Case Name: BENJAMIN BROOKSHIRE vs. SHADRACH VONCANNON
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1845-12
Citations: 6 Ired. 231
Docket Number: 
Parties: BENJAMIN BROOKSHIRE vs. SHADRACH VONCANNON.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
BENJAMIN BROOKSHIRE vs. SHADRACH VONCANNON.
A power of attorney, or other authority, is in general revocable from its nature; and the power of revoking an authority may be exercised at any time before its actual execution.
Appeal from the Superior Gourt of law of Randolph county, at the Fall Term, 1845, his Honor Judge Dick presiding.
The defendant, in right of his wife, was entitled to a tenth part of the personal estate of one Clark, who had died intestate in the State of Alabama. Pie gave a power of attorney to the plaintiff, (who was also one of the next of kin of Clark, and was going out to receive his share of the estate,) to receive of the administrator his share also of the said estate, and bring it home. And the defendant agreed to pay one-sixth of the plaintiff’s expenses, and also, as the plaintiff contended, agreed by parol to give him ten per cent, commissions on the value of his share, which ho should receive and bring to this State. The plaintiff made one trip to Alabama, and failed to get any part of the share of the personal estate due to the defendant. The defendant did not object to pay the one-sixth of the expenses of this trip, but he insisted that he whs liable for no more, and, on the trial, offered evidence tending to shew, that he had revoked the power and agency of the plaintiff, before he made the second trip. It was insisted, on behalf of the plaintiff, that if he, by the terms of the original agreement, was to be paid his expenses, and also ten per cent, for his time and trouble, then his power was coupled with an interest, and the defendant could not revoke it; and, that let the evidence as to the revocation he either way, the plaintiff was therefore still entitled to recover his ex- ponses of both trips, and, also, the -ten per cent, on the value of the share brought by him, on a second trip, to the defendant. The Court charged the jury, that, if the original agreement was, that the defendant was to pay one-sixth of the expenses, and ten per cent, on the value of the share brought home to him, then the power of attorney was not revocable, and they should give the plaintiff damages for one-sixth of his expenses in both trips, and also what they were satisfied was right for the per cent. The jury gave the plaintiff damages for more than the expenses of the first trip.
The defendant moved for a new trial, for mis-direction as to the law. The motion was over-ruled, judgment rendered, and the defendant appealed.
Iredell# for the plaintiff.
Morehead, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Daxjel, J.
The charge of the Judge was, as we understand it, unconformity to the prayer of the plaintiff's counsel; and, received in that light, we think that it was erroneous. A power of attorney, or other authority, is in general revocable from its nature ; and the power of revoking an authority may be exercised at any moment before the actual execution of it. Puley on Agency, 184,185. Even if it be true at law, that a power, which is part of a security for money, or coupled with an interest, cannot be revoked, yet the doctrine has no application to this case. The plaintiff, neither when the power was given to him, nor when the defendant contended that it was revoked, had any interest in the distributive share of the defendant. If he did the labor, he was then to be compensated as above mentioned ; but there was no obligation on the plaintiff to go to the West for the property, •and when the defendant insisted, that he had made the revocation, the plaintiff had never received any of the said property. We think that there must be a new trial.
Pkr Curiam. Judgment reversed, and venire de novo.