Sayer

We think the bill of sale introduced in evidence by defendants inadmissible. It does not purport to be the act of plaintiff or to have been executed by his authority. There is no allusion whatever to plaintiff in the document. Giving to the 'agreement organizing the company the most favorable construction for the defendants-, the most that can be said of it is, that it authorizes the foreman of the company, as plaintiff’s attorney in fact, to sell his interest in the claims of the company for nonpayment of assessments, and convey a title. The bill of sale does not purport to sell plaintiff’s interest. It does not appear whose interest was sold. It might have been any other one-half of one-sixteenth interest in the whole company. Donahue does not sign it, or appear in the body of the instrument to act, as foreman of the company or as agent for plaintiff or any other party. He does not purport to execute in pursuance of a power. There is something more than a latent ambiguity to be explained, within the well-established rule of evidence upon that subject. All that appears in the instrument is that a fraction of the claim of the Richardson Company was sold by G. P. Donahue, to John…