The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1861-05-24

Joel I. Parish.
j cannot concur in the opinion OF the
Court in this case.
The true question presented is. whether
under the pleadings in the case. the APP
pOintmeRt OF the trustee, who made the
sale under which the complainant claims
title. is TO be considered as regular and
valid to give power to the trustee TO make
the sale.
The bill and the deed in trust. which is
made part OF It as an exhibit. show iilat
The deed was executed by David X Cam
mings, to secure certain debts and labili
Ties due by him to Barker & Parish, as a
partnership firm, and to that end, that it
vas signed by both parties. that among
other things, the deed provides, "in the
event OF the death, removal or resigDa.
ion Of said Bentley, the trustee named
n It, the said parties OF the third mart
IRE hereby empowered 10 appoint a suc-
cessor, with full power to carry out the
provisions OF the trust The exhibit va.
ierred toin the bill As showing the appoint
ment Of the new trustee. after recitipg
The execution of the trust deed and M
provision just stated, and the removal
1t the original trustee from this State. SO
Ihat he could not execute the deed. con
eludes thus Now, therefore in accor-
dance with the provision in the said deed
of trust, we the undersigned. the aid
firm Of Barker & Parish, appoint Robert
A. Shell, as the successor OF the said
Bentley dc.
Signed Barker & Parish. fl. 81
The bill alleges. chat it was provided
N SAID deed OF trust that in the event of
me resignation or removal OF the said
DaVid Bentley, the said Barker and Par
sh' were empowered to appoint another
trustee, that said Bently, after partially
-Aecoting SAID trust, removed from this
state, and the said Barker and Parish on
the 9tb of'February, 1888, died appoint
robert Shell, in the place and stead Of
aid Bentley, DC"
These allegations and facts are admit
mitted to be true by the demurrer. and
he question is whether upon such n state
y the case, the appointment of the new
rustee can be held 70 he invalid. becaus.
Mt IN accordance with the power confer
red in the deed touching that point. And
think Il very clear that the appointment
as stated, must be held valid.
In the FIRST place, the appointment was
made according to the substance and
80. 9FttAb VI WV ttof4aiVu OF the deed
authorizing il.
The parties in interested to the decd
were Cummings, the grlntor. and the firm
Of Barker and Parish, creditors whosa
debts were intended 10 be thereby seepr.
ed. It is true. in naming the parties in
the commencement OF it, the individual
names Of the persons composing the frm
are stated to be Bailey D. Barker and
Joel I. Parish" butnot acting in their M.
dividual right, for it immediately follows
that they are acting in the capacity ana
right 81 ..partners trading under the stvlo
and firm name of Barker & Parish .
The entire transaction was 20 secnra
deotseand liabilities on account Of The
firm, and IN that characrer alone did thew
undertake 10 act in the matter. Their
individual name could have been men.
toned, therefore for no other reason
than As a m. re description Of persons
and TO comply with a supposed technical
rule requiring the names OF individual.
composing firm to be stated ia written
contracts made in relation 10 the business
Of the firm. For the same reason. their
individual names are signed to the instrp-
ment. But the purpose Cor which thew
were 80 signed Is fully shown by the BODY
Of the deedto be solely on account of th-
firm, for As the purpose Of the I'D Ia
relation solely 70 partnership concerns me
their Signatures 20 Il as mere indivilnaIs
would ave been improper if not inefGso-
soa9 % 9ecompish the object intended. So