The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-01-16
The Woonsocket Company Cannot Maintain
Action In Its Own Name.
PARTIES To A SEALED INSTRUMENT.
Appellate Court Decides as 10 Their Right 10 In
siituis and Prosecute Proceedings One De-
nuner Sustained and The Other 0yenuIed.


may sue on the guaranty made by the
stockholders of the Woonsocket Rub
Der company to pay to the United
States Rubber company within two
years all book accounts, according TO
the opinion handed down by the APP
pellate division of the Supreme Court
today. but the Woonsooket company
cannot sue in its own name on that
guarantee. The cases before the court
We're those of Woonsocket Rubber COM
pany vs.. Joseph Banigan and of
United States Rubber company vs.. Ann
l.. Conley, administrators.
The opinion of the court, written by
Chief Justice Matteson is as follows:
THE demurrers in these cases present
the question as to the person entitled
to Sue on a sealed instrument. The in
strument on which the suits are based
is guarantee by which certain stock
holders i'm the Woonsocket company, i'm
consideration OF the receipt from the
United States Rubber company of pay
ment for their stock in the Woonsocket
company. in stock of the United States
the amount of the book accounts and
bills receivable of the Woonsocket
company. guaranteed TO the United
States company each for himself and
not for the others, and pro rata in the
proportion which his number of shares
bears to the whole of the capital stock
of the Woonsocket company. payment
In, tx.stl,
book accounts and bills receivable. and.
in default of payment within that pc
riod. agreed with the United States
company to make good any pay to the
Woonsocket company each his proper
tional part Of the deficiency upon de-
mand, etc.
'"rhe first of the suits was brought
| in the name of the Woonsocket Rubber
| company. tie second i'm the name OF
| the United States Rubber company.
/ The defendant in both cases have de-
INJURED, in the first To the first count
| in the declaration based on the guar
| anty, and in the second case to the
! declaration. the ground of both de-
| murrers being that the plaintiff cannot
maintain the action in it's own name.
"As the guaranty is an instrument
| under seal. and not a simple contract
4
\ can sue upon it is the United States
| Rubber company, to which the guar
! anty was given, Notwithstanding the
| fact that in default OF payment. the
| agreement with the United States Rub
/ ber company is to make good any pay
| TO the Woonsocket company each guar
| antors proportional part of the def
1 cheney. The rule is well established in
| respect to contracts under seal, al
| though there are cases TO the contrary,
| that none but parties to such contracts
| can sue upon them. and this, too,
! though the contracts be for the benefit
| Of others Among the numerous au-
thorities which support the rule may
! be cited Pennington vs.. Hobert, "A Me.
| 4l6 How VS.. How, / ~. III. (and other
4 cases citedD. We are of opinion, there
fore. that the suits i'm both instances
should have been brought i'm the name
| of the United States Rubber company
| and not, as i'm the first. i'm the name of
the Woonsocket Rubber company.
subsequently TO the bringing of the
! first suit counsel for the plaintiff be-
ing of the opinion that an action could
! not be sustained i'm the name OF the
| Woonsocket Rubber company. filed a
| motion i'm behalf OF the United States
| Rubber company for leave To become a
! party plaintiff. i'm accordance with Gen.
| Laws IL. l.. cap. 81, sec. -, as tOl-
lows: when an action has been COM
| menced i'm the name of the wrong party
as plaintif, the court. If satisfied that
IL has been so commenced through mis-
take. and that IL is necessary for the
determination Of the real matter i'm dis
pute so to do, may allow any other
party or parties to be substituted or
| added as plaintiff or plaintiffs We
think that the common pleas division
may properly entertain and grant the
motion. with or without terms, as shall
seem TO IL just on hearing.
THE demurrer i'm the first of the
above entitled suits is sustained, and
the demurrer I'm the second is over
! ruled Both cases are rcmitted TO tho
common pleas division FOR further pro-
Cccdings.'
This rs Al important decision. as tho
amount involved is considerable The
ground of the demurrer i'm the second
case was that the trust could not main
tain its suit I'm its own name. The es-
tate Of Mr.. Banigan lis sued for s274.
9S2.5S. and Mrs. Conley Is sued for
s4ls7.39. Roth claims will now be