont., II. For its execution, writing and delivery,--and the delivery must be ......
  • 29 N.J.Eq. 587 (N.J.Err. & App. 1878), City of Elizabeth v. Force
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • Invalid date
    ...337; Newlin v. Beard, 6 W.Va. 110. Compare, also, Matson v. Booth, 5 M. & S. 223; Adsetts v. Hives, 33 Beav. 52; Arrington v. Burton, 19 Ala. 114; Boyd v. Boyd, 2 N. & M. ( S.C. ) 125; Jordan v. Nelson, 2 Wash. ( Va. ) 164; Decker's Case, 6 Cow. ( N.Y. ) 59; Van Amringe v. Morton, 4......
  • 14 Kan. 175 (Kan. 1875), Ayres v. Probasco
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • Invalid date
    ...Agency, § 49; 2 Johns. 430; 9 Allen, (Mass.) 387; 19 Iowa 273; 24 N.Y. 230; 14 Ga. 173; 1 B. Monroe, 199; 5 How., (Miss.) 71; 4 Kent 462; 19 Ala. 114; 29 Ill. 306; 33 Tex. 139; 8 Blackf. 413; 14 Wis. 631; 12 Am. Law Reg., (N.S.) 689, and note, 711; 23 Grattan, (Va.) But if we concede for th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT