Case Name: WALTER S. PIERCE and others, Appellants, v. EDWARD H. MORRISON and others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1875-12
Citations: 13 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 235
Docket Number: 
Parties: WALTER S. PIERCE and others, Appellants, v. EDWARD H. MORRISON and others, Respondents.
Judges: Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 13
Pages: 235–235

Head Matter:
WALTER S. PIERCE and others, Appellants, v. EDWARD H. MORRISON and others, Respondents.
Arbitration — authority of one pa/rtner to consent to — oma/rd — presumption in fa/oor of.
Although the weight of authority may be in favor of the rule, that one partner cannot bind his copartner by a submission to arbitration (Morse on Arb., 7), yet any manner of actual authority given by one partner to his copartner, will be sufficient to bind the firm. It is enough, whatever its form, if it contain a distinct expression of the intent, to allow the partner acting, to do it for him. (Morse, supra; Mackay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns., 285; Rand, on Arb., 20; McBride v. Hagan, 1 Wend., 326.) The non-signing partner, by consenting to and authorizing the signing of the other, and by subsequently ratifying the deed thus done by act and words, renders the submission valid. (Harrington v. Higha/m, 15 Barb., 527.)
It will be presumed that the arbitrators have acted within the terms of the submission unless the contrary appears. (3 Phil, on Ev. [Cow. & Hill’s Notes], 1027; Morse on Arb., 179.)
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the report of a referee.
J. S. L. Oummvns and A. II. H. Dcmson, for appellants. Thomas Allison, for respondents.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Brady, J.
Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.