Brown v. Butchers & Drovers' Bank

New York Supreme Court

Brown v. Butchers & Drovers' Bank

6 Hill & Den. 443

DecidedMay 15, 1844

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Hill & Den. 443 (Brown v. Butchers & Drovers' Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Butchers & Drovers' Bank, 6 Hill & Den. 443 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Nelson, Ch. J.

It has been expressly decided that an endorsement written in pencil is sufficient; (Geary v. Physic, 5 Barn. & Cress. 234;) and also that it may be made by a mark. (George v. Surrey, 1 Mood. & Malk. 516.) In a recent case in the K. B. it was held that a mark was a good signing within the statute of frauds ; and the court refused to allow an enquiry into the fact whether the party could write, saying that would make no difference. (Baker v. Dening, [444]*4448 Adol. & Ellis, 94; and see Harrison v. Harrison, 8 Ves. 186 ; Addy v. Grix, id. 504.)

These cases fully sustain the ruling of the court below. They • show, I think,, that a person may become bound by any mark or designation he thinks proper to adopt, provided it be used as a substitute for his name, and he intend to bind himself.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court, Nelson, Ch. J.

It has been expressly decided that an endorsement written in pencil is sufficient; (Geary v. Physic, 5 Barn. & Cress. 234;) and also that it may be made by a mark. (George v. Surrey, 1 Mood. & Malk. 516.) In a recent case in the K. B. it was held that a mark was a good signing within the statute of frauds ; and the court refused to allow an enquiry into the fact whether the party could write, saying that would make no difference. (Baker v. Dening, [444]*4448 Adol. & Ellis, 94; and see Harrison v. Harrison, 8 Ves. 186 ; Addy v. Grix, id. 504.)

These cases fully sustain the ruling of the court below. They • show, I think,, that a person may become bound by any mark or designation he thinks proper to adopt, provided it be used as a substitute for his name, and he intend to bind himself.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Hill & Den. 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-butchers-drovers-bank-nysupct-1844.