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


also as to their individual aclxnowleas-
ment Of the instrumerrt. which was
wholly useless art. and cannot properly
have any effect upon the question uader
consideration.
The legal act which the firm Of Bar
keF and Perish were called on TO do. and
which it must be presumed was intended
% oe done. was % accert The provisions
Of the deed. and in ARSE - She Stsuls-
notains, and & was only Necessary that
they should agree 70 acd snt ihe security
WITH the Terms specified. To thsl end
alone was lt necessary oa proper thar they
shosA-a iEn Is and ia signing d, they
were merely accepting a security Tor o
partnership dahl. and therefore, it IS very
Z clear that Z would have been perfectly
competent Ter them to sisn y b. their
Z arm nalne.
Then who are '.lhep aFties e the third
Z part. q designated im fhe naeat th4nk
I il clear. THAI thea were the firm sc Bar
ker and Parish, end lst the power q APP
{ palntnenl was conlerled upon them as
such
# there eould bc any doubt upon this
point. from the phras eoaeEy ol abe deed,
4 y must be removed ig tae allegation Of
the oill that. by The deed. ''the said Bar
Aei 8 Aar'-sh were enlpnseHeo % appoint
another tfusIea. which, being admitted
bT the q anaurrer IS conclusive as the
I question A noM presented upon the point
that the power % appoint was given to the
firm.
i VII be observed ihat the decd does
not spe7,iiy the manner IN which this
Re" e '9i appointment S. 81 ie exercised
whether ~ aaed. or hv waiting sealed or
unse-.i'7d or Is rsrcl e therefore, the
sga-ta ntiai --parHes Of the third Part,
"heFe Barker Parish. IS parttUrs, g
eannot oe doubted ihai the appointment
made by them. as shown bs THE fIeseiiRgs,
~as Wiinfn the power conferred ay the
deed. EoT though the instrument Of APP
polnt nent signed in the firm name be
inFsiid a. q deed O bind bafh tariuers.
vet tue appaantuleut. not being Required
e be bT ws-tiHa under seai valid heca1Se
The s,asi may oe treated is useless and as
a nuiHtv.
bul another view Of the subject renders
It slill clearer that the aprointmeut should
be held valid, as the question is now pre-
scented for oousderatiou.
1onceding that the power was intend
ca 20 pc conferred upon the partners 20
De exercised ~ them Jointly. aud thar a
partner has generally no authority 70 mno
hrs co-partneF ay deed yes # the aeH 81
appointment was hy abe direct authority
OF consent oi both tha partners. "a Y + NJ
- parties, though ac.uaIlv signed bE aut
one OF them usihs tise Joint OF firm
names OF the Two ider-d as the act
Of the partners * q we'll settled that z
partner may execute deed on behal
and IN The nanle 81 The hsm. and that 1t
viii be valid 90 him and the other CO.
partners by whose consent &c Is SO exc
cuted Coliier Oh Part 800, 9th amer.
edit and cases there cited and in notes.
G 90 Sc I4Hk taes n
I diViduals. tits equally clear that, IF signed
!. i by the consent Of both. t would be valid
as TO both. and there being no mode Of
7 executing the power Of appointment pre-
seribed ia tire deed as above stated, what
y ever would DE the valid act upon general
d principles. TO the party making the
appointment would b. valid In the mat
fer contemI lated by the deed. lt, there
I fore, il was signed hy one partner in the
! hame Of both and by The consent and in
the presence Of the other. it would be
= valid as the Joint act 81 both. whether de-
2 ting as partners or as individuals.
Now the bin allepa THAT .'the said Bar
{ lSer IS Parish, on che 9th day Of February,
u 1858, did appoint Robert Shell. in the
Z place and stead Of ihe said Bentley TO
act as trustee. and this being admitted by
the demurrer, and not being neeatved by
any thing appearing 10y the exhibits II
a { appears to me that the conclusion is in
: evitabie that the appointment was the
+ act 81 both partners. and therefore valid
under the provision Of the deed, whether
. regarded as their act as partners or as IN
e diYiduals, for it IS alleged to be their act,
and that is admitted
In any view Of the case, as 1t is now pre-
2. scented on the pleadiugs. 1t appears TO me
that the validity Of the appointment is
clear. HANDY.