This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1878 Excerpt: ...reported, and it was so done (Assembly Journal of 1873, pp. 210, 267, 405). By sec. 92, ch. 10, R. S. (Tay. Stats., 279), the governor was required to submit to the legislature all reports received by him. It is presumable, therefore, that the legislature had all the information necessary on the subject of this contract at the session of 1872; and in 1873 the contract is spread at length on the record of their proceedings. Moreover, the language of ch. 39, Laws of 1871 (especially sees. 2 and 3), shows that the legislature was in full possession of all the facts, and approved what had been done. The acts of the agents who made this contract were approved, and the product of the contract accepted and made use of by the legislature, with ample knowledge of the facts; and this was undoubtedly a ratification. But it should be so treated, even if a doubt were felt as to their full knowledge. They were answerable as for full information, since, before they accepted the work and services, the product of the contract, they must be deemed to have intended to carry it out. It was a duty, due to the other contracting party, to dissent, if they did not approve. Vol. XLII.--25 Shipman vs. The State. Whatever may be said of acquiescence in other cases, failure to dissent from the liability is assent to it where the consideration is accepted in whole or in part. Peterson v. Mayor, etc., 17 N. Y., 449; Svpervisors v. Schenck, Winn v. City Council and Hasbrouck v. Milwaukee, supra; Monaghan v. School District, 38 Wis., 100. This ratification made the whole contract binding as an entirety. This principle is universal in respect to the acceptance of part of an unauthorized contract by the principal. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Walworth, 1 N. Y., 433, 447, and cases cited by M...