Hitchcock v. Buchanan

Supreme Court

Hitchcock v. Buchanan

105 U.S. 416, 26 L. Ed. 1078, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2141

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 10, 1882

Docket250

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 105 U.S. 416 (Hitchcock v. Buchanan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hitchcock v. Buchanan, 105 U.S. 416, 26 L. Ed. 1078, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2141 (1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Jústioe Gray,

after stating the case,' delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill of exchange declared on Is manifestly the draff of the Belleville Nail Mill Company, and not of the individuals by whose hands it is subscribed. It purports to be made at the office of the company, and. directs the drawee to charge the amount thereof to the account of. the company, of which the signers describe themselves as president and secretary. An instrument bearing on' its face all these signs of being the contract of the principal cannot be held to bind the agents personally. Sayre v. Nichols, 7 Cal. 535; Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass. 561, and cases there cited.

The allegation in the declaration, that the defendants made “.their ” bill of exchange, is inconsistent with the terms of the *418 writing sued- on and made part of the record, and is not admitted by the demurrer. Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430; Binz v. Tyler, 79 Ill. 248.

The provision of the statute of Illinois (ed. 1877, title Practice, .sects. 34, 36) prohibiting defendants sued on written instruments from denying their signatures, except under plea verified by affidavit, has no application where the fact of signature is admitted by demurrer, and the only issue is one of law.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Jústioe Gray,

after stating the case,' delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill of exchange declared on Is manifestly the draff of the Belleville Nail Mill Company, and not of the individuals by whose hands it is subscribed. It purports to be made at the office of the company, and. directs the drawee to charge the amount thereof to the account of. the company, of which the signers describe themselves as president and secretary. An instrument bearing on' its face all these signs of being the contract of the principal cannot be held to bind the agents personally. Sayre v. Nichols, 7 Cal. 535; Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass. 561, and cases there cited.

The allegation in the declaration, that the defendants made “.their ” bill of exchange, is inconsistent with the terms of the *418 writing sued- on and made part of the record, and is not admitted by the demurrer. Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430; Binz v. Tyler, 79 Ill. 248.

The provision of the statute of Illinois (ed. 1877, title Practice, .sects. 34, 36) prohibiting defendants sued on written instruments from denying their signatures, except under plea verified by affidavit, has no application where the fact of signature is admitted by demurrer, and the only issue is one of law.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 U.S. 416, 26 L. Ed. 1078, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hitchcock-v-buchanan-scotus-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack