Affirmance

The confirmation of a voidable act by the party acting, who is to be bound thereby. The term is in accuracy to be distinguished from "ratification," which is a recognition of the validity or binding force, as against the party ratifying, or some act performed by another person, and from "confirmation," which would seem to apply more properly to cases where a doubtful authority has been exercised by another in behalf of the person ratifying; but these distinctions are not generally observed with much care. 1 Pars. Cont. 243. Express afiirmance takes place where the party declares his determination of fulfilling the contract. Dud. (Ga.) 203. Implied affirmance arises from the acts of the party without any express declaration. 15 Mass. 220. See 10 N. H. 194; 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 305; 1 Pars. Cont. 243; 1 Sharswood, Bl. Comm. 466, note 10. In Appellate Practice. The approval by an appellate court of the judgment or order under review.

The confirmation of a voidable act by the party acting, who is to be bound thereby. The term is in accuracy to be distinguished from ratification, which is a recognition of the validity or binding force as against the party ratifying, of some act performed by another person; and from confirmation, which would seem to apply more properly to cases where a doubtful authority has been exercised by another in behalf of the person ratifying; but these distinctions are not generally observed with much care; 1 Pars. Contr. 243. Express affirmance takes place where the party declares his determination of fulfilling the contract; Martin v. Byrom, Dudl. (Ga.) 203. A mere acknowledgment that the debt existed, or that the contract was made, is not an affirmance; Robbins v. Eaton, 10 N. H. 561; 2 Esp. 628; Chambers v. Wherry, 1 Bail. (S. C.) 28; Benham v. Bishop, 9 Conn. 330, 23 Am. Dec. 358; Alexander v. Hutcheson, 9 N. C. 535; Ford v. Phillips, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 203; Martin v. Byrom, Dudl. (Ga.) 203; it must be a direct and express confirmation, and substantially (though it need not be in form) a promise to pay the debt or fulfill the contract; Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 479; Rogers v. Hurd, 4 Day (Conn.) 57, 4 Am. Dec. 182; Wilcox v. Roath, 12 Conn. 550; Hale v. Gerrish, 8 N. H. 374; Bigelow v. Grannis, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 120; Millard v. Hewlett, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 301. Implied affirmance arises from the acts of the party without any express declaration; Boston Bank v. Chamberlin, 15 Mass. 220. See Aldrich v. Grimes, 10 N. H. 194; Curtin v. Patton, 11 S. & R. (Pa.) 305; 1 Bla. Com. 466, n. 10. See Confirmation; Ratification.

In praetice. Theconfirming, or ratifying a former law, or judgment. Cowell; Blount. The confirmation and ratification by an appellate court of a judgment, order, or decree of a tower court brought before it for review. See AFFIRM. A dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution is not an “aflirmance” of the judgment, J4N. Y. 60. The ratification or confirmation of a voidable contract or act by the party whe is to be bound thereby. The term is in accuracy to be distinguished from ratification, which is a recognition of the validity or binding force as against the party ratifying, of some act performed by auother person; and from confirmation, which would seem to apply more properly to cases where a doubtful authority has been exercised by another in behalf of the person ratifying; but these distinctions are not generally observed with much care. Bouvier.

The confirming, or ratifying a former law, or judgment. CotoelL Blount. Used in this sense, in the statute 8 Hen. VI., c. 12. Id, The confirmation of the judgment of a court by a superior court on appeal, or writ of error. See Affirm. The confirmation, acknowledgment, or adoption of a former act; as the affirmance by a person of full age, of an act done during minority. 2 Kenfs Com, 234 — 238.