Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-07-02
IN rae sorlsrrIs souRT.
OFFICIAL
Decisions Of the Supreme Court OF tne
state of Tennessee, at kHOxVtlie' sep
temDer Term, 1850.
Geo ". Cain W. Many hsAfa' Aoih Z


STATE OF tennessee, at Knoxville, sep
temper Term, 1850.
Geo W. Cain W. Many Heard, Admir-
This sp,t was brought TO recover the amount o
a bill single dated the I4th Of December 1851. and
due the first day OF March thereafter, for Sziez4,
made payable TO Nancy Heard, admir-, OF James
Heard deceased, and purporting to have been sign
ed by j. S. Cain and G.. W. Cain, with the seals o.
each attached.
raoHs prossotti was entered as to J. S. Cain, who
had left the country the day after the date OF the
bill angle and upon whom process could NOT DC
served and the tried as 70 G. W. Cam upon the
nlea Of non est fact, and judgment being against
him. and new trial refused, he appealed 70 TINS
court 1t Is not pretended thst G. W. Gam signed
or executed said bill single himself or that ne was
nresert when J. s. Cain delivered il as his act to
the obligee: but Il is insisted that it signed byJ
8 Cain in the name Of g. W. Cain by bis authority
and with his consent and 50 delivered-tEe said j.
s. Cain being his agent for that purposes OF If j. ;.
Cain had no authority 70 execute Il Tor U, W. Gam
still that after he had dc-e so, that the latter
acknowledged ratified and confirmed the act and IN
either event liable II is in proof that ) Cain and
q IN. Cain are brothers and lived near each other
that the former purchasing stoek'to drive,
and in some instances G. W. Cain was his security,
and upon one occasion signed his own name and
that Of J. s. Cain 10 note for stock when the lat-
ter had bought--Sfter he had eft-the said u W.
Cain having agreed to become bound with his
brother before the stock were purchased. In other
cases J. S. Cain had signed the name OF u Ian
TO notes and the latter being informed Of the fact
nv the creditor said it was al right; and upon De-
inc informed that his name upon the bills sign
"a in question made the same reply. Il also ap-
pears that Nancy Heard applied 20 him TO make
ort an inventory of James Heard's estate-that he
did so, and that the inventory embraced the OH
single In question 70 which, at that time, ne made
no objection, the inventory being in his own hand
writing; but whether the bill signed was present
or he saw tdoes not appear, only so far as It IS 70
he inferred from the fact of his making the nVen
tory does it appear that any OF the other neses
| above men Toned had seals 10 them or inst when
/ G. W Cain spoke Of them, they were present or
| that he saw them. No authority under seal or n
writing was exhibited authorizing the use Of O. W.
Gains name: nor did it appear that at any time
when he spoke Of this bill single il was present IN
this inventory il described as note, ana 10 the
| testimong 1t is spoken Of in the same manner
UDoD these facts the Jury were instructed BY the
| circuit Judge in substance as follows A man may
| be bound 70 pay note without having signed ais
name 10 il with bis own hand. If he expressly or
by implication authorize another 10 sisn ms hNls
IN such psper he viii be bound by it. If John ;.
! Cain frequently signed George W. Gains name To
notes executed to various persons and H. when IN;
formed of the fact he made objection, out SAID
II was al right this is evidence OF general authority
| TO afix his name 70 such paper.
| If John s. Cain had been accustomed TO slgn
Georpe's name to pr0mIssOry notes, and u appears
| George acaulesced in it It would be fraud upon
! the nIaiutf 10 permit defendant-nOw to deny Il
and relieve himself from responsibility, unless be-
fore the signing Of the note produced IN this cause
he had. bv some means, informed the plaintiff thai
/ John s Cain had no authority TO bind bin to pay
| money. If John s. Cain signed G. W. Gains name
| to the note without authority, the set o. signing
| NAV be subsequently ratified and made valid by the
| acts conduct and declarations of George W. Caln
n aFer the note was executed. George ". Cam Wai
| inforn,ad of the fact and replied it was all right
this would amount to a ratification OF the acts o
signrr ana he would be bound to pay the note, anc
could not afterwards be allowed to dispute it, re
vote il. or repudlate t. r. the note was presented
| TO George w. Cain for the purpose of making al
Inventory and he did not then dispute its validity
whether this amounts 70 proof ia lett you to deter
] mine. If his interest and safety required him q
dispute it. and he silent, Il IS an admission o
the Justice and binding force OF the note and n
could NOT after wards be allowed - repudiate it.
These Instructions are erroneous. The dlstinc
/ finn between sealed and unsealed instruments !
| entirely ignored. To authorize the execution OF
deed IN the name Of another, ths authority must o
! bv deed: and no previous parol assent, or sunse
oueut adoption viii bind tie party, unless the IN
| strumept be acknowledged and Fe-dehTered In
| principles Of law applicable to this case VIII 0
| found in Turbevile and Dlrden IS. Ryan, humpf
| Il3 and numerous other cases IN our own reports
and we need not repeat them. Smith Ct ais "
Dickinson Humph PSI. Mosely vs. the State Q
Arkansas, 4 Sueed 23t AcNuh vs. AeAahAn,
] Head SO.
/ The Judgment will be reversed and the cause F(
| manded for new trial. WRIGHT.
A true COPY: w. &. CAsWELL, Clerk.