History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ahrend v. Odiorne
125 Mass. 50
Mass.
1878
Check Treatment
Ames, J.

The objection that Sturges had no authority to sign the bond in the name of the firm, and thereby to bind his partner, cannot avail the defendant George Odiorne. Both of the partners are defendants in this suit, and their default is an admission that the instrument declared upon was duly executed by them. It must be taken, therefore, as a fact in the case, that the signature by Sturges was affixed to the bond, either with the previous authority or subsequent ratification of his copartner, a circumstance which distinguishes the case from Russell v. Annable, 109 Mass. 72.

The bond was signed and sealed by the defendant, and was delivered to the obligee in that condition. The jury have found that he signed it as a party to the instrument. Under such a state of facts, it is immaterial that he was not named in the bond itself as a party. Smith v. Crooker, 5 Mass. 538.

Exceptions overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: Ahrend v. Odiorne
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Jul 18, 1878
Citation: 125 Mass. 50
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.