Quesnel v. Mussy
QUESNEL verʃus MUSSY.
T
HE Defendant was brought before the Court on a Habeas Corpus, when the following facts appeared;––That this fuit 1789.
had been inftituted againft him by Mr. Vanuxem, under the authority of a ʃpecial Letter of Attorney from the Plaintiff, who refided in one of the United States; that the day after judgment had been obtained, another perfon arrived with a general Power of Attorney from the Plaintiff, and that this perfon, without confulting Mr. Vanuxem, fettled with the Defendant, to whom he gave a general releafe in the name of his conftitutent. It appeared, alfo, that the latter Power of Attorney was only authenticated by proof of the hand writing of the party, and of the fubfcribing witneffes, before the Mayor of this city.
Lewis moved that the Defendant might be difcharged by virtue of the releafe.
Du Poncean objected, 1ft, That the authentication of the general Power of Attorney was not agreeably of the Act of Attorney was not agreeably to the Act of Affembly : and, 2dly, That a general power is not a revocation of a ʃpecial one.
Lewis anfwered, that the queftion was not, whether a general power is a revocation of the fpecial one; but whether it was a fufficient authority for granting the releafe. Of this, he faid, there could be not doubt ; and, with refpect to the mode of authentication, he obferved, that the Act of Affembly relates only to powers executed in a foreign country, and leaves the matter here to common law proof.
the court were of opinion, that the general power was fufficient for the purpofe of the releafe ; and, having directed the perfon acting under it, to enter an acknowledgment of fatisfaction on the record, they order the Plaintiff to be difcharged.