The ratification of a contract, Mr. Badeley continued, was in many eases a branch of estoppel. Where a person had ratified a contract, and taken advantage of it, then he mast at the same time suffer the disadvantages of the contract.
With that the President of the!
Court did not agree, stating that ratification and estoppel were two different things.
The essential part of the contract, said Mr. Badeley, was that was to have been a house shipment. The contract had been ratified by C. P. Rakusem, who had confirmed it to the plaintiffs. The appellants had tried to make out that the plaintiffs had never sought to make them responsible, but the respondents never knew that it was! the C. P. Rakusen firm until the advances were made. In February, 1027, respondents wrote to Samue!
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.