¶1— This is an action of covenant broken, in which the plaintiff seeks to recover whatever may be due him as party to an assignment under seal, made to the defendants by one Rowse, of whom he was a creditor. To entitle him to recover, he must show that he became legally a party thereto. He did not sign the indenture himself, but his name was affixed by Joseph Adams, who purported to act as his attorney. As the contract declared on was a sealed instrument, and as the plaintiff’s rights depend on his having become a party to the same, it is obvious that unless Mr. Adams had authority under seal, to bind his principal, his signature would be ineffectual for that purpose. The only testimony on this subject is from Mr. Adams, who says he had authority from Mr. Baker to execute the assignment, and thinks it was either verbal or written, and that it was not under seal, because he could find no power tinder seal, and has no recollection of having had such a power from him. By his testimony it is left uncertain • whether the authority was verbal or written, while the idea that it was under seal is distinctly negatived. As the attorney was not authorized to bind his principal, the latter is to be regarded as a stranger to the assignment and not entitled to any benefits arising under it. Plaintiff nonsuit.
35 Me. 485
Baker v. Freeman
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided July 1, 1853
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1853-07-01
<p>An anthorization to an agent to affix the seal of Ms principal must itself be under seal.</p> <p>If an agent have affixed to an instrument the name and seal of Ms principal, when authorized to affix the name only, the seal cannot be treated as surplusage, even though the instrument would have been effectual by the signing without the sealing.</p> <p>In an assignment of a debtor’s property in trust, for the benefit of creditors, the trustees covenanted under seal that they would pay proportionate dividends to such creditors as should sign the instrument of assignment, assenting thereto and stipulating that they would release certain claims; —</p> <p>Held, that a creditor whose name had been signed thereto, under proper authority, by an agent who at the same time, without authority annexed a seal to the signature, was not so a party to the instrument as to maintain covenant broken against the assignees for Ms proportion of the dividends.</p>
Decided 1853-07-01