Pacific Guano Co. v. Holleman

U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia

Pacific Guano Co. v. Holleman

12 F. 61, 4 Woods 462, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2480

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. 61 (Pacific Guano Co. v. Holleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pacific Guano Co. v. Holleman, 12 F. 61, 4 Woods 462, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2480 (circtsdga 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Pardee, C. J.

The agreement of counsel submits to the court two questions: (1) Whether, on the agreed state of facts, the plaintiff can maintain the action. (2) Whether parol evidence is admissible on the trial to show that the note is in fact the property of the plaintiff. The facts agreed on are that Ayres, the agent named in the note, is a resident of this district, and the plaintiff is the holder of the note sued on, and is a corporation domiciled in the state of Massachusetts. The other facts appear in the petition. We are agreed that both questions shall be answered in the affirmative. That a note given to Asher Ayres, agent, may be sued on by the principal, who is the owner and holder, is well settled by all the later authorities. See 12 Am. Dec. 713, 715, and authorities there cited; Daniell, Neg. Inst. § 1187; Baldwin v. Bank of Newbury, 1 Wall. 234.

The authority cited by counsel for defendant in 1 Addison on Contracts, § 51, does not apply, as that section relates to equities between the parties in cases of concealed agency.

The case of Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472, does not conflict, for the court in that case did not deny the right of the principal to bring the suit, but maintained the right of the payee named also to sue. To the same effect is the extract from the decision of Chief Justice Marshall in Van Ness v. Forrest, 8 Cranch, 30, for the point in that case was whether the payee named could sue, and his right was maintained. The admissibility of parol evidence to show that the plain[63]*63tiff is the real owner and holder of the note sued on, when such ownership is put at issue by the defendant, is elementary. And in principle and authority the plaintiff may offer such evidence when in cases like this under consideration it may be held necessary for him to make such proof in order to maintain his action. See Daniell, Neg. Inst. § 1187, and cases there cited.

Euskine, D. J., concurred.

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

Pardee, C. J.

The agreement of counsel submits to the court two questions: (1) Whether, on the agreed state of facts, the plaintiff can maintain the action. (2) Whether parol evidence is admissible on the trial to show that the note is in fact the property of the plaintiff. The facts agreed on are that Ayres, the agent named in the note, is a resident of this district, and the plaintiff is the holder of the note sued on, and is a corporation domiciled in the state of Massachusetts. The other facts appear in the petition. We are agreed that both questions shall be answered in the affirmative. That a note given to Asher Ayres, agent, may be sued on by the principal, who is the owner and holder, is well settled by all the later authorities. See 12 Am. Dec. 713, 715, and authorities there cited; Daniell, Neg. Inst. § 1187; Baldwin v. Bank of Newbury, 1 Wall. 234.

The authority cited by counsel for defendant in 1 Addison on Contracts, § 51, does not apply, as that section relates to equities between the parties in cases of concealed agency.

The case of Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472, does not conflict, for the court in that case did not deny the right of the principal to bring the suit, but maintained the right of the payee named also to sue. To the same effect is the extract from the decision of Chief Justice Marshall in Van Ness v. Forrest, 8 Cranch, 30, for the point in that case was whether the payee named could sue, and his right was maintained. The admissibility of parol evidence to show that the plain[63]*63tiff is the real owner and holder of the note sued on, when such ownership is put at issue by the defendant, is elementary. And in principle and authority the plaintiff may offer such evidence when in cases like this under consideration it may be held necessary for him to make such proof in order to maintain his action. See Daniell, Neg. Inst. § 1187, and cases there cited.

Euskine, D. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F. 61, 4 Woods 462, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-guano-co-v-holleman-circtsdga-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack