The law of bills, notes and checks . y to make the promise, and FOEM AND INTEEPBETATION 73 as the action was between the original parties to the note, it was competentfor the defendants to show that there was a corporation by that name;that the makers were president and secretary; that the corporation had thebenefit of the consideration; that the makers were authorized to makethe note as the act of the corporation, and intended to do so, and thatplaintiffs testator at the time he received the note knew these facts andtook the note with the understanding that the corporation was its
The law of bills, notes and checks . y to make the promise, and FOEM AND INTEEPBETATION 73 as the action was between the original parties to the note, it was competentfor the defendants to show that there was a corporation by that name;that the makers were president and secretary; that the corporation had thebenefit of the consideration; that the makers were authorized to makethe note as the act of the corporation, and intended to do so, and thatplaintiffs testator at the time he received the note knew these facts andtook the note with the understanding that the corporation was its evidence would not contradict the note, but would give further andpermissible meaning to the addendum to the signatures of the makers, andtend to show that such addendum was made as the corporate executionof the note, and was understood by both parties to it. Bush V. GiLmore, 45 App. Div. 89; Bank of Genesee v. Patchin, 19N. Y. 312; Groves v. Acker, 85 Hun. 492; Schmittier v. Simon, 114 N. , 186. Wixaid Ucctrlc ft tatg. wiii(ii. Where a negotiable promissory note, given for the debt of a corpora-tion, the language of the promise does not disclose the corporate obliga-tion, and the signatures to it are in the names of the individuals, who werein fact officers of the corporation, a bona fide holder, without notice of thecircumstances of its making, is entitled to hold it as the personal under-taking of its signers, although they have affixed to their names the titleof their respective offices, this will be regarded as descriptive of the personsand not of the character of liability. This is the rule even though thecorporation name is printed on the margin of the note. C. N. Bank v. Clark, 139 N. Y. 312; Belmont Dairy Co. v. Thrasher,124 Md. 320; Daniel v. Glidden, 38 Wash. 556; Hayes v. Matthews, 63Ind. 412; Bvulingame v. Brewster, 79 111. 512. But in First Nat. Bank v. Wallis, 150 N. ,as between the originalparties, it was held that if the bank, when it discounted the p
Size: 2650px × 943px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauth, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, bookidcu31924018845499
