R. S. PIERCE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
M. L. DEKLE, C. C. LIDDON, AND J. D. SMITH, COMPOSING THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
R. S. Pierce sued to avoid a $150 subscription pledge made under seal for railroad construction, arguing the subscription was not binding because it was signed by another person without express written authority. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment against Pierce, holding that when a person directs another to execute a sealed instrument on their behalf in their presence and with their consent, the instrument binds the directing party without requiring the agent to have prior written authority.
Yes. An act done by a person in the presence of another and by his direction or with his consent, such as the signing or execution of a sealed instrument, is not regarded as the act of an agent but is the direct act of the person by whose direction it is done, and no prior authority under seal is required.
“an act done by a person in the presence of another, and by his direction or with his consent, as the signing or execution of a sealed or written instrument, for example, is not regarded as the act of an agent, but is the direct act of the person by whose direction it is done”
States the core legal principle governing when an instrument executed by one person binds another without requiring the executor to have prior written authority.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCitizens of Marianna held a public meeting to solicit subscriptions for railroad construction from Blountstown to Marianna. At the meeting, subscripti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Subscription Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
The defendants in error as plaintiffs below sued the plaintiff in error as defendant below in the Circuit Court of Jackson County to recover the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars alleged to have been subscribed by the defendant under his hand and seal to aid in the construction of a railroad from Blountstown to Marianna in said county of Jackson. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff’s below which the defendant below brings here for review by writ of error. There is in reality but one question presented and that is whether the instrument of writing under seal that is sued on is binding upon the defendant. The circumstances under which it was signed are substantially as follows: The citizens of the town of Marianna held a public meeting in their court house for the purpose of getting up subscriptions of money to induce a railroad company to build its road from Blountstown to Marianna, and at said meeting they had subscription lists by which each subscriber agreed under his hand and seal to pay to the plaintiffs as a committee for collection the sums set opposite their respective names.
C. C. Liddon, one of the plaintiffs, sat at a table with one of these subscription lists before him putting down the, subscriptions as they were announced. The defendant who was present at this meeting told Liddon to put him down for one hundred and fifty dollars which Liddon then and there in the presence of the defendant did, writing the defendant’s name on the list before him and setting opposite to his name the sum of $150.00. One of the defendant’s pleas was non est factum. The contention being that before Liddon could have bound the defendant under seal he should have had authority under seal to so bind him. The rule is well settled both in Eng. land and in the United States that an act done by a person in the presence of another, and by his direction or with his consent, as the signing or execution of a sealed or written instrument, for example, is not regarded as the act of an agent, but is the direct act of the person by whose direction it is done. 1 Clark & Skyles on Law of Agency, sections 15 and 52 c.; Ball v. Dunsterville, 4 Term Rep. 313; King v. Inhabitants of Longuor, 4 Barn. & Adolphus, p. 647; Kidder v. Prescott, 4 Foster (N. H.) 263; Fox v. Norton, 9 Mich. 207; Lord v. Lord, 58 N. H. 7, 42 Am. Rep. 565; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 30 N.
J. Eq. 193; Mackay v. Bloodgood, 9 John. (N. Y.) 284; Fichthorn v. Boyer, 5 Watts (Pa.) 159, 30 Am. Dec. 300; Fitzpatrick v. Engard, 175 Pa. St. 393, 34 Atl. Rep. 803; Gardner v. Gardner, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 483, 52 Am. Dec. 740; Reinhart v. Miller, 22 Ga. 402, 68 Am. Dec. 506; Jansen v. McCahill, 22 Cal. 563, 83 Am. Dec. 84; Lewis v. Watson, 98 Ala. 479, 13 South. Rep. 570, 39 Am. St. Rep. 82.
These are various assignments of error raising technical questions as to the pleadings, and the introduction of evidence and as to one charge given by the judge, we have examined all of these objections, and have come to the conclusion that although there may have been error from a hypertechnical standpoint, yet the case seems to have been tried and decided on its real merits, and we see nothing in any of the rulings below that will justify a reversal of the judgment of the Circuit Court, and such judgment is, therefore, hereby affirmed at the cost of the plaintiff in error. Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur;
Whitfield, C. J., and ShackLeford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Dowling, 81 Fla. 867 (Fla. 1921)…idence to the effect that tbe person who did sign for him did so in his prsence and at his direction and that such person frequently signed other papers for him in that way. This was a sufficient signing of the instrument. In Pierce v. Dekle et al., 61 Fla. 390, 54 South. Rep. 389, in dealing with a similar question, this court said: “The rule is well settled, both in England and in the United States, that an act done by a person in the presence of another, and by his direction or with his consent, as the…
-
Johns v. Bowden, 72 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1916)…oint may have been ruled by the judge below, when it is clearly apparent that the party complaining was In no way injured by such improper ruling.” Also see Southern Home Insurance Co. v. Putnal, 57 Fla. 199, 49 South. Rep. 922, and Pierce v. Dekle, 61 Fla. 390, 54 South. Rep. 389, 25 Ann. Cas. 1355. We must hold that the first three assignments have not been sustained. This brings us to the consideration of the remaining assignments, which are argued together and which attack the correctness of the decre…
-
United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Banco Suizo-Panameno, 422 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1970)…esence of another and by the other’s direction or with his consent, even the signing or execution of a sealed or written instrument, is not deemed the act of an agent, but is the direct act of a person by whose direction it is done. Pierce v. Dekle, 61 Fla. 390, 54 So. 389 (1911); Smith v. Dowling, 81 Fla. 867, 89 So. 315 (1921). In a recent Florida criminal case, State v. Hickman, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 254, cert. den. without opinion, 194 So. 2d 618, in which an arrest warrant was challenged because it…