Case ID: scl_28/html/0087-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Earle, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Moore vs. Lorenzo Cooper.
    
    A promissory note made by L. C., and signed “L. C., for L. S. Co.,” is the personal undertaking of L. C. and parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the import of the terms in which it is expressed. Vide, Fash vs. Ross, 2 Hill, 294; Taylor vs. M‘Lean, l M'MulIan, 352. (a)
    
    
      Before Earle, J., at Spartanburg, Fall Term, 1842.
    Assumpsit on the following note: “On or before the first day of October next, I promise to pay John More, or order, the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, for value received. This note given for L. S. Com. for corn. June 8th, 1839.
    Lorenzo Cooper,
    
      For L. S. Co”
    
    The defence was, that the corn was purchased for the Limestone Springs Company, by the defendant, as their agent, and that this was known to the plaintiff at the time of delivering the corn; that in fact the credit was given to the company, to whom the plaintiff looked, and from whom he demanded payment. It was proved that he sent an order to Murray, who was superintendant at the Springs, for some waistcoats, which he said he would credit on the note. But he did not receive them. He went to the Springs for his money, and not getting it, apprehended they had failed, and he should get nothing. He said that he had sued Cooper, but he did not think it just that he should pay it, and he did not think the company would suffer him to pay it. The presiding Judge overruled the defence, and the plaintiff had a verdict.
    The defendant now renewed his motion for a nonsuit in the Court of Appeals, on the ground:
    That the note sued on, purports on its face to be the note of the Limestone Springs Company — not the note of defendant.
    
      For a new trial:
    
    1. Because the evidence offered was competent, and ought to have gone to the jury, from which it was withdrawn by the court.
    
      
      (a) Vide, Prior vs. Coulter, 1 Baily, 517; White vs. Cuyler, 6 T. R. 176; Tippets vs. Walker, 4 Mass. R. 595; Fosier vs. Fuller, 6 Mass. R. 53; Thatcher vs. Dinsmore, 5 Ib. 299; Duval vs. Craig et al., 2 Wheaton, 45; 2 Kent. Com. 493; Appleton vs. Binks, 5 East, 148.
    2. Because the verdict is contrary to law and evidence.
    Henry & Bobo, for the motion. Young, contra.
   Curia, per

Earle, J.

The precise question made here, was decided in Fash vs. Ross, 2 Hill, 294, and in Taylor vs. M'Lean, 1st M'Mul. 352. And it would be difficult to add any thing to the reasoning of the court in the former case. In both these cases the note sued on was signed by the defendant for another. And the proof was that the defendant, as agent, not only disclosed his principal, but had authority to sign for him, and to bind him. But the evidence was regarded as inadmissible to vary the plain import of the terms in which the undertaking was expressed, and which was construed to be the personal undertaking of the defendant.

The case of Rathbone vs. Budlong, 15 John. 1, so much insisted on, even if it were authority in this court, in opposition to cases decided here, was different from either of those referred to. There the defendant exhibited a power of attorney, under the seal of the chartered company, for whom he contracted, appointing him their agent, with authority to draw notes for them. In the case before us there was no attempt to prove that Cooper had authority, either verbal or written, to sign notes for the Limestone Springs company. The inquiry, therefore, whether the plaintiff gave credit to the company, would be wholly immaterial, if parol evidence of that kind were admissible, as the company, in fact, were not bound. The motion is refused.

Richardson, Evans, and Butler, JJ. concurred.

Wardlaw, J. absent at the argument.