Hodge v. Combs
| Decision Date | 01 December 1861 |
| Parties | HODGE v. COMBS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
Leslie Combs brought his bill in the Circuit Court against John L. Hodge, administrator of Andrew Hodge, deceased, William L. Hodge, and James Love, complaining that Love, having in his hands certain bonds of the Republic of Texas which belonged to the plaintiff, sold and transferred them for his own benefit, and without authority or consent of the plaintiff, and that he, the plaintiff, had since learned that they were in possession of and claimed by the other defendants. The bill prays that the defendants be restrained from receiving any money on the bonds, and that the bonds be surrendered to the plaintiff as the true owner, and for further relief.
The answer denies all the main facts set forth in the bill, asserts that Love had authority to make the transfer, and that the plaintiff has no title or just claim to the bonds.
When the cause was first heard the Circuit Court dismissed the bill, but that decree was reversed by the Supreme Court on appeal, and the record remanded for a further hearing. 21 How., 397. Afterwards a decree was made below that the bonds be surrendered to the plaintiff. From this decree the present appeal was taken by the defendants. At the last hearing the evidence was the same as on the first, except the paper embodied in the opinion of Mr. Justice Grier, which was not produced until after the cause had been remanded.
Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, for the appellants. The power of attorney, dated the 13th February, 1840, takes the case out of the principle decided on the former appeal. It is a general power, and gave the attorney all the control over the bonds which the principal himself could have exercised.
Mr. Bradley, of Washington city, for the appellees. The instrument relied on is wholly insufficient to justify the tranfer of the plaintiff's stock. By the law of Texas it could be transferred only on the books of the stock commissioner. 1 Tenn. R., 334. A general authority like this is not sufficient for any special purpose. Paley on Agency, 2; 15 East., 408. If it were, it would authorize the attorney to sell all the property of his principal, or to apply for a divorce in the name of his principal if he had a wife living in Texas.
But even if the paper were sufficient, the defendants have failed to come within the requirements of the law in other respects. This court has decided that they must show the consideration paid to the attorney for the bonds; and they have not done so.
This case was before this court at December term, 1858, and may be found reported in 21 Howard, 397. It was then remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions to allow the parties to amend their pleadings, and take further testimony.
The important question of the case was, whether Love had any authority to transfer the Texas bonds of Combs, and whether Hodge, who claimed them, had given value for them.
This court, in remanding the case, there say: 'It appears that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pope Talbot v. Hawn
-
Dishman v. Dougherty
...6Cush. [Mass.] 117, 52 Am. Dec. 771; Attwood v. Munnings, 7 B. & C. 278; Hubbard v. Elmer, 7 Wend. 446, 22 Am. Dec. 590; Hodge v. Combs, 1 Black, 192 ." The Hackworth Court held that because the power of attorney was "special in its terms" and authorized the agent to subscribe for two share......
-
Mercantile Trust Co., N. A. v. Harper, s. 42312
...power of attorney to "transact all matter of business" did not empower the agent to sell the principal's stock. Hodge v. Combs, 66 U.S. (1 Black) 192, 17 L.Ed. 157 (1861). It has also been held that an agent holding a broad power of attorney lacks the power to make a gift of the principal's......
-
King-Collie Co. v. Wichita Falls Warehouse Co.
...no implied right to sell such property unless sales are regularly in the line of the business intrusted with the agent. Hodge v. Combs, 1 Black, 192, 17 L. Ed. 157; Holmes v. Tyner, 179 S. W. 887. The contract employing Morris as manager of the warehouse limited his authority to receiving c......
-
RESTRAINING THE UNSUPERVISED FIDUCIARY.
...of encompassing authority in a power of attorney instrument finds harmony in the decisions of other courts. See, e.g., Hodge v. Combs, 66 U.S. 192 (1861) (holding that the broad power in a power of attorney to "transact all matter of business" did not empower the agent to sell his principal......