Brown v. O'Byrne

45 So. 129, 153 Ala. 621
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 45 So. 129 (Brown v. O'Byrne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. O'Byrne, 45 So. 129, 153 Ala. 621 (Ala. 1907).

Opinion

SIMPSON, J.

— This was an action by the appellant against the appellee, seeking to recover on a certain written lease set ont in the pleadings. The lease, in its body, states that it is made “by and between W. A. Brown and McDonald & Bowers,” and is signed by said Brown and M. Bowers and Henry McDonald, the partners of said firm of McDonald & Bowers. There also appears, after these signatures, the name of the appellee, and the complaint alleges that by signing his name thereto the defendant agreed to guarantee the performance of the covenants contained therein on the part of said McDonald & Bowers. It is too well settled in this state to admit of controversy that where an instrument in writing purports on its face to be made by certain parties named therein, and the signature of a party not named therein appears to the instrument, it is not the deed or contract of said last-named party, and parol testimony is not admissible to show that he intended to bind himself thereby. — Fite, Porter & Go. v. Kennamer, 90 Ala. 470, 7 South. 920; Hammond v. Thompson, 56 Ala. 589; Blythe v. Dar gin, 68 Ala. 370; Davidson v. Ala. Steel & Wire Go., 109 Ala. 383, 19 South. 390; Agr. Bank of Miss, et al. v. Bice et al., 4 How. (U.. S.) 225, 11 L. Ed. 949; Lancaster et al. v. Roberts et al., 144 111. 213, 33 N. E. 27; Evans v. Gonklin et al., 71 Hun. 536, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1081; Blackmer v. Davis, 128 Mass. 538. It may be added that to allow the liability as guarantor to be established by parol in this case would be violative of the statute of frauds.

The demurrers to the complaint were properly sustained, and the judgment of the court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Haralson and Denson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Brush v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
911 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D. Texas, 2012)
In re Estate of Dickerson
600 S.W.2d 714 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1980)
Mersereau v. WHITESBURG CENTER, INCORPORATED
251 So. 2d 765 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1971)
Williams v. Atchison
239 So. 2d 204 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1970)
Caplan v. Stant
154 S.E.2d 121 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1967)
Nutrena Mills, Inc. v. Earle
111 N.W.2d 491 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1961)
Sun Oil Co. v. Oswell
62 So. 2d 783 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1953)
The Hope St. Garage Co. v. Pacific Oil Co.
165 A. 370 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1933)
Thomas v. Little
96 So. 896 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 So. 129, 153 Ala. 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-obyrne-ala-1907.