Blackstone v. Buttermore
| Decision Date | 07 January 1867 |
| Citation | 53 Pa. 266 |
| Parties | Blackstone <I>versus</I> Buttermore. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
D. Kaine and C. E. Boyle, for defendant in error, cited Story on Agency, §§ 474, 476, 477; 1 Pars. on Cont. 59, note h; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 68 a and note; Hunt v. Rousmanier, 8 Wheat. 174; Coffin v. Landis, 10 Wright 426; Smyth v. Craig, 3 W. & S. 20; Bromley v. Holland, 7 Vesey 28; Bergen v. Bennett, 1 Caines C. 15; United States v. Jarvis, Davies' R. 287; Irwin v. Workman, 3 Watts 357; Peck v. Harriott, 6 S. & R. 148; 4 Bac. Abr. 140; Clarke v. Courtney, 5 Pet. 349; Bellas v. Hays, 5 S. & R. 437; Comb's Case, 9 Rep. 76 b; Vin. Abr. Authority, F., pl. 4; Paley on Agency 152, ch. 3, pt. 1, § 3; Fowler v. Shearer, 7 Mass. R. 14; Elwell v. Shaw, 16 Id. 42; Bogart v. De Bussy, 6 Johns. R. 94; McCulloch v. McKee, 4 Harris 289.
The opinion of the court was delivered, January 7th 1867, by AGNEW, J.
We have decided the substantial point in this case at the present term upon the appeal of Hartley & Minor from the Orphans' Court of Greene county, opinion by Thompson, J., ante, p. 212.
A power of attorney constituting a mere agency is always revocable. It is only when coupled with an interest in the thing itself or the estate which is the subject of the power, it is deemed to be irrevocable, as where it is a security for money advanced or is to be used as a means of effectuating a purpose necessary to protect the rights of the agent or others. A mere power like a will is in its very nature revocable when it concerns the interest of the principal alone, and in such case even an express declaration of irrevocability will not prevent revocation. An interest in the proceeds to arise as mere compensation for the service of executing the power will not make the power irrevocable. Therefore, it has been held that a mere employment to transact the business of the principal is not irrevocable without an express covenant founded on sufficient consideration, notwithstanding the compensation of the agent is to result from the business to be performed and to be measured by its extent: Coffin v. Landis, 10 Wright 426. In order to make an agreement for irrevocability contained in a power to transact business for the benefit of the principal binding on him, there must be a consideration for it independent of the compensation to be rendered for the services to be performed. In this case the object of the principal was to make sale solely for his own benefit. The agreement to give his agent a certain sum and a portion of the proceeds, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Wilmington v. Bryan
... ... interest, and is revocable." Bancroft v. Ashhurst, 2 ... Grant, Cas. (Pa.) 513; Blackstone v ... Buttermore, 53 Pa. 266. The relation which the defendant ... sustains to the city was merely that of agent, and when the ... statute was ... ...
-
Hill v. United Life Ins. Ass'n
...to nothing. Even if ever valid, it was revoked, ipso facto, by the death of Laban S. Hooper: Frederick's Ap., 52 Pa. 338; Blackstone v. Buttermore, 53 Pa. 266. Nor it be supported as a trust, for the same reasons as given above. There was no consideration for it: Trough's Est., 75 Pa. 115; ......
-
City Of Wilmington v. Bryan
...is not a power coupled with an interest, and is revocable." Bancroft v. Ashhurst, 2 Grant, Cas. (Pa.) 513; Blackstone v. Buttermore, 53 Pa. 266. The relation which the defendant sustains to the city was merely that of agent, and when the statute was repealed he had no contract right which w......
-
State ex rel. West v. Mccafferty
...v. Rousmanier's Adm'rs, 21 U.S. 174, 8 Wheat. 174, 5 L. Ed. 589; Barr v. Schroeder, 32 Cal. 609; Coffin v. Landis, 46 Pa. 426; Blackstone v. Buttermore, 53 Pa. 266." ¶17 Missouri ex rel. Walker v. Walker, 125 U.S. 339, 8 S. Ct. 929, 31 L. Ed. 769, was an application to the state court of Mi......