
    Union Bank of Maryland v. Beirne.
    August, 1844,
    Lewisburg.
    (Absent BALDWIN, J.)
    i. Joint Powers of Attorney—How Exercised—Case at Bar.—Letter directed by B. to S. in which he says “I hereby authorize yon and O. B. to use my name as endorser.” Held, a joint power, to be jointly exercised.
    2. Same—Power Executed by One—Ratification—Effect —Case at Bar.—With this letter in his possession S, endorses the name of B. upon his hills in such manner that it does not appear by the paper, to have been done by an agent. Some of these bills are protested, and afterwards B, by an endorsement on the letter, says, “The above is my signature and letter, the legal liabilities of which X hereby acknowledge.” S. again endorses the name of B. on other hills in the same manner: Held, B. not liable on these endorsements.
    This was an action against Andrew Beirne, as endorser of two bills of exchange, one dated the 19th October 1839, and the other the 7th November 1839, drawn by J. B. Steenbergen, and discounted for him by the bank, which had been protested for nonpayment. The case came on for trial, in the circuit court of Rockingham, upon the general issue made up on the plea of non assumpsit; and the question was, whether Steenbergen *had authority to make the endorsements. The supposed authority was contained in a letter of Beirne to him, in these words:
    Union, 14th Sept. 1838.
    “Dear Beal,
    “I this moment received your favour of the 10th, and noted its contents. I leave next week, say Thursday, for S. west, to close my business if possible. Agreeable to your request, I hereby authorize y'ou and O. Beirne jun’r, to use my name as endorser. Please write to A. Beirne jun’r, with respect to the prospect of selling the stock I mentioned in my last, &c. ” (Signed) “Andrew Beirne.”
    “J. B. Steenbergen, Esq.”
    The letter from Steenbergen to Beirne, to which this was a reply, had not been preserved, and Beirne was unable to produce it; but Steenbergen, whose deposition was read on the trial, described it thus, “My letter to him stated there was great risk in. transmitting blank endorsements by mail, and much uncertainty; and as blank endorsements were unlimited as to amounts, there was greater safety in a power of attorney. Eor these reasons I requested him to send me a power.”
    Steenbergen without the concurrence, or knowledge of O. Beirne, had endorsed the name of Beirne upon other bills of his, at the Bank of the United States, besides the bills in question; and those bills coming to the knowledge of Beirne, by notice of protest for nonpayment, he, by his agents, notified the Bank of the U. S. that he was not answerable for the endorsements. The repudiation of his liability at the Bank of the U. S. led Steenbergen, as he deposed, to call on Beirne, and to exhibit to him his letter of the 14th September 1838, as the authority under which he acted. Thereupon Beirne wrote underneath the letter, “The above is my signature and letter, the contents of which had escaped my recollection until shewn by Mr. Steenbergen, *the legal liabilities of which I hereby acknowledge. Sept’r 4, 1839. Andrew Beirne.” When this recognition was made, Steenbergen deposed that no question was raised by Beirne as to whether his letter of the 14th September 1838, authorized an endorsement by the joint act of Steenbergen and O. Beirne jun’r, or by either separately ; and that no such question had suggested itself to him; and that he considered each to have the power to endorse, independent of the other. Beirne had repeatedly loaned his blank endorsements to Steenbergen, and had trusted him with such endorsements after the above recognition of his original letter. The bank received the bills in question believing the endorsements, which did not purport to be by procuration, to be in the proper handwriting of Beirne.
    On the trial in the court below, the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury, “that the defendant’s letter to John B. Steenbergen, of the 14th September 1838, which has been given in evidence for the plaintiffs—taken in connexion with the said Steenbe. gen’s letter to the defendant, to which the defendant’s letter was an answer—as the purport of the said Steenbergen’s letter to the defendant is stated in the said Steenbergen’s deposition, which has been read in evidence for the plaintiffs —and in connexion also with the writing of the 4th Sept. 1839, signed by the defendant, and subjoined to his said letter to the said Steenbergen of the 14th Sept. 1838; which has also been read in evidence for the plaintiffs—did not authorize the said Steenbergen severally and alone to use the defendant’s name as endorser.” .
    The plaintiffs opposed this instruction, and moved the court to instruct the jury, “that in deciding upon the authority of the said John B. Steenbergen to write the name of the defendant Andrew Beirne, as endorser upon bills or notes drawn by him, they must look to all the aforesaid evidence, both written and oral, which is before them—and if from such evidence they believe that. the defendant, Andrew Beirne, did authorize the said *Steenbergen to use his name as endorser in manner aforesaid, and did not revoke such authority prior to the endorsement of his name on the bill in the declaration mentioned, then if they believe from the evidence that the said Steenbergen did endorse the name of the defendant on said bill— that such endorsement is in law the endorsement of the defendant. ’ ’
    The court gave the instruction moved by the defendant, and denied that asked by the" plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs excepted: and the jury having found a verdict for the defendant, and the court having given judgment accordingly,
    On the petition of the plaintiffs, a supersedeas 'was awarded.
    Mason, for appellants.
    Macfarland, Leigh and Johnson, for appellee.
    
      
      He had been counsel in the canse.
    
   By the court.

Judgment affirmed.  