Case ID: nys_30/html/0083-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DYKMAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(80 Hun, 435.)
    FIRST NAT. BANK OF CITY OF BROOKLYN v. STUETZER et al.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    July 27, 1894.)
    Corporations—Contracts—Execution of Note.
    Where a note, with the name of a corporation in the margin, signed by two persons designated as “president and “treasurer,” respectively, is discounted for the payee without inquiry as to whether it was the note of the corporation or of the individual makers, the holder may treat it as a personal obligation of the makers.
    Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.
    Action by the First National Bank of the City of BrooHyn against Herman Stuetzer and others on a promissory note. From a judgment entered on a verdict directed in favor of plaintiff, defendants Wallis and Smith appeal. Affirmed.
    Argued before BBOWN, P. J., and DYKMAN, J.
    
      Wilson & Wallis (Hamilton Wallis, of counsel), for appellants.
    Jackson & Burr (Jos. A. Burr, of counsel), for respondent.
   DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal by the defendants William T. Wallis and George T. Smith from- a judgment entered against them and the other defendants. The action is upon a promissory note in the following form:

“$1,100. Jersey City, N. J., Jan. 20, 1893.
Wallis Aon Works.
“Three months after date, we promise to pay to the order of H. Stuetzer & Co. eleven hundred dollars, at the First National Bank of Jersey City, value received.
“William T. Wallis, President.
“George T. Smith, Treasurer.”

On the day of its date, the note was presented by the defendant Herman Stuetzer, one of the members of the firm to whom it was payable, to the plaintiff, for discount, and it was discounted by the plaintiff, and the proceeds paid to Stuetzer. When the note was discounted, no knowledge had been communicated to the plaintiff respecting the purpose for which the note was given. The discount was made on the faith of Stuetzer, without inquiry or knowledge whether it was the note of the Wallis Iron Works, or the individual note of the defendants Wallis and Smith, except what appeared upon the face of the note. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff was authorized to treat the note as the personal obligation of the persons whose names are signed to the paper as makers. The plaintiff was a bona fide holder for value, and the case is controlled by the cases of Casco Nat. Bank v. Clark, 139 N. Y. 307, 34 N. E. 908, and Merchants’ Nat. Bank v. Clark, 139 N. Y. 314, 34 N. E. 910. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.