Summary

Edward Douglass White Runkle v. Burnham — Opinion of the Court

It is contended that there is no evidence to show that the power of attorney, which is relied on, was an existing power at the time the contract was signed by Mestre as Runkle's agent. This position is not supported by the record. True, there is evidence tending to show that Mestre, the agent of Runkle in Havana, requested enlarged powers from Runkle, and there is also evidence tending to show the arrival at Havana, on the day on which the contract was made, of an instrument conferring the enlarged powers which Mestre deemed desirable to justify him in dealing with the city of Havana.
Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White Runkle v. Burnham — Opinion of the Court

Their silence must necessarily make against them on the question of revocation. Mansfield, J., in Roe v. Harvey, 4 Burrows, 2487. The doctrine that the production of weaker evidence, when stronger might have been produced, lays the producer open to the suspicion that the stronger evidence would have been to his prejudice was expressly adopted in the case of Clifton v. U.S., 4 How. 242.
This leaves only for consideration the question of whether the power authorized the contract with Burnham, and whether that contract bound Runkle for the debt sued on.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature