Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1879-09-19

9pU cannot DC rendered VALID Oy oieu00es
quent ratification" It il true, thas, With
usual care, this author notices . few, excep-
tionaleass plainly beneficial 70 the infant
yefin II Psrson's Oh contractss p. 243, it 10
said thas y.an infants w~arsssa.of attorney
"or his appointment Of an
agent Of any kind" has been declared to be
sbsolutely void.
In Bool ". Nix, II Wend. r., 119, the
rule was admitted to be, that all dseds and
instruments under seal executed By an in
eant, were voidable only, with tho single
exception Of those which deegats a naked
authority. And further, that.sn infant can.
not give q delegation of power.
See Bennett VI. Davis, 6 Cow, 800.
Roof Va. Stafford, z i'd, 100.
Knox vs.. Flack, % Pa, H. B., 337.
Lawrence ". McArter, 10 Ohio, 81.
Cole va. Penuoyer,, IA Ill, 1853.
Against the current of the common Law,
it cannot, therefore, be contended that an
act done b., another for an infant, which act
must necessarily be done by letter Of attor-
ney under seal, is not absolutely vsid. This
particular disability, after all, works no
hardship but rather . benefit for the
disposition of the infants property 10
perhaps, better secured through ..
guardian, under the control of .
court. This rule Of the common Law gov
erned in this territory until January IL,
1866, when, - declaratory Of it, and affirm.
ing it, the legislative assembly enacted that
q minor cannot give a delegation of poccr."
Civil code of 1866, 8 Is.
And when the civil code came up for re.
vision, in 1877, this section was re.enacted ;
and it remains the Law.
Upon recurring to the findings it will be
noticed that the alleged power remained
unexecuted- and unrecorded until January
"a, 1856, the date of the conveyance, q
period of three years and eight months. At
that time the delegation of power was void
not merely at common Law, but also BY force
Of the statute.
In this connection, another point should
not be overlooked. Laying entirely aside
all question Of minority, there is, it eeems,
another ground upon which the deed is i'm.
perative. Between the dates of the two in.
struments, the state q condition of the
plaintiff became changed ; for on the 9th
of February, 1865, (as the ninth finding
ehows), she was married to Charles Wan.
bole, and has ever since. continued his
wife.
That the defendant, as we'll as the holder
of the power, had actual notice Of the mar
riage, it is quite evident from the convey
ance itself, which purports to be made by
Elizabeth Wambole, formerly Arconge, by
her attorney in fact; and to which the latter
appends her name as elizabeth Wambole,
formerly Elizabeth Arconee, BY J. B. S.
Todd. her attorney )" and moreover it il
acknowledged BY the attorney for her a.
such married woman. These being the
facts. did they amount 70 . revocation Of the
power?
The instrument of May II, 1852, con-
tains no words of conveyance or of assign.
ment. 1t constitutes nopart of . security
to the donee. Il is . mere = to sell
and convey. Il ia hot, therefore, =
rower coupled With an Interest, to consti.
tute which therssmnsts be An interest in the
thing .itself, or in the subject of the agency ;
and not merely in the execution Of the
power. $50 . j
II wss formerly held that if1a feme sole
created an attorney, and then married, it
would revoke such power; and this even
with regard to = warrant of attorney to con.
fess Judgment. I -
2Kent's Com, CAS-.
Judson W. Sierra, % Texas, 365-37l.)
But this broad doctrine has been nodif.
ed; and in Euue: VS. Clark, 2 Pa. II. B., 2334,
it is held that if . fewe sole give . Warrant
of attorney to confess judgment on her bond
and sfterward marry, the warrant 10 no,
revoked; and this because, il such case,
there il . power coupled with an interestin
the obligee. But in the same dscisiou it j,
sQcededa that "Ifit Be . power ~unooupled
with an interest-as for example to collect
"debts-a subsequent marriage, with notice,
viii amount tos rsvocetion."
Proceeding, however, from common to
statutory law. it will be seen that BY section
4s6 81, the civil code Of January IL, 1866
(herein subsequently, quoted). : married
woman is declared incapable of contracting
BY any grant of her real property, 20 - tc
pass her estate therein, unless IN thS.parti.
cuiar mode prescribed, to-wit: BY personaI