Case ID: nc_44/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Battle, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EZEKIEL McCALL vs. GEO. CLAYTON.
    Articles were purchased for a manufacturing company, of which A. was the agent, who thereupon gave a due bill in this form: “Due E. M. $78 — val. rac’d. A. ag’t for the M. Co.” — Held, that A. was not personally liable thereon.
    (The cases of Potts y. Lazarus, 2 Car. L. Repos. S3; Redmond v. Coffin, 2 Dev. Eq. 4411 Olive v. Dix, 1 Dev. & Bat. 153, cited and approved.)
    assumpsit upon the following instrument:
    
      “ Davidson’s River — Sept.
    $78. Due Ezekiel McCall, seventy-eight dollars for value received.
    (Signed) GEO. CLAYTON, Agt. for
    Davidson’s River Mr. Company.”
    The defendant pleaded non assumpsit; and on the trial before his Honor Judge Ellis, at Henderson, on the last Spring Circuit, it appeared that the articles of property for which the due bill was given were furnished by the plaintiff to Davidson’s River Manufacturing Company, and used by them ; but the plaintiff contended that the defendant had become personally liable, acting at the lime as the agent of said Company. By consent of the parties, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff subject to the opinion of the Court upon the question of the plaintiff’s right to maintain the action ; and his Honor, upon consideration of said question reserved, being of opinion that the defendant was a stranger to the consideration, and simply the agent of the Company, and as sucli not personally liable on tbe bill, set aside the verdict, and entered a judgment of nonsuit, from which tbe plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.
    
      J. Baxter, for the plaintiff.
    
      Bynum and N. W. Woodfin, for tbe defendant.
   Battle, J.

The propriety of the judgment of nonsuit in this case is fully shown by the cases, among others, of Potts v. Lazarus, 2 Car. L. Repos. 83 ; Redmond v. Coffin, 2 Dev. Eq. Rep. 441, and Oliver v. Dix, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. Rep. 158. The acknowledgement of the debt due to the plaintiff by the defendant was not in his individual, but his representative capacity; and the law implies a promise to pay by his principal instead of himself. The judgment is affirmed.

Pee. CuRIam. Judgment affirmed.