Case ID: hill_6/html/0443-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court, Nelson, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brown vs. The Butchers & Drovers’ Bank.
    A party may become an endorser of a bill or note by any mark or-designation he chooses to. adopt, provided it be used as a substitute for his name, and he intend to be bound by it. Per Nelson, Ch. J.
    •An endorsement is valid, though written with a lead pencil.
    Where a party placed the figures “• 1. 2. 8.” upon the back of a bill of exchange, by way of substitute for his name, intending thus to bind himself as endorser; held, a valid endorsement, though it appeared he could write.
    On error from the superior court of the city of New-York, where the Butchers <fc Drovers’ Bank sued Brown as the endorser of a bill of exchange, and recovered judgment. The endorsement was made with a lead pencil, and in figures, thus, “ 1. 2. 8.,” no name being written. Evidence was given strongly tending to show that the figures were in Brown’s hand-writing, and that he meant they should bind him as endorser ; though it also appeared he could write. The court below charged the jury that, if they believed the figures upon the bill were made by Brown, as a substitute for his proper name, intending thereby to bind himself as endorser; he .was liable. Exception. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs below, on which judgment was rendered, and Brown thereupon brought error:
    
      C. De Witt, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      A. Schell, for the defendants in error.
   By the Court, Nelson, Ch. J.

It has been expressly decided that an endorsement written in pencil is sufficient; (Geary v. Physic, 5 Barn. & Cress. 234;) and also that it may be made by a mark. (George v. Surrey, 1 Mood. & Malk. 516.) In a recent case in the K. B. it was held that a mark was a good signing within the statute of frauds ; and the court refused to allow an enquiry into the fact whether the party could write, saying that would make no difference. (Baker v. Dening, 8 Adol. & Ellis, 94; and see Harrison v. Harrison, 8 Ves. 186 ; Addy v. Grix, id. 504.)

These cases fully sustain the ruling of the court below. They • show, I think,, that a person may become bound by any mark or designation he thinks proper to adopt, provided it be used as a substitute for his name, and he intend to bind himself.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
      
         See Rogers v. Coit, (ante, p. 322, 3.)