Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

precedent and the boundaries of form, where changes affords a field for the display of technical or general are sudden, and men, to be successful, must leap with knowledge, of eloquence, of the rare quality of subordithe hour; the position of lawyers in parliament is nation, or of the ability to command. Let a man but widely different. As a rule, they are men of more show himself a statesman, or even a politician, ...d enterprising and adventurous minds, and of more gen business in his profession is certain to spring from it. eral attainments, than are their brethren, from whose Besides, the representative man necessarily obtains a ranks they have sprung. In practice they do not con certain notoriety, and this, it cannot be denied, is to fine themselves to any fixed branch, but, like American some extent an introduction to business. In some lawyers, are accustomed to take general business. They cases, indeed, politicians become members of the legal rather pertain to the class of advocates than that of professions, with the sole object of thus qualifying juris-consults, and as such are enabled to accom themselves for office. We only allude to this fact as a modate themselves with greater facility to the proof that in newly-established countries the forum is exigencies of political warfare. The classes from not a bad introduction to the senate. which statesmen are principally drawn in older “No doubt there are disadvantages to be weighed established communities, either do not exist at all, against any benefit which lawyers may gain by enteror do so in a less proportion here than in Europe. ing into political life, such as the loss of time, and the Politics is followed as a calling, as a profession, as an ties of place or party; yet, if, as we anticipate, the proadjunct, but rarely as an art, a duty, or recreation fessional men who have sought and may yet seek with us. Thus, then, seeing that our houses of assem election show themselves desirous of proving thembly can boast of but few who have claims to be either selves useful members of the legislature, and that they philosophers or statesmen, the lawyer, with his trained are actuated rather by a sense of duty and laudable mind, his logical reasoning, and his powers of analysis, ambition, than by the desire of office or personal adcan hardly be considered to be out of place. The rapidvancement, we have little doubt but that they will in development of the colonies, and the novel circum so doing promote the public welfare, and lend an addistances with which their sudden growth has been sur tional luster to the professions to which they belong." rounded, have necessitated the introduction of new laws, which, though originating in the speculative minds of our amateur legislators, require to be drafted

BOOK NOTICES. into shape at the hands of the technical lawyer. If only for this purpose, the presence of a number of

The Practice in Bankruptcy, with the Bankrupt Law

of the United States, as amended, and the rules sound, practical and experienced members of the legal

and forms, together with notes referring to all profession must prove of immense service in our legis decisions reported to July 1, 1871; to which is added lature. It is for them to clothe the ideas of their more

the “Rules of Practice for the Courts of Equity of

the United States.” By Orlando F. Bump, Register practical colleagues with appropriate language, so that

in Bankruptcy. Fourth Edition. Baker, Voorhis the acts of our houses of parliament may express & Co., New York. neither more nor less than is intended.

We had occasion so recently to notice this work that "Turning, however, from this general view of the

we do not feel called upon to again speak of its many utility of lawyers in parliament, let us consider how

excellences in extenso. We desire, however, to give their position in the legislature affects themselves and

the publishers credit for their enterprise in keeping their professions. What is the meaning of the threat

the work up to the requirements of the profession. ened invasion of parliament by so large a number of

Instead of having it stereotyped, and then for years members of either branch of the profession? Is it a

publishing new editions,” from the plates, we have sign that the calling of law is not a prosperous one, and now, within a few months of the issuing of the former, is the inroad suggestive of rats deserting a sinking

a genuine new and revised edition, with the cases ship? We think that this can hardly be asserted, and decided since the former where they should be in the if asserted can scarcely be supported, if our theory be

body of the work. correct, that parliamentary and professional success

As an instance of Mr. Bump's accuracy and reliaare not inimical to each other here, to the same extent

bility we may mention, that, in the case of Morgan v. that they are at home.

Thornhill, 11 Wallace, 81, published since the present "The other day an experienced lawyer, but a novice edition of Mr. Bump's work, it is shown by the supreme in politics, deprecated the scheme for payment of

court that the clause in section two of the bankrupt members, alleging, as a valid reason against its intro act “hear and determine the case in a court of equity” duction, that the house would be flooded with junior is erroneously printed in Little, Brown & Co.'s edition barristers. We confess that we are at a loss to perceive of the Statutes at Large (p. 518). That it should read what greater evil this would be, than that it should be “hear and determine the case us in a court of equity.” overrun with youthful merchants, engineers, farmers, Mr. Bump seems to have discovered the mistake, for medical men, or men of any other business. The fact

the clause is correctly set out by him (p. 283). that young barristers or solicitors should seek places in parliament does not necessarily indicate that they are hopeless of success in their particular callings, but that,

The Code of 1871, with Article VI of the Constitution, pending their attaining the full swing of business, they

and Rules of the Court of appeals and Supreme

Court, as amended to August, 1871. John D. Parbave more abundant leisure than members of other sons, Jr., Publisher, Albany, N. Y. professions; also, that there are many advantages to The plates to the rules were destroyed in the late fire be reaped from a parliamentary career, which are with of Weed, Parsons & Co., so that they had to be reset. difficulty attained in any other way.

The present is one of the most elegant volumes we ever "Thus, for instance, it is the readiest and quickest saw, neatly bound in leather for the vest pocket, with vehicle for the demonstration of talents which in the a new style of tuck. There are three full indexes, one slow course of legal preferment must lie hid, or at to the code, one to the rules of the court of appeals, least dormant, for a long tinie. Parliament at once and one to the rules of the supreme court. All the

[ocr errors]

new rules of the court of appeals are given, including THE PATENT LAWS.-At a recent meeting of London those relating to the admission of students. In addition, patent agents, held to consider the proposed chauges we are informed, by a note to rule 54 of the supreme in the patent laws, Geo. Haseltine, M. A., chairman, it court, that, in the third department, the court has was resolved: 1. That inventors have a right to the designated Tuesday and Friday of the first week, in sole use of their inventions, which it is the duty of legstead of Tuesday and Thursday, as motion days.

islators to harmonize with the interests of the State. It also contains, what we think, an excellent rule, 2. That patents should no longer be granted to mere adopted in the third department, on the 7th of Febru · first importers,” but should be confined to actual ary, 1871, providing, that notes of issues shall be filed in inventors. 3. That the term of a patent should be appeals from orders, and such appeals be placed upon a twenty-one years - now fourteen – without provision separate calendar.

for extension. 4. That the official fees should be reThe volume contains every thing relating to the code duced from one hundred and seventy-five to ten and rules down to the very day of publication. We pounds for the entire term, which is sufficient to denotice several additional citations in the court of fray the expenses of an efficient patent system. 5. appeals rules, which are fully annotated by a gentle That the French mode of granting patents — without man of Albany thoroughly conversant with the prac official investigation of the merits of the applicationtice. The annotations to those rules are alone worth should be ador 6. That in patent suits the rights the price of the work.

of patentees should be determined by a competent

court of equity, dispensing with jurors and "expert" A General Treatise on Statutes: their Rules of Construc

witnesses. The Globe. tion, and the proper boundaries of Legislation and of Judicial Interpretation. By Sir Fortunatus Dwarris; with American Notes and Additions, and with notes and maxims of Constitutional and of Statute Construction; also a Treatise on Constitu

LEGAL NEWS. tional Limitations upon the National and State legislative power, with a chapter on Parliamentary Judge Reed, of the Massachusetts superior court, has Law and Parliamentary privileges, by Platt Potter, resigned. LL. D., one of the justices of the supreme court of the State of New York. William Gould & Sons, Hon. Charles Francis Adams has accepted the apAlbany, N. Y., 1871.

pointment of arbitrator under the treaty of WashDwarris upon Statutes has been justly termed “the

ington. best book upon the subject ever published.” The last - the second-edition published in 1848, is still the

The death is announced of Hon. Daniel W. Alvord, standard in England. In this country Mr. Smith's

a much respected citizen of Greenfield, Mass., and work was published the same year, and Sedgwick’s fol

formerly district attorney and United States collector. lowed in 1857. The latter were excellent works, but

The English house of commons, on the 5th inst., gave us extracts from cases rather than principles, so voted to postpone till the next session of parliament that the lawyer who was fortunate enough to own the all questions of reform in the statute laws of the united three usually started with his principles from Dwarris, | kingdom. and followed them with illustrations and cases from the others.

The name of Hon. Joseph T. Bedle, associate justice The want of a collection of American cases to exem

of the supreme court of New Jersey, is prominently plify the text of Dwarris has been admirably and fully

mentioned in connection with the democratic nomina

tion for governor of that State. supplied by Mr. Justice Potter in the present edition, with the advantage, over Smith and Sedgwick, that Chief Justice Howe, of Wyoming Territory, has given they are brought down to the present time.

an opinion which is held by several other members of In addition to the cases cited in the notes, we should the court, that women have the right to vote and hold judge that over half the body of the present edition is office anywhere in the United States, under the fourby Judge Potter, who has thus thoroughly American teenth amendment. ized the work. His ability and experience as a jurist

A commission has been sitting in Versailles to inwill at once give it an authority which others require

quire into the steps to be taken in the cases of maryears to attain.

riages celebrated under the Commune. It has been ATTORNEY-GENERAL AKERMAN.–Attorney-General

decided that while in principle they are not considered Akerman first came to the notice of General Grant as

valid, they are, nevertheless, now to be registered anew, state agent of Georgia in Washington. One day, when

as being legally consummated, and this registration is he had finished some business in the executive office,

to have the effect of legitimizing the children. the president said, animatedly, “I like that man, and An agreement has been signed by Sir I. Collridge and as soon as a place is open in his state, I mean to make Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, in relation to the Tichborne him district attorney.” The time came, and the office trial, by which both parties agree that if any thing was bestowed. In the pursuit of his new duties, the should prevent the attendance of one or two of the president heard that Mr. Akerman had been refused jury, the case shall go on with the diminished number; lodging in a southern city because of his republicanism, and also, that if Sir W. Bovill should be unable to preand that the court had to be adjourned in consequence. side, another judge may continue the case and employ When Mr. Hoar resigned, Mr. Akerman was nomin his predecessor's notes. The plaintiff's solicitors have ated, entirely without his knowledge, and was at his had some news of the crew of the Bella, and the junior remote country home a week before the news reached counsel has gone to Australia to advise on the produchim. Mr. Akerman was born in New Hampshire, and, tion of additional evidence. On the 26th ult., Lord long before the war, settled in North Carolina, and for Chief Justice Bovill signed and issued an order giving a time taught school, but afterward pushed on into effect to the above agreement, which is to remain in Georgia, where the rebellion found him.

force until the seventh of November next.

Albany Law Journal.

the stock do so at their own risk of personal injury The

from whatever cause.” The jury found that the death

of the intestate was occasioned by gross negligence ALBANY, AUGUST 26, 1871.

on the part of defendants or its agents. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and sustained at general

term. On appeal to the court of appeals the judgPOWER OF PASSENGER CARRIERS TO LIMIT

ment was affirmed by a divided court. Wright, J., THEIR LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE.

wrote for allirmance, taking the broad ground that a The State of New York has the questionable honor

contract limiting the liability of passenger carriers for of standing nearly or quite alone in the holding of its

their own

or their servants' negligence was void. courts, that carriers of passengers may exempt them

Denio and Davies, JJ., were also for aflirmance, on selves from all liability for injuries arising from the

the ground that the intestate was not a gratuitous negligence of their servants.

passenger, and that such a contract was void as to The question came before the court of appeals in paying passengers, though not as to free passengers. Wells v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Smith, J., was for affirmance on the ground that the 24 N. Y. 181, and it was there held, that a contract negligence was that of the corporation itself—that is, exempting the company from all liability to a free

that the corporation could legally contract against passenger for any negligence of their servants was

liability for its servants' negligence, but not for its not against public policy. The controlling opinion is

own negligence. Sutherland, J., was for asfirmance devoted mainly to the question, whether the term

on the ground stated in his dissenting opinion in "gross negligence" is applicable to the acts of ser

IVells v. The New York Central Railroad Co., supra, that vants of a corporation question in no wise mate

the contract was void irrespective of the question rial in the case and the policy and legality of the

whether the transportation was gratuitous or for hire. contract is disposed of in a dozen lines. Sutherland, | Allen, J., wrote an elaborate opinion for reversal, on J., wrote a dissenting opinion, in which the question the ground that the negligence was that of the serof the legality of contracts exempting passenger vants of the defendant, and, therefore, covered by the carriers from liability for negligence was very elabo contract with liim. Selden, Ch. J., and Gould, J., conrately examined, and the conclusion reached that they curred. were against public policy aud void.

It will be observed that the greatest number agreeThe next case in the same volume, is Perkins v. The ing to any particular reasoning or grounds were for New York Central Railroad Company. There the reversal, while of the five judges for affirmance not plaintiff's intestate was killed while riding upon a more than two agreed on the same grounds. free pass,

which contained an indorsement that the The facts in Bissell v. The New York Central Railperson accepting it “assumes all risk of accidents, and road Company, 25 N. Y. 442, were substantially the expressly agrees that the company shall not be liable same as in the case last cited. Bissell was a drover, under any circumstances, whether of negligence by and made a contract with the defendants which recited their agents or otherwise,” etc. The accident which that, in consideration that the defendants would conoccasioned the death was the result of the negligence vey the stock at what were termed reduced rates, the of defendants' agents. The judge charged at the plaintiff would assume the risk of injury to the cattle, trial that if the negligence of the agents was gross and also that the persons riding free to take charge and culpable it was not embraced in the contract. of the stock do so at their own risk of personal injury This charge was held to be erroneous, on the ground from whatever cause.

furnished Bissell conthat the contract covered all negligence. Smith, J., tained a “notice," that the owner of stock receiving it seems from the report, wrote two opinions; one for this ticket assumes all risks for injuries, whether from reversal and the other for affirmance, which presents negligence of defendants' servants or otherwise. The the curious judicial phenomenon of a judge dissent- jury found that plaintiflos intestate met his death ing from his own opinion in the same case and on the through the gross and culpable negligence of defendsame hearing

ants' agents. The judgment entered thereon was reThe case of Smith v. The New York Central Rail- versed by the court of appeals. Gould, J., was for road Co., 24 N. Y. 222, presented the question in a reversal, of course, holding that the ticket was a free somewhat different aspect. In that case the person ticket, and the case within the rule laid down in the killed was a drover, and was riding on what is known Wells case and the Perkins case. Selden, Smith, as a drover's pass — that is, a pass furnished to a per Davies and Allen were also for reversal, the first two son in charge of stock transported for a consideration, expressly on the ground that Bissell was a free pasand which stipulates that the person receiving it senger, and Davies presumably on the same ground takes all responsibility as to injury to himself or as he had before declared, that the company could not stock. The contract for the transportation of the limit their liability for negligence in case of a paying stock also contained this provision: “And it is further passenger, and he had put his reason for affirmance in agreed, that the persons riding free to take charge of Smith's case, supra, expressly on the ground that he

The pass

The supreme

- and it was,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

was a paying passenger, although his pass was on that as for him he will not consider the company as precisely the same conditions as that of Bissell. Denio, common carriers, or liable as such.” The plaintiff C. J., dissented on the ground that Bissell was not a accepted and used this pass, knowing its contents, gratuitous passenger, and Wright and Sutherland also

and while so using it was injured by reason of the dissented on the ground, it is to be presumed from negligence of defendants' servants. their former opinions, that such a limitation of a court held, unanimously, 1. That the plaintiff was not carrier's duty was void.

a gratuitous passenger, inasmuch as the pass and the It appears, therefore, that thus far the court of ap- agreement for transporting the stock constitute peals has stood about in this wise: Gould and Allen, together a single contract; and 2. That the stipulaJJ., that passenger carriers could limit their liability tion in the contract and in the pass, exempting the for their own and their servants' negligence, abso defendants from liability for negligence, was against lutely; Denio, Davies and Selden, JJ., that they public policy and void, and therefore no defense to an could limit their liability as to free passengers; Smith, action for the injuries. J., that they could limit their liability for the negli It is worthy of note that in this case gence of their servants; Sutherland and Wright, JJ., no doubt, the same in the New York cases - the that they could not so limit their liability in any pretense of carrying the stock at reduced rates was event.

merely a sham. The superintendent of the company The rule, so far as one can be said to exist, consider testified that the contract was “of the kind alone ing this diversity of judicial opinions, is, that carriers used by the company at the time the said stock was can limit their liability for injuries to free passengers, transported, and that the company would not, at any either from their own or their servants' negligence; | time, have received and transported the hogs except and that shippers of stock riding on a drover's

pass

under such contract." are free passengers.

"The fruits of this rule,” says Davies, J., in Stinson v. New York Central R. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 333, "are already being gathered in increased NEGOTIABLE PAPER SIGNED IN BLANK. accidents, through the decreasing care and vigilance It has recently been decided, in the exchequer on the part of these corporations, and they will con chamber, that if a deed be delivered and a blank tinue to be reaped until a just sense of public policy | left therein be afterward improperly filled up (at least shall lead to legislative restrictions upon the power if this be done without the grantor's negligence), it is to make this kind of contracts.” It occurs to us, that not the deed of the grantor. Swan v. The North is the courts would exhibit a little more of that "just | British Australasian Company, 2 Hurls. & C. 175. sense of public policy,” legislative interference would But this principle, when applied to negotiable instrunot be necessary.

ments, has been limited in its application. These It would not be difficult to cite a great array of instruments are not only assignable, but they form authorities to show that these decisions of the New part of the currency of the country. It has, thereYork courts are directly counter to the current of fore, been uniformly held that where a man writes his decisions, but we have only space for one — the last name across the back of a blank bill or note, and parts one on the subject, we believe — that of the Cleveland, with it, and it is afterward improperly filled up, he is Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad Co. v. Curran, 19 liable as indorser; if he write it across the face of the Ohio St. 1, and to appear in 2 American Reports. bill he is liable as acceptor; or if he sign his name to That was a case on all-fours with those of Smith and

a blank note he is liable as maker, provided, in either Bissell, before cited. The plaintiff — or defendant in case, the instrument has once passed into the hands error to explain the inverted title - was a drover, of an innocent indorsee, for value, before maturity. who contracted with the company for the transporta The English cases cited, as holding the improper tion of stock. The contract contained the usual state filling up of a blank instrument to be forgery, were, ment, that, in consideration of obtaining the trans most of them, criminal prosecutions. For the purportation at reduced rates, the plaintiff agreed to pose of obviating the incongruity of allowing a assume the risks of injury to the animals from a num recovery upon an instrument which was itself a ber of specified causes, and also that the person riding forgery, the courts of this country, in civil actions, in charge of the stock should do so at his own risk of have placed the liability of the author of the blank personal injuries, from whatever canse, etc. The signature on the ground of estoppel. ticket, or “drover's pass,” given him at the time of The question was much discussed in Van Duzer making the contract, contained the following: “The V. Howe, 21 N. Y. 531, where a blank acceptance had person accepting this free ticket assumes all risk of been filled with a sum exceeding that fixed by the accident, and expressly agrees that the company shall acceptor, and the acceptor's liability was vested solely not be liable, under any circumstances, whether of on the ground of estoppel. The principle that when negligence by their agents, or otherwise, for any one of two innocent parties must suffer, he should injury to the person, or for any loss or injury to the bear the loss whose act has caused the injury has property, of the passenger using the ticket, and agrees also been generally relied upon in the cases, and in

such as

some of them has ruled the decision. Ingham v. important. In Price v. Taylor, 5 H. & N. 540, merely Primrose, 7 C. B. 82.

appending to the signature a word of description, The paper at delivery may be entirely blank above

director,”

,” “secretary,” etc., was thought not the signature, or in the ordinary form of a printed to be sufficient. It seems, however, that the word as bill or note, with the material parts in blank, and if it prefixed to the description would properly indicate the be filled up consistently with the purport or tenor of agency. In Aggs v. Nicholson, 1 II. & N. 165, a the form signed or indorsed, the signer or indorser promissory note ran in form: “We, two of the direcwill be liable. Orrick v. Colston, 7 Grat. 189; Visher tors of the A. L. A. S., by and on behalf of the said v. Webster, 8 Cal. 112; Ives v. Bank, 2 Allen, 236; society, do hereby promise to pay,” etc. (Signed) Moody v. Threlkeld, 13 Geo. 155; Mitchell v. Culver, 7 Charles Nicholson, H. Wood. The court held the Conn. 336;

Robertson v. Smith, 18 Ala. 220; Dug- directors not to be personally liable, though Martin, lass v. Scott, 8 Leigh, 43; Fullerton v. Sturgis, 4 B., hesitated to accede to the judgment. In Alexander Ohio St. 529; Norwich Bank v. Hyde, 13 Conn. 279; v. Sizer, L. R., 4 Ex. 102, the note ran: “I promise Torrey v. Fiske, 10 S. & M. 590; Bank v. Curry, 2 to pay,” etc., and was signed for M. T. & W.company, Dana, 143.

J. S., secretary. The court held the defendant not It is now well settled that, in order to impeach the personally liable, although Cleasby, B., dissented. In title of a purchaser of current negotiable paper, it | Dutton v. Marsh, Q. B., 19 W. R. 754, the note must be shown that he acted in bad faith, believing ran: “We, the directors of, etc., do promise to pay,” at the time of the purchase that there was some etc. (Signed) P. J. Marsh, chairman, J. Higgins, S. infirmity about the paper. Goodman v. Harvey, 4 Broadbent, H. Johnson. The note contained no Adol. & Ellis, 870; Goodman v. Simonds, 20 How. word indicating agency except the word denoting (U. S.) 343; Steinhart v. Baker, 34 Barb. 436; Benior v. an office in the body, but the corporate seal was Paquin, 40 Vt. 199; Bassett v. Avery, 15 Ohio St. affixed. The court held the directors personally 299. But, if the paper be so filled up as to create a liable. In the case of Lindus V. Melrose, 2 H. & N. questionable appearance, or not according to the 293, the note read: “Three months after date we purport and tenor of such an instrument, it is sufficient jointly promise to pay S., or order, 6001., for value to put the purchaser on his guard. Crosby v. Grant, received in stock on account of the London and 36 N. H. 273; Mehaime Bank v. Douglas, 31 Conn. Birmingham Iron IIardware Company (limited) —pay170. But if the defect does not appear on the face of able at the London Joint Stock Bank,” etc. (Signed) the

paper, it seems the purchaser may safely rely on James Melrose, II. W. Wood, John Haines, directors, the maker or indorser. Merriam v. Rockwood, 47 (countersigned) Edwin Guest, secretary. The excheN. H. 81; Bank v. Guss, 31 Vt. 315; Haskins v. quer chamber held, that the signers were not personLombard, 16 Maine, 140; Smith v. Maberly, 10 B. ally liable, but inserted a denial that “we intend to Monr, 266.

throw any doubt upon the rule that an agent putting A person who has signed a blank instrument for his name to a mercantile instrument is liable as a accommodation may revoke it at any time before its in- principal, unless the instrument distinctly shows that ception or delivery to a third party (Smith's Execrs. v. he signs as agent, or that we mean to break in upon Wyckoff, 3 Sandf. Ch. 77); and the delegated power the rule verba fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem. to fill up such a paper is revoked by the death of the In this country it has been held, that, where an agent signer, and if it be afterward filled and transferred, it made a promissory note thus: “I promise to pay,” seems the decedent's estate cannot be made liable, and signed it Pro. C. D., A. B., it was the note of the even when the instrument is in the hands of a bona principal and not of the agent. Long v. Coburn, fide purchaser without notice of the death. Smith's 11 Mass. 97. So where A. and B. wrote a note in these Excecrs. v. Wyckoff, 3 Sandf. Ch. 77; Michigan Ins. Co. v. words: “We jointly and severally promise," and Leavenworth, 30 Vt.

signed it A. and B. for C., it was held to be the note of C. Rice v. Gove, 22 Pick. 158; Emerson v. Prov. Iat

Manufac. Co., 12 Mass. 237. So a note of like tenor, PERSONAL LIABILITY OF AGENT FOR NOTES signed “A. B., agent for C. D.,” was held to be the AND BILLS.

note of thn principal. Ballou v. Talbot, 16 Mass. 461. The general rule is well established that a person Where a promissory note was in these words: “I, who has in fact signed a written document cannot the subscriber, treasurer of the Dorchester Turnpike discharge himself from personal liability on the ground corporation, for value received, promise ” etc., and that he only signed as agent for another, unless it was signed “A. B., treasurer of the Dorchester Turnappear upon the face of the instrument that he signed pike corporation,” it was held to be the note of the as such — and this is peculiarly so with regard to corporation and not of the treasurer.

Mann v. negotiable instruments. But it is often a nice ques Chandler, 9 Mass. 335. So, where a note purported tion to determine whether the agent is or is not per to be a promise by “The president and directors of a sonally bound. The authorities are not harmonious, corporation," and was signed “A. B.-president,” it and we shall attempt to refer to only the most was held to be the note of the corporation. Jott v

« AnteriorContinuar »