Case Name: Seth Mann versus Gardner L. Chandler
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1812-10
Citations: 8 Tyng 335
Docket Number: 
Parties: Seth Mann versus Gardner L. Chandler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 301–303

Head Matter:
Seth Mann versus Gardner L. Chandler.
W Hare the treasurer of a turnpike corporation gave his notes in that capacity for the proper debt of the corporation, it was holden that he was not personally noble.
Assumpsit, “ for that the said G. L. C., at, &c., on the 30th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five, by his note under his hand of that date, for value received, by the name and style of G. L. C., treasurer of the Dorchesfei Turnpike Corporation, promised, for himself and successors in office, to pay the said Seth Mann, or bearer, 125 dollars on demand, with interest till paid; and the said G. L. C. thereby became liable, and in consideration thereof, then and there undertook and promised the said Seth Mann, to pay him, or bearer, the same sum on demand, with interest till paid.” There' were three other similar counts on similar notes.
The action was tried upon the general issue before Sedgwick, J., at the last March term in this county, and a * verdict found for the defendant, subject to the opinion of Court upon the judge’s report.
The notes having been mislaid, it was agreed that they were severally subscribed by the defendant in the following form, viz. : “ I, the subscriber, treasurer of the Dorchester Turnpike Corporation, for value received, promise Seth Mann to pay him, or bearer, [the sum expressed, and at the time in each note mentioned,] which were signed, Gardner L. Chandler, treasurer of Dorchester Turnpike Corporation.” The notes not being found during the trial, it was agreed that a verdict should be returned for the defendant; but that, if thereafter they should be found and filed in the case, they should be considered as the notes declared on.
It was agreed that, at the time the notes were given, the corporation was indebted to the plaintiff the amount of those notes, and that they were given for that debt.
It appeared that, at a meeting of the directors of the corporation, November 20, 1805, the treasurer was requested to settle, by note or otherwise, with all persons to whom the president might give an order for the amount due them for lands, &c.
It was also agreed that, if the plaintiff was by law entitled to recover, the Court might direct a verdict to be entered for him to the amount of the notes declared on, or so many of them as should be produced.
The cause was argued at the last March term in Suffolk, it being agreed that the opinion of the Court might be then delivered, and judgment be entered accordingly at the present term.
J. Richardson
contended that the defendant was not legally authorized to bind the corporation, and must, therefore, be responsible personally to the plaintiff'.
Prescott and Whitman for the defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court.
This case is clearly distinguishable from the case of Tippets vs. Walker & Al., in Middlesex. There the contract was under the seals of the defendants, *and they produced no authority to bind the corporation. Here it cannot be doubted the corporation is itself liable. The consideration moved wholly from them. It is very apparent that the plaintiff did not, at the time of' receiving the notes, look to the defendant's personal security-. The whole transaction was on behalf of the corporation. Their property is liable, and the defendant is not. Judgment must be entered for the defendant upo-n the verdict at the next term in Norfolk,
[Hovey vs. Magill, 2 Con. Rep. 680.—Dawes vs. Jackson, post, 490. — But see Hall vs. Smith, 1 Barn, & Cres. 407.—2 Dow. & Ryl. 584.— Iveson vs. Conington, 1 Barn & Cres. 160. —2 Dow. & Ryl. 307. — Burrell vs. Jones, 3 Barnw. & Ald. 47. — Norton vs. Herron, Ry. & Mood. 229. —Appleton vs. Binks, 5 East, 148. — Tucker vs. Bass, 5 Mass. Rep. 164. — Fowler vs. Shearer, 7 Mass. Rep. 14.— Buffum vs. Chadwick, 8 Mass. Rep. 103. — In the language of Bailey, J., mutatis mutandis, one might ask, in the above case, who is it that undertakes to pay ? Clearly, Gardner L. Chandler, who says, " I, the subscriber, promise to pay" &c. He is the only promising party. It is true, he styles himself treasurer of the Dorchester Turnpike Corporation; but he alone promises. That is the legal and literal meaning of the words. — 2 D. & R. 587. — Hill vs. Bannister, 8 Cow. 31. — Barker vs. Mechanics' Fire Insurance Co., 3 Wend 94. — Eaton vs. Bell, 5 B. & Ald. 34. — Story's Agency, 271 to 287. — Ed.]
4 Mass. Rep. 595.