Case Name: SOMERS v. HANSON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-11-23
Citations: 78 Or. 429
Docket Number: 
Parties: SOMERS v. HANSON.
Judges: Mr. Justice Harris took no part in the consideration of this case.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 429–435

Head Matter:
Argued October 27,
affirmed November 23,
rehearing denied December 21, 1915.
SOMERS v. HANSON.
(153 Pac. 43.)
Pleading — Written Instrument — Attachment.
1. Where a copy of any writing, designated as an exhibit, or otherwise sufficiently identified in a pleading, is attached thereto, the effect of the instrument so displayed is the same as though it were incorporated in the body of the pleading.
Bills and Notes — Action on Note — Complaint—Surplusage.
2. Where a copy of the note on which suit was based was attached to the complaint as an exhibit, allegations in the complaint as to the legal effect of the instrument are surplusage, and should be disregarded; it being the duty of the court to determine the instruments effect from its averments.
Principal and Agent — Notes—Persons Liable.
3. Defendant, who signed a note, “Hanson Bros., by Erastus Hanson,” cannot be held personally liable, it not being alleged that Hanson Bros, was a partnership of which defendant was a member, for defendant’s signature was that of an agent of a disclosed principal.
[As to accommodation notes made or indorsed by agents or partners, see note in 31 Am. St. Rep. 754.]
From Wallowa: John W. Knowles, Judge.
In Banc.
Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Moore.
This action was commenced by F. P. Somers in tbe Justice’s Court of Wallowa County, and appealed by defendant, Erastus Hanson, to tbe Circuit Court. Tbe initiatory pleading, as far as deemed material herein, reads:
“Comes now tbe plaintiff, by leave of court first bad and obtained, and files tbis, bis amended complaint, and for cause of action against tbe defendant says: That on tbe seventeenth day of August, 1914, at Enterprise, Oregon, for value received, tbe defendant and one Thomas Hanson made and delivered to plaintiff and A. S. Allen their joint and several promissory note in writing of that date, wherein they promise ta pay to plaintiff and said A. S. Allen, 90 days after date thereof, $50, with interest after date at 8 per cent per annum. * * That said A. S. Allen sold and delivered, without indorsement, all His interest in said note to this plaintiff-prior to the bringing- of this action, and plaintiff is the owner and holder of the whole of said obligation, no part of which has been paid, and is long since past due and is owing from said defendant, Erastus Hanson, to this plaintiff, and that he has refused to pay the same or any part thereof, though plaintiff has made demand for payment of same of him. That a copy of said note is hereto attached, marked ‘Exhibit A,’ and is made a part of this complaint. That prior to the commencement of this action said Thomas Hanson died. * * ”
The exhibit thus referred to is as follows:
“$50.00. Enterprise, Or., Aug. 17th, 1914.
“Ninety days after date, without grace, I promise to pay to the order of A. S. Allen and P. P. Somers fifty dollars, for value received, with interest after date at the rate of 8 per cent per annum until paid. Principal and interest payable in United States gold coin at Enterprise, Oregon. And in case suit or action is instituted to collect this note, or any portion thereof, I promise to pay such additional sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorney’s fees in said suit or action.
“Hanson Bros.,
“By Erastus Hanson.”
A demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action was overruled, and, the defendant declining to plead further, judgment for the sum demanded was rendered against him, and he appealed to the- Circuit Court for that county, where the issue of law thus raised was retried, the judgment reversed, the demurrer sustained, and the action dismissed, from which latter judgment the plaintiff appeals to this court.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. O. M. Gorkins.
For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Daniel W. Sheahan.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Moore.
The question to be considered is whether or not the complaint shows that the defendant incurred a personal liability by signing the promissory note sued upon. When a copy of any writing, designated as an exhibit, or otherwise sufficiently identified in a pleading, is attached thereto and thus becomes a part thereof, the effect of the instrument so displayed is the same as though it were incorporated in the body of the pleading: Caspary v. Portland, 19 Or. 496 (24 Pac. 1036, 20 Am. St. Rep. 842); Riley v. Pearson, 21 Or. 15 (26 Pac. 849); McLeod v. Lloyd, 43 Or. 260 (71 Pac. 795, 74 Pac. 491). The note must therefore be read in connection with and as a part of the complaint in order to determine the averments thereof. Thus construing the language of the initiatory pleading, it will be read as alleging that "the defendant and one Thomas Hanson made and delivered'to plaintiff and one A, S. Allen a promissory note of which the following is a copy," setting it forth.
In Woods v. Town of Prineville, 19 Or. 108, 110 (23 Pac. 880, 881), Mr. Justice Strahan says:
"There are two modes at common law of bringing any writing upon the record by pleading; one was to set it out in haec verba, and the other was to plead it according to its legal effect; and this rule remains unchanged by any provision of our Code."
When the contract sued upon is set out m haec verba, it will be so construed that its legal effect will be recognized. If the writing is thus declared upon, it is superfluous to state what its legal effect is: 4 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 918. If there be any discrepancy between the averments of a pleading and the terms of a writing properly identified or attached to a statement of facts constituting a cause of action or a defense, the language of the exhibit will control in determining its legal effect: 31 Cyc. 563; Patrick v. Colorado Smelting Co., 20 Colo. 268 (38 Pac. 236); Lewy v. Wilkinson, 135 La. 105 (64 South. 1003). The promissory note having, in effect, been set forth in the complaint in the exact language employed in the negotiable instrument, the allegation of the legal effect of the writing as stated in the pleading must be disregarded as superfluous and variant.
In the notes to the case of Gavazza v. Plummer, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1, 3, it is observed:
' 'A signing in which the name of the principal is followed by the name of the agent separated by the word 'by' or 'per' is uniformly regarded as a proper method of executing the agency so as to impose no personal liability upon the agent."
It is not alleged in the complaint herein that "Hanson Bros." were partners and the defendant was a member of that firm, so as to explain the meaning of the phrase "by Erastus Hanson," when appended to the promissory note; nor is it averred that by thus subscribing his name he intended personally to be obligated to pay the sum to become due on the instrument, so as to render testimony relating thereto admissible. In the absence of these necessary averments, it will be implied that the defendant, having signed the name of a disclosed principal, did not intend to become personally liable. The complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and no error was committed as alleged.
It follows that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Aeeirmed.
Mr. Justice Harris took no part in the consideration of this case.