HITCHCOCK
v.
BUCHANAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
When a bill of exchange bore the signature of company officers but was drawn in the name of the Belleville Nail Mill Company and directed payment from the company's account, the Supreme Court held that the instrument bound only the company and not the individual signatories personally. The Court affirmed judgment for the plaintiff, reasoning that an instrument bearing all indicia of being the company's contract could not bind the agents personally, and that the defendants' demurrer admitted the fact of signature, leaving only a legal question about the instrument's effect.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Jústioe Gray,
after stating the case,' delivered the opinion of the court.
The bill of exchange declared on Is manifestly the draff of the Belleville Nail Mill Company, and not of the individuals by whose hands it is subscribed. It purports to be made at the office of the company, and. directs the drawee to charge the amount thereof to the account of. the company, of which the signers describe themselves as president and secretary. An instrument bearing on' its face all these signs of being the contract of the principal cannot be held to bind the agents personally. Sayre v. Nichols, 7 Cal. 535; Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass. 561, and cases there cited.
The allegation in the declaration, that the defendants made “.their ” bill of exchange, is inconsistent with the terms of the writing sued-on and made part of the record, and is not admitted by the demurrer. Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430; Binz v. Tyler, 79 Ill. 248.
The provision of the statute of Illinois (ed. 1877, title Practice, .sects. 34, 36) prohibiting defendants sued on written instruments from denying their signatures, except under plea verified by affidavit, has no application where the fact of signature is admitted by demurrer, and the only issue is one of law.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brickell v. Park Trammel, 77 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1919)…tions of ultimate facts that are not sustained by the facts alleged. See Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 430; United States v. Ames, 99 U. S. 35; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Palmes, 109 [*563] U. S. 244, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 193; Hitchcock v. Buchanan, 105 U. S. 416; Pennie v. Reis, 132 U. S. 464, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 149; Interstate Land Co. v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 139 U. S. 569, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 656. This is particularly so when the right asserted as a conclusion of law or of fact dependes upon unusual provisi…
-
The Apalachicola Land & Dev. Co. v. McRae, 86 Fla. 393 (Fla. 1923)…assertions of ultimate facts that are not sustained by the facts alleged. See Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 430; United States v. Ames, 99 U. S. 35; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Palmes, 109 U. S. 244, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 193; Hitchcock v. Buchanan, 105 U. S. 416; Pennie v. Reis, 132 U. S. 464, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 149; Interstate Land Co. v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 139 U. S. 569, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 656; this is particularly so when the right asserted as a conclusion depends upon unusual provisions of law and proc…
-
Cragin v. Lovell, 109 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1883)…ansonia Fibre Co., L. R. 9 Ch. 635; Daniels v. Burnham, 2 La. 243, 245. The case does not come within the decisions, in Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria v. Bank of Columbia, 5 Wheat. 326, in Metcalf v. Williams, 104 U. S. 93, and Hitchcock v. Buchanan, 105 U. S. 416, in each of which the name of the principal appeared upon the face of the note. If the action is treated, not as an action upon the notes [*199] themselves, but as an action to recover the amount of. the notes, by reason of a subsequent agreement o…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430 (U.S. 1874)