Pierce v. Dekle

• Decision Date: 07 February 1911
• Citation: 54 So. 389,61 Fla. 390
• Parties: PIERCE v. DEKLE et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

54 So. 389

61 Fla. 390

PIERCE v. DEKLE et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

February 7, 1911

Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.

Action by M. L. Dekle and others against R. S. Pierce. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The rule is well settled that an act done by a person in the presence of another, and by his direction or with his consent, as the signing or execution of a sealed or written instrument, for example, is not regarded as the act of an agent, but is the direct act of the person by whose direction it is given.

COUNSEL Paul Carter, for plaintiff in error.

C. L Wilson, for defendants in error.

OPINION

TAYLOR, J.

The defendants in error, as plaintiffs below, sued the plaintiff in error, as defendant below, in the circuit court of Jackson county, to recover the sum of $150 alleged to have been subscribed by the defendant under his hand and seal to aid in the construction of a railroad from Blountstown to Marianna in said county of Jackson. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs below, which the defendant below brings here for review by writ of error. There is in reality but one question presented, and that is whether the instrument of writing under seal that is sued on is binding upon the defendant. The circumstances under which it was signed are substantially as follows: The citizens of the town of Marianna held a public meeting in their courthouse for the purpose of getting up subscriptions of money to induce a railroad company to build its road from Blountstown to Marianna, and at said meeting they had subscription lists, by which each subscriber agreed under his hand and seal to pay to the plaintiffs, as a committee for collection, the sums set opposite their respective names. C. C. Liddon, one of the plaintiffs, sat at a table with one of these subscription lists before him, putting down the subscriptions as they were announced. The defendant, who was present at this meeting told Liddon to put him down for $150, which Liddon then and there in the presence of the defendant did, writing the defendant's name on the list before him and setting opposite to his name the sum of $150. One of the defendant's pleas was non est factum; the contention being that, before Liddon could have bound the defendant under seal, he should have had authority under seal to so bind him. The rule is well settled both in England and in the United States that an act done by a person in the presence of another, and by his direction or with his consent, as the signing or execution of a sealed or written instrument, for example, is not regarded as the act of an agent, but is the direct act of the person by whose direction it is done. 1 Clark & Skyles on Law of Agency, §§ 15 and 52 c; Ball v. Dunsterville, 4 Term Rep. 313; King v. Inhabitants of Longuor, 4 Barn. & Adolphus, 647 Kidder v. Prescott, 4 Foster (N. H.) 263; Fox v Norton, 9 Mich. 207; Lord v. Lord...