Case Name: Mary Ann Mears, Ex'rx of Wm. Mears, Plaintiff in Error, v. Wm. Morrison, Defendant in Error
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1827-12
Citations: 1 Breese 223
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Ann Mears, Ex’rx of Wm. Mears, Plaintiff in Error, v. Wm. Morrison, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 223–224

Head Matter:
Mary Ann Mears, Ex’rx of Wm. Mears, Plaintiff in Error, v. Wm. Morrison, Defendant in Error.
ERROR TO RANDOLPH.
The usual and appropriate mode of executing "a deed or other writing, by an agent or attorney, is for the agent or attorney to sign his principal’s name, and then his own, as agent.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court by
Chief Justice Wilson.
This is an action of covenant, brought by the plaintiff in error, against the defendant, upon the following obligation:
"I do hereby sell, deliver over, and transfer to William Mears, the time that a negro girl named Harriet, and her children, had to serve William Morrison, she being a daughter of a servant of said Morrison, indentured under the laws of this territory concerning the indenturing of slaves, for the sum of three hundred dollars, payable in twelve months, with interest from this date. Witness my hand and seal, 17th June, 1818.
Guy Morrison, Agent" [seal.]
Upon the trial, a verdict was found for the plaintiff in error, and upon motion of the defendant below, the court arrested the judgment, upon the ground that the instrument declared on created no liability on William Morrison. The correctness of this opinion is the only point to be decided.
J. & T. Reynolds, for plaintiff in error.
Breese, for defendant in error.
Something has been said by counsel, as to the sufficiency of this instrument to impose a liability upon any one. Upon this point the court will give no opinion; it is unnecessary, and indeed, it would be improper to determine upon the rights or obligations of persons not parties in the case. Has Morrison, then, bound himself in person or by his agent? The covenant is in the first person. The signing, by Guy Morrison, is also in the first person. In no part of the instrument is William Morrison referred to as covenanting, not even by recital.
What is the grammatical construction of the language used in the covenant ? It can not be that it is the defendant who covenants, when the covenant commences in the first person, and is signed, not by him, but by Guy Morrison, agent. By no construction of language, or principle of law, can the term agent, affixed to the name of Guy Morrison, be intended to import that he is the agent of William Morrison. The usual and appropriate mode of signing a deed by an agent or attorney, is for 'him to sign his principal's name, and then to sign his own, as agent. Here, the seal is clearly not the seal of William Morrison, but of another person. There are numerous cases to be found im illustration of this rule. It was so decided in the cases of White v. Cuyler, 6 Term Reports, 176. Wilks v. Back, 2 East, 142. 4 Mass. Rep., 595. 5 Mass. Rep., 299; and 2 Wheat., 56. Duvall v. Craig. We are clearly of opinion that the circuit court decided correctly in arresting the judgment, and that its judgment ought to be affirmed, ,
Judgment affirmed.
A draper of a bill may be liable personally, though known to all parties to be agent, as where he signs his name without any qualification. 11 Mass. Rep., 54.
One who covenants for himself, his heirs, &c., and under his own hand and seal, for the act of another, shall be personally bound by his covenant, though he describes himself in the deed as covenanting for, and on the part and behalf of, such other person. Appleton v. Binks, 5 East., 148.
Approved in Graham v. Dixon et al.., 3 Scam., 117. Pensonneau et al. v. Bleakley et al., 14 Ill., 16. Gray et al. v. Gillilan et al., 15 Ill., 454.