
    No. 119.
    Rogers, Ketchum & Grosvernor, plaintiffs in error, vs. Bowen & Bros. defendants. Gilliland, Howell & Co. plaintiffs in error, vs. Bowen & Bros, defendants.
    [1.] W B as agent for J B, took it upon himself to acknowledge service of two suits against J B — the latter confessed judgments in the suits. After-wards, he moved to set aside the judgments, on the ground that lie had not had service; and the Court granted the motion : Held, that the Court erred.
    Motion, in Carroll Superior Court. Decided by Judge Bull, December Term, 1855.
    These were motions to set aside judgments obtained heretofore by the plaintiffs in error, against Bowen & Bros. The motions were made, on the ground that John Bowen, the only member of the firm residing in the county, had never been served with the writ and process. There was an acknowledgment of service on the writ by William Bowen, as Attorney in fact for John Bowen; and the authority of William Bowen to make it was denied and not proved. John Bowen had confessed judgment on the writ, in the name of the firm. The Court sustained the motion and set aside the judgments, -and the plaintiffs excepted.
    Buchanan & McKinley, for plaintiffs in error.
    Bowen, for defendants.
   By the Court.

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] It appears that in these two cases, William Bowen took it upon himself to acknowledge service of the declaration and process, as agent for John Bowen, and that John Bowen afterwards confessed judgments in the cases.

Does this furnish sufficient evidence that John Bowen was served with the declaration and process ? We think it does. Every ratification of an act is equivalent to an authorization • of the act. This is a general principle.

The confessions of judgment by John Bowen were ratifications of the acknowledgments of service by ¥m. Bowen. A ratification may be by acts as well as by words;

But if the service was sufficient, the judgments were good. .And, therefore, it was error in the Court to set them aside.  