
    MARTIN v. BUTLER.
    Note — wool receipt — proof of execution^-agent — authority»—intent—ratifying purchase fey taking the benefit of it.
    A receipt for wool payable in six months at a bank is not a promissory note nor bill of exchange within the act dispensing with'proof in certain cases.
    Where a note or receipt is signed by an agent, it must be show» that the agent had authority to act and that he signed the paper before it can be read in evidence.
    If a parly had an interest in a factory, at which wool was received and worked up for his benefit, he will be considered as ratifying a purchase by an agent, though when he purchased he had no authority.
    Debt, upon a receipt for wool, dated Litchfield, Ct. the 30th June, 1821, to he paid in six months at the Phoenix branch bank, signed •C. C. Wolcott, agent. Plea nil debet.
    The plaintiff offered to read the receipt in evidence without proving its execution.
    
      Casiuell,
    
    objected.
    
      N. Wright, for the plaintiff.
    
      Caswell and Starr, for the defendant.
   Lane, J.

This is not a promissory note nor a bill of exhange, and so is not within our statute dispensing with proof in certain cases. The right to read it in evidence, must be determined on common principles. The plaintiff must prove the authority of the agent and the execution by him of the paper, before he can read it.

Proof was then offered that before the date of this note Butler carried on the factory at Wolcotville, that Wolcott was the agent, and executed this receipt, and the Butlers failed in August, 1821. It also appeared that Fred. Wolcott built the factory and failed, and that Butler came to Cincinnati in June, 1821, sick, and continued so for some time, during which the factory stopped. It had frequently changed owners.

Lane, J.

to the jury. If the evidence satisfies you that the defendant was interested in carrying on this factory at the date of the receipt, and that Wolcott transacted the business as agent; ■it is not necessary, in the way the issue is made up, that Butler should then have been sole owner. The plaintiff’s right to recover in case Butler had any interest in the factory, depends upon his satisfying you, that Wolcott as Butler’s agent, bought the wool for him in pursuance of his authority, or that having purchased without authority, Butler received it and derived the benefit of the purchase, as thereby he would ratify the purchase as made for him.

Jury being unable to agree were discharged.  