Case Name: JESSE KERR v. BILLINGSLY AND WITTEN
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1847-09
Citations: 1 Shan. Cas. 7
Docket Number: 
Parties: JESSE KERR v. BILLINGSLY AND WITTEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Cases with Notes and Annotations
Volume: 1
Pages: 7–8

Head Matter:
JESSE KERR v. BILLINGSLY AND WITTEN.
(S. C., Thomp. Cas., 23.)
Knoxville,
September Term, 1847.
SEALED INSTRUMENT. Cannot be altered or changed by parol authority.
The makers of a sealed instrument, though it be negotiable, are not liable on it where a blank is filled by their agent having merely a. parol authority to do so.
1. Sealed instrument executed by agent under parol authority, not binding.
A person is not bound on a sealed instrument executed by an agent under parol authority, nor is he bound upon a subsequent parol adoption. Boyd v. Dodson, 5 Hum., 37.
2. Partner or agent can execute deed or instrument under seal, when.
Where a partner executes a bond or note under seal for a debt of the firm without authority from the other partners to exe cute in their name, the partnership debt is extinguished, and it becomes the individual debt of the partner so executing the note. Nunnelly v. Doherty, 1 Yer., 26; Waugh v. Carriger, 1 Yer., 31. So, where one partner executes his individual note for the partnership debt, the simple contract is extinguished as to all the partners. Pain v. Garner, 1 Yer., 32, 33; Harris v. Miller, Meigs, 158. One partner cannot bind his copartner by a bond or note under seal, or by a deed conveying real estate, unless he be expressly empowered to do SO' by deed. Blackburn v. McCallister, Peck, 37Í; Napier v. Catron, 2 Hum., 534, 536. But he may make an assignment under seal of the partnership effects for the benefit of creditors. Lasell v. Tucker, 5 Sneed, 33. See Mygatt v. McClure, 3 Head, 497; Williams v. Roberts, 6 Cold., 497, 498. But the power and appointment of an agent to make a deed for a corporation need not be by deed. Hopkins v. Turnpike, 4 Hum., 410, 411; Bank v. Bank, 4 Hum., 370.
This was an action in the circuit court of Roane county brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, upon a sealed instrument originally executed for the sum of eight hundred and ■ — —— dollars. Afterwards, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, and in the absence of the defendants, the blank was filled with the words “eighty four,” by an agent of the defendants, having merely a parol authority to do so. Each of the defendants demurred and filed a special plea of non est factum, upon which the circuit court held the writing void, and gave judgment for the defendants Billingsly and Witten, and the plaintiff appealed in error to this court.

Opinion:
Reese, J.:
This case falls within the principle of Smith et al. v. Dickinson, 6 Humphreys, 261, and Turbeville v. Ryan, 1 Humphreys, 118. Before the plaintiff can make the defendants liable, he must show that the agent had authority by deed to fill the blank in the instrument. The fact that this is by statute a negotiable instrument, does not put it upon the footing of negotiable instruments with respect to the authority to execute.
Judgment affirmed.
3. Private seals abolished.
Since the above decisions about sealed instruments, it is provided by statute (Code, sec. 3213) that the use of private seals in wj-itten contracts, except the seals of corporations, is abolished, and the use of such seal does not affect the character of such contract in any respect.
4. Seals of corporations.
The seal of a corporation implies authority, and is required to be affixed to its deed of conveyance of real estate. Notes 2 and 5 under sec. 3213 of Code.