Case Name: JACOB CUYLER, Appellant, v. HASTINGS MERRIFIELD, Impleaded, etc., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1875-10
Citations: 12 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 559
Docket Number: 
Parties: JACOB CUYLER, Appellant, v. HASTINGS MERRIFIELD, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.
Judges: Present — Smith, P. J., Gilbeet and MeewiN, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 12
Pages: 559–559

Head Matter:
JACOB CUYLER, Appellant, v. HASTINGS MERRIFIELD, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.
Agent com/not depart from instructions — ratification.
The defendant’s son, a minor, being desirous of purchasing an organ, defendant authorized his wife to write his name on the hack of his son’s note, but said he would not he a maker, or sign a joint note. In his absence his wife signed his name as a joint maker with the son. Held, that she had no authority to do so, and that he was not hound thereby. (Dunlap’s Paley Agency [4th Am. ed.],202; Parsons on Bills, 107; Fenny. Ha/rrison, 3 Term, 757; 7 Taunt., 455;'9 Bing-ham,*19.)
After the maturity of the note, defendant wrote to the holder of it, stating that he had agreed to put his name on the hack of the note, and that, in his absence, it was put on the face of it; that his son was good, and that as soon as he (the son) could dispose of a crop he had in hand, they would do exactly the right thing. Held, that this did not amount to a ratification of the unauthorized act of his wife. (Commercial Bank of Buffalo v. Warren, 15 FT. Y., 577; Story on Ag., § 253.)
Appeal from a judgment entered on the report of a referee dismissing the complaint.
Jacob B. Decker, for appellant. Sedgwick, Kennedy & Tracy, for respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
MeewiN, J.
Present — Smith, P. J., Gilbeet and MeewiN, JJ.
Judgment affirmed.