Court Opinion

ID: 9885780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:29:14.49637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:57.724763
License: Public Domain

By the Court.

As it has been conceded by the counsel for the defendant, that a verbal authority from him to Bright to conclude- and also to sign as his agent, the instrument and agreement in question, would be sufficient for that purpose, whether there was such authority in fact given to him by the defendant in this case, was a question of fact to be determined alone by the jury upon all the evidence they have before them in regard to the matter. The question of the admissibility or relevancy of evidence in any case before the court, is, of course, a ques*439tian of law which the court is to consider and determine, but the effect, weight, or sufficiency of it when admitted, is a matter alone for the consideration and decision of the jury, subject to the instructions and directions of the court as to the rules and principles of law applicable to the proof before them in any case. The majority of the court is, therefore, of the opinion that the receipt and instrument drawn and signed by Mr. Bright as the agent of the defendant, and delivered by him to the plaintiff on the 29th of November 1865, purporting upon its face to be a written contract of sale of the property mentioned to the plaintiff by the defendant, by the signer of it as his agent, having been duly proved as such, is admissible in evidence as a fact proved in the case, but at the same time we must add hypothetically, that if he had no express authority, verbal or otherwise, from the defendant to sign it as his agent, then that pertains to the effect and sufficiency of it for the purpose for which it is offered, and if the jury should so find from all the evidence before them in the case, it would nof be binding upon the defendant as a contract of sale made and executed by his authority to the plaintiff'.