Gilbert v. How
| Decision Date | 22 December 1890 |
| Citation | 47 N.W. 643,45 Minn. 121 |
| Parties | GILBERT v HOW. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Powers of attorney receive a strict interpretation, and the authority is never extended by intendment, or construction, beyond that which is given in terms, or is absolutely necessary for carrying the authority into effect.
2. A power executed by two persons, in which they appointed and constituted an agent to convey their lands, and transact their business, construed. Held, that the conveyance of a tract of land owned by one of the constituents as her separate property, and in which the other had no interest, was not authorized by the power.
Appeal from district court, Scott county.
H. J. Peck, for appellant.
Southworth & Coller, for respondent.
The deed in which Mary A. Clark and B. F. Bucklin were named as grantors, and George A. Bucklin as grantee, was executed by Bucklin in person, and by Franklin Chase in behalf, and as the attorney in fact, of Mary A. Clark. The land described therein was then the sole property of the grantor last mentioned, so far as was shown by the record; Bucklin having no interest in it. The power of attorney, by virtue of which Chase assumed to act, was a joint power, executed and delivered to him by Mary A. Clark and B. F. Bucklin. By its terms, the latter constituted and appointed Chase “our true and lawful attorney for us, and in our names,” to enter upon and take possession of all lands “to which we may be in any way entitled or interested, and to grant, bargain, and sell the same, *** and for us and in our names to make *** and deliver good and sufficient deeds; *** and we do hereby further constitute the said Chase our attorney, and in our names to transact and manage all business; *** and also in our names to demand, sue for, recover, and receive all sums of money,” etc.
All powers of attorney receive a strict interpretation, and the authority is never extended by intendment, or construction, beyond that which is given in terms, or is absolutely necessary for carrying the authority into effect, and that authority must be strictly pursued. Rossiter v. Rossiter, 8 Wend. 494; Brantley v. Insurance Co., 53 Ala. 554; Bliss v. Clark, 16 Gray, 60. This rule was applied in Rice v. Tavernier, 8 Minn. 248, (Gil. 214;)Greve v. Coffin, 14 Minn. 345, (Gil. 263;)Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287. And a party dealing with an agent is chargeable with notice of the contents of the power under which he acts, and must interpret it at his own peril. Sandford v. Handy, 23 Wend. 260;Nixon v. Hyserott, 5 Johns. 58.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huling v. Moore
...to be executed by virtue of the power of attorney therein copied, we are confronted with a serious question. See Gilbert v. How, 45 Minn. 121, 47 N. W. 643, 22 Am. St. Rep. 724; Devlin on Real Estate (3d Ed.) § 381. In view of the fact that, even if the transfer to Maverick should be held n......
-
Dishman v. Dougherty
...upon Minnesota and New York authorities holding that powers of attorney require strict interpretation: In Gilbert v. How, 45 Minn. 121, 47 N. W. 643, 22 Am. St. Rep. 724, the court said: "All powers of attorney receive a strict interpretation, and the authority is never extended by intendme......
-
Roy v. Harrison Iron Mining Company
...of the parties, without, however, specifying which. It is doubtful that the same conclusion could be reached under the authority of Gilbert v. How, supra, in which it was held a joint was not sufficient for the conveyance of the separate property of one. Those cases can be distinguished. In......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. McGinnis' Adm'r
... ... be construed strictly, so as to exclude the exercise of any ... power which is not warranted either by the actual terms used, ... or the necessary means of executing the authority with ... effect." To the same effect is the case of Gilbert ... v. How, 45 Minn. 121, 47 N.W. 643, 22 Am. St. Rep. 724; ... Frost v. Erath Cattle Co., 81 Tex. 505; 17 S.W. 52, ... 26 Am. St. Rep. 831; Penfold v. Warner, 96 Mich ... 179, 55 N.W. 680, 35 Am. St. Rep. 591. It is also held that ... powers of attorney delegating authority to perform ... ...