The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-10-20

IMPORTANT TO LANDLoRDs AND TEsAsTs-
In the case OF Drnogcant, T. and Annals Fuis.
not vs. Mrs. Mary VI. Kearncy, TO recover the
: possession Of A house under = Ave years lease
Justice David +. smith yesterday afternoon
! rendered the following decision:
Denogeant, {, and Annals Fujenot VS.. Mary
NJ. kearncy. This case comes before me upon
complaint of Denogeant, f., and Ansis Fuje.
not, that Mary NJ. kearney forcibly aud I'm.
lawfully deprives them from the possession
OF premises at the corner Of O street north
and Eighteenth street west known as No. $50
Eighteenth street west, to whom che had
rented the same for five years from and after
the 18th ult
The complainants introduce in evidence a
written lease Of said premises from Richard
NJ. kearney TO them, and also his written au.
Ihorlty from MS, kearney to lease the same.
The authority to lease bears date the 9th day
OF August last, and the lease the 18th day Of
September.
The defendant admits that Richards au.
thority, II not revoked, was full and complete
to execute the lease aforesaid, but claims that
u was revoked before the lease was executed.
considerable evidence was given tending to
show that II was revoked before the lease
was executed; and | am inclined 10 the
opinion that Mrs. Kearney intended to revoke
tichard's power to lease, and to occupy the
house herself, and that Richard had good
reason to believe such to have been her intcn.
tioni and II the co test was between RichaIL
and his mother, Mrs. Keatney, should have
no hesitation In asserting her right but the
right OF the third party comes in, and, in my
opinion, changes the whole face of the case.
II Is proyed-and, indeed, admitted by the de.
icndant-that the written authority from Mira
hearney to her son was exhibited to com.
plainants when the lease was executed, and
that they were ignorant OF any revocation or
withdrawal of that authority. II appears
turthcr that compliments had been in posses
sion under the lease for about week, and
had made considerable repairs.
The only question under this evidence is
whether or not, as u legal proposition, the
complainants acquired any rights under said
lease. The following extract from the decision
OF the court In the case Of Beard vs.. Kirk IRE.
corted in nth N. II. Reports, page 3g7, and
ditcd in full as an authority In LIST Parsons on
Contracts, section 5, and Incorporated in the
text word for word as established law in Story
on Agency, section 400 seems to me coaclu.
sive:
THUS, where an agency cons tituted by writ.
Ing was revoked, but the written authority
wa5 left In the hands Of the agent and he sub.
sequently exhibited II to u third person, who
dealt with him AS agent on the faith OF 1t,
without any notice Of the revocation, the act
of the agent, within the scope of the author.
ity, was held TO bind the principal"
The facts In this case are precisely the same
AS stated In the foregoing extract, and know
OF no decision Oycrruliug principle OF law
modifying II. l therefore decide that said
lease binds the defendants, that the complain.
ants are entitled to possession of the premises
described in 1t, and judgment will be so en-
tered.