Case Name: Laura S. Taylor vs. John McLean
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1841-05
Citations: 1 McMul. 352
Docket Number: 
Parties: Laura S. Taylor vs. John McLean.
Judges: The whole Court concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
Laura S. Taylor vs. John McLean.
One being the agent of another, drawing a promissory note, and signing it with his own name, thus, “ Daniel McLean for John McLean, ” it was held, that it was the note of “ Daniel McLean,” the agent, and not the note of the principal.
Before O’Neall, J., Richland, Spring Term, 1841.
This was an action of assumpsit on a note of hand, signed “Daniel McLean, for John McLean.” It seems from the evidence, that Daniel McLean was the agent of John McLean. A motion was made for non-suit, and sustained by the Court, on the authority of the case of Fash vs. Boss, (2 Hill, 294.)
The plaintiff moved the Appeal Court to set aside the nonsuit, on the ground that Daniel McLean, who signed the note thus “ Daniel Me- Lean, for John McLean,” was proved to be the agent of John McLean, authorized to make such note, and *to purchase provisions for his stage line, and that John McLean was bound by his signature.
See 2 McM. 402, Varnum vs. Evans; Robertson vs. Pipe, in Errors, 1 Rich. 501, overruling this case, and also Fash vs. Ross, and Moore vs. Cooper, 1 Sp. 57. An.
W. F. De Saussure, for the motion,
cited Fash vs. Ross.
An agent may make himself liable for his principal, but the principal is liable for his agent’s acts. Cited Riley’s L. Cases, 78, Waddell vs. Mordecai; Prior vs. Colter, 1 Bail. 517; 2 Bail. 55, Allen vs. Brazier; 11 Mass. T. Rep. 97; 2 Liv. Agen. 245; 2 East. Rep. 142; 6 Term. Rep. 146.
Black, contra.
Whose note is it ? It is not a joint note. It is either one or the other.
It may be supposed that defendant might have placed funds in the hands of his agent to pay, and the agent, from this view, alone is liable.
He relied on reason and common sense.
One may be employed to buy a pair of horses, and the horses may be for defendant’s use, yet defendant may have given money and the agent choose to give his note — whose note is it ?

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The case of Fash vs. Boss, (2 Hill, 294,) is conclusive of the case before us. We are net disposed now to question the authority of that case.
The motion is dismissed.
The whole Court concurred.