
    R. P Boulware, vs. William M'Comb.
    
      Allegation of a summary process, that parties subscribed cm agreement, with their own proper hands, ivas supported by proof that one of them subscribed by his agent.
    
    This was a summary process, in which the plaintiff set out a mutual agreement between himself and the defendant, and described it as being “ subscribed with their own proper hands.”
    The agreement produced in evidence was signed on the part of “ Reuben P. Bouíware, per Moses Boulware,” and the proof was that it was signed by Moses Boulware, the agent of the defendant.
    The defendant moved for a non-suit, on the ground that this evidence did not support the allegation, that it was subscribed by the defendant with his own proper hand. The motion was overruled and the jury to whom the cause was submitted, found a verdict for the plaintiff. This was a motion to set aside the verdict and for leave to enter up a judgment of non-suit, on the ground taken in the court below.
    
      Johnston, and M(Dow&U, for motion.
    
      Buchanan, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Johnson.

The principle on which this question depends, is founded on the maxirn qui facit per odium, facit per se. The act of the agent is in law the act of the principal, and although it might have been more strictly clerical to set out the manner, yet the legal effect of an act is all that is indispensably necessary. The allegation that the defendant subscribed with his own proper hand was therefore well, The motion dismissed.

Cdlcock, Richardson, Huger, and Gantt, Justices, concurred. 
      
      
         See Heimsley vs. Loder, 2. Camp. 450; Jones et. al. vs. Mars et al. ib. 305; levy vs. Wilson, 5 Esp. Rep. 180; Pease vs. Morgan, 7 John, Rep. 468.
      
     