Majority
p. 463Quesnel v. Mussy. that the defendant might be discharged, by virtue of the release. 1st, That the authentication of the general power of attorney was not agreeable to the act of assembly: and 2d, That a general . power is not a revocation of a special, one. that the question was not, whether a general power is a revocation of the special one ; but whether it was a sufficient authority for granting the release. On this, he said, there could be no doubt; and with respect to the mode of authentication, he observed, that the act of assembly relates only to powers executed in a foreign country, and leaves the matter here to common-law proof.
Syllabus
Effect of a general power of attorney.A general power of attorney empowers the agent to exercise a general release, in the name of his principal.
The defendant was brought before the court on a habeas corpus, when the following facts appeared : That this suit *had been instituted against him by Mr. Vanuxem, under the authority of a special letter [*450 of attorney from the plaintiff, who resided in one of the United States ; that the day after judgment had been obtained, another person arrived with a general power of attorney from the plaintiff, and that this person, without consulting Mr. Vanuxem, settled with the defendant, to whom he gave a general release, in the name of his constituent. It appeared also, that the latter power of attorney was only authenticated by proof of the handwriting of the party, and of the subscribing witnesses, before the mayor of this city.
Lewis moved,
Du Ponceau objected :
Lewis answered,
were of opinion, that the general power was sufficient for the purpose of the release ; and having directed the person acting under it, to enter an acknowledgment of satisfaction on the record, they ordered the defendant to be discharged.