¶1 (after stating the facts): The sole question presented is the validity of the deed offered in evidence to pass title. In the argument against it the only reason assigned is that the grantor failed to add to his signature the word “commissioner.” It sometimes happens that when a deed is defective in foim it is necessary to find the intention of the act.
¶2 In this case the intention, from the recitals in the deed, is so manifest that the Court cannot fail to see it. The regularity of the proceedings recited in the case is admitted and also of the sale under which the plaintiff claims.
¶3 "When the donee of a power to sell has an interest of his own in the property affected by the power, and makes a conveyance of the property without reference to the power; the construction is that he intends to convey only what he might rightfully convey without the power. Towles v. Fisher, 77 N. C., 437, and the authorities cited by counsel in -that case. 4 Kent, 334-5 When, however, the donee has no interest in the subject of the conveyance, but only a naked power, as in the ease before us, then the intent apparent upon the face of the instrument to sell, would be deemed a sufficient reference to the power to make the instrument an execution of it, as the words of the instrument could not be otherwise satisfied. Siler v.
¶4 Ward, Repository and Taylor’s Term, 161 (548).
¶5 The case oí Bayson v. Lewis, 84 N. C., 680, relied upon by the defendant, was a questiou of agency and personal liability upon a promise to pay money, and does not hit the mark in the present case.
¶6 Error.