Case Name: WILLIAM TAPPAN v. GEORGE F. REDFIELD AND OTHERS
Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1846-03
Citations: 5 N.J. Eq. 339
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM TAPPAN v. GEORGE F. REDFIELD AND OTHERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
WILLIAM TAPPAN v. GEORGE F. REDFIELD AND OTHERS.
An authority to another to execute for the owner, and in his absence, a deed for land, must be by deed.
Solomon Russ, of Conklin, New York, and George F. Red-field, of Perth Amboy, New Jersey, were, it is alleged, partners in trade, in the oyster business. They owned, as tenants in common, a tract of land in Middlesex county, New Jersey, of twenty acres, unconnected with the partnership business, and Redfield owned a lot in Perth Amboy. On the 1st of April, 1836, while Russ was in New York, at his residence, Redfield executed, in the partnership name of Russ & Redfield, a bond to the complainant, conditioned for the payment, by Solomon Russ and George F. Redfield, of $400, with interest, in one year j and to secure the payment thereof, Redfield also executed, in the name of Russ & Redfield, a mortgage to the complainant on the said two parcels of land, Redfield’s wife joining in the mortgage. The certificate of acknowledgment states that George F. Redfield, of the firm of Russ & Redfield, and Ann Maria his wife, appeared, &e., and acknowledged that they signed, sealed and delivered the mortgage as their act and deed.
The bill is filed for the foreclosure of this mortgage, and a decree is prayed for the sale of the whole twenty-acre tract.
To establish the mortgage as against Russ, the complainant relies on the allegation, and the proof he has offered to sustain it, that when Russ was at Amboy, a few months before the giving of the bond and mortgage, he and Redfield agreed that money should be borrowed for the use of the firm, from the complainant, on bond and mortgage; and that Russ, at that time, verbally authorized Redfield to sign the bond and mortgage for him.
H. V. Speer, for the complainant.
Leupp, for the defendant Russ.

Opinion:
The Chancellor.
It is not necessary to inquire whether this verbal authority is sufficiently proved; or whether, if the authority was sufficient, the mortgage was properly executed under it. The mortgage cannot be valid as against Russ. A freehold interest in land cannot pass by parol. 2 Black. Com. 297, 312; 12 Johns. Rep. 73. And an authority from the owner to another to execute for him, and in his absence, a deed for 3ueh an interest, must be by deed. 1 Wend. 424; 5 Munro 188; Com. Dig., (Attorney,) ch. L, 65.