AFFIRMANCE. The confirmation of a voidable act by the party acting, who is to be bound thereby.
The term is in accuracy to be distinguished from ratification,, which is a recognition of the validity or binding force as against the party ratifying, of some act performed by another person ; and from confirmation, which would seem to apply more prop erly to cases where a doubtful authority has been exercised by another in behalf of the person ratify ing; but these distinctions are not generally ob served with much care; 1 Pars. Contr. 243.
Express affirmance takes place where the party declares his determination of fulfilling the contract; Martin v. Byrom, Dudl. (Ga.) 203.
A met 's acknowledgment that the debt existed, or that the contract was made, is not an affirmance; Robbins v. Eaton, 10 N. H. 561; 2 Esp. 628 ; Cham bers v. Wherry, 1 Bail. (S. C.) 28; Benham v. Bishop, 9 Conn. 330, 23 Am. Dec. 358; Alexander v.
Hutcheson, 9 N. C. 535 ; Ford v. Phillips, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 203; Martin v. Byrom, Dudl. (Ga.) 203; it must be a direct and express confirmation, and substantially (though it need not be in form) a promise to pay the debt or fulfill the contract; Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 479; Rogers v. Hurd, 4 Day (Conn.) 57, 4 Am. Dec. 182; Wilcox v. Roath, 12 Conn. 550 ; Hale v. Gerrish, 8 N. H. 374; Bigelow v. Grannis, 2 Hill -(N. Y.) 120; Mil lard v. Hewlett, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 301.
Implied affirmance arises from the acts of the party without any express declaration; Boston Bank v. Chamberlin, 15 Mass. 220. See Aldrich v. Grimes, 10 N. H. 194; • Curtin #. Patton, 11 S. & R. (Pa.) 305; 1 Bla. Com. 466, D. 10. See CONFIRMATION; RATIFICA TION.
The confirmation by an appellate court of the judgment of a lower court.