Dickerman v. Ashton
Decision Date | 17 May 1875 |
Citation | 21 Minn. 538 |
Parties | CHARLES E. DICKERMAN <I>vs.</I> JOSEPH ASHTON. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Lorenzo Allis, for appellant.
Bigelow, Flandrau & Clark, for respondent.
This is an action to enforce specific performance of a contract to convey real estate. The contract was in writing, and purported to be under the seal of the defendant, the vendor, and was made on his part by an agent, with only oral authority to make it.
The defendant makes the point that the proof of the authority of the agent was not of that clear and satisfactory character which a court of equity will insist upon as to contracts, the specific performance of which is sought. But the "statement of the case" does not show that it contains all the evidence on that point; and where such is the case, this court presumes that there was sufficient evidence to justify the finding of fact of the court below. Henry v. Hinman, ante, p. 378.
It was decided in Brown v. Eaton, ante, p. 409, that the authority of an agent to make such a contract need not be in writing.
The defendant objects that the contract is void, because it purports to be a specialty, and that the authority of an agent to bind his principal by contract under seal must also be under seal. The proposition is true, that an agent, not authorized by deed, cannot execute a contract which shall be valid, as a deed or specialty, against his principal. But in such case, if the contract need not be by deed, it will be valid as a simple contract, notwithstanding a seal is attached to it. Minor v. Willoughby, 3 Minn. 225. The order denying a new trial is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Riebel v. Mueller
...or considered in this court unless the record shows affirmatively that it contains all the evidence bearing upon that issue. Dickerman v. Ashton, 21 Minn. 538; Brackett v. Cunningham, 44 Minn. 498, 47 N. W. 157; Board of Trustees v. Brown, 66 Minn. 179, 68 N. W. 837; McCoy v. Grant, 144 Min......
-
Coursolle v. Weyerhauser
...(see G. S. 1894, § 4215), the authority of an agent to make a contract for the sale of land was not required to be in writing. Dickerman v. Ashton, 21 Minn. 538; Brown v. Eaton, Id. 409. And, where an agent authorized to contract to sell conveys under a defective power, the deed will be tre......
-
Coursolle v. Weyerhauser
... ... S. 1894, § 4215), the ... authority of an agent to make a contract for the sale of land ... was not required to be in writing. Dickerman v ... Ashton, 21 Minn. 538; Brown v. Eaton, Id. 409 ... And, where an agent authorized to contract to sell conveys ... under a defective power, ... ...
-
Schoregge v. Gordon
...that a party may do without deed, it is none the less effectual that it is done by deed." Tapley v. Butterfield, 1 Met. 515; Dickerman v. Ashton, 21 Minn. 538. 2. It is objected that the partnership name was used. It was a partnership matter in a partnership suit, and the undertaking valid ......