
    Lane v. Corr, Appellant.
    
      Signing release of liens without authority.
    
    A person who signs a release of liens, falsely representing that he has authority to do so from the owner of the liens, is liable in damages to a person purchasing the property on the faith of the release.
    Argued Jan. 6, 1893.
    Appeal, No. 453, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, Charles J. Corr, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1890, No. 181, on- verdict for plaintiff, William S. Lane.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and Dean, JJ.
    Trespass for signing release of lien without authority.
    
      At the trial, before Fell, J., it appeared that plaintiff bought several houses from William H. Greenfield. Defendant’s father, James Corr, furnished building stone, lime and sand for the houses and had a lien for the materials furnished, and also for mason work done by him. Prior to the sale of the houses to plaintiff, defendant, without authority from his father, signed a release of liens, and this release was shown to plaintiff, who, relying upon it, bought the houses. Subsequently James Corr filed a mechanic’s lien and issued a scire facias upon it. At the trial of the scire facias it appeared that defendant had no authority to sign the release. Plaintiff was accordingly compelled to pay the lien, amounting to $256.38. See 134 Pa. 503.
    The court charged in part as follows :
    “ The plaintiff’s case here rests upon the allegation that at the time of the settlement for these properties he paid the whole amount of the purchase money upon the faith of the release of liens. That release was signed, as far as we are concerned with it here, ‘ James Corr, per C. J. Corr.’ Charles J. Corr, who is the defendant in this action, no doubt acted innocently in the matter; that is, he had no intention to deceive or wrong anyone by what he did. He signed the release at the request of Mr. Greenfield; [he did, however, an unauthorized act; he had no authority to sign it, and, if by that act a third party had been misled to his injury, he is liable.] [1] [If one signs a paper in this way, holding himself out as having authority when he has not, he is liable to a party who has been misled by his act.] [2] [If Mr. Lane is entitled to recover in this case, it is because he made a settlement for the property upon the faith of the signature to the release.] [3] If he acted outside of that, if he acted upon the statement of Mr. Greenfield, or if he paid the money in any way without acting upon the faith of the signature, then, of course, he has no cause of action.”
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were (1.-3) instructions, quoting them.
    
      Bolert Ingram, for appellant,
    cited: Deacon v. Greenfield, 141 Pa. 467; Jones v. Horner, 60 Pa. 214.
    
      William B. Lane for appellee,
    cited: Kroeger v. Pitcairn, 101 Pa. 311; Weare v. Gove, 44 N. H. 196 ; Bond v. Aitkin, 6 W. & S. 165; Cady v. Shepherd, 11 Pick. 400; Alcorn’s Ex’r v. Cook, 101 Pa. 209; McConn v. Lady, 10 W. N 493 ; White v. Skinner, 13 Johns. N. Y. 307.
    at bar, January 5, 1893:
   Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.  