Case ID: tenn_8/html/0261-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Rutherford vs. James C. Mitchell.
    A contract may be declared on, either in the words in which it was made, or according to its legal effect.
    Where a note is payable to the plaintiff, as the agent and attorney of another, he may sustain an action on the note in his own name, without describing himself as agent or attorney, &c.
    Rutherford brought an action of debt against Mitchell in the circuit court of Rhea county, upon, the following note—
    “Three days after date I promise to pay John Rutherford, (agent and attorney in fact of Elizabeth Shaffer, ad-ministratrix of the estate of Jacob Shaffer, deceased, late of Cocke county,) the sum of one hundred and one dollars, t o3o5 (it. being the full amount of any moneys that came to my hands from the estate of John Shaffer, deceased,) value received. Witness my hand and seal this 12th day of June, 1823. J. C. Mitchell. [Seal.]”
    This note was declared upon, as if it was payable to Rutherford, in his individual capacity, that part of the note in brackets having been entirely omitted in the declaration. Mitchell, after craving oyer, and setting out the note as above, demurred generally, and. also assigned as special cause of demurrer, the variance. The circuit court sus ■ tained the demurrer, and judgment was entered up against the plaintiff Rutherford; from which he appealed in the nature of a writ of error to this court.
    
      Jarnegan for the plaintiff in error.
    The plaintiff being a mere agent, or representative, could sue upon this note without naming his representative character, the promise being made to him. (10 Modern Rep. 316; 5 Reports 31; 3 Modern Rep. 327; 12 ditto 7; 2 Saunders’ Rep. 148; 2 Bac. Abt. 441, title ex’rs. and adm’rs. letter O.) The legal interest vested in him, and he alone had a right to bring the action.
    No person argued for the defendant in error.
   Per Curiam.

The action is well brought; the legal interest in the bill single, was vested in the plaintiff, and he need only declare upon the instrument according to its legal force and effect. It was not necessary that he should describe himself as agent; and had he done so, it would have been surplusage. The judgment must be reversed, and this court, proceeding to render such judgment as the circuit court ought to have done, order and adjudge that the demurrer to the declaration be overruled, and judgment be entered up for the plaintiff, for the amount of the note with legal interest thereon, from the time it was due.

Judgment reversed. 
      
       Acc. Buffum vs. Chadwick, (8 Mass. Rep. 103.)