Hyperlawhypertext legal database Brown v. Butchers & Drovers' Bank 6 Hill & Den. 443

← Cases

Brown v. Butchers & Drovers' Bank

6 Hill & Den. 443 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Contents

Majority

p. 443
Brown vs. The Butchers & Drovers’ Bank.

Headnote

A party may become an endorser of a bill or note by any mark or-designation he chooses to. adopt, provided it be used as a substitute for his name, and he intend to be bound by it. Per Nelson, Ch. J.
•An endorsement is valid, though written with a lead pencil.
Where a party placed the figures “• 1. 2. 8.” upon the back of a bill of exchange, by way of substitute for his name, intending thus to bind himself as endorser; held, a valid endorsement, though it appeared he could write.
On error from the superior court of the city of New-York, where the Butchers <fc Drovers’ Bank sued Brown as the endorser of a bill of exchange, and recovered judgment. The endorsement was made with a lead pencil, and in figures, thus, “ 1. 2. 8.,” no name being written. Evidence was given strongly tending to show that the figures were in Brown’s hand-writing, and that he meant they should bind him as endorser ; though it also appeared he could write. The court below charged the jury that, if they believed the figures upon the bill were made by Brown, as a substitute for his proper name, intending thereby to bind himself as endorser; he .was liable. Exception. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs below, on which judgment was rendered, and Brown thereupon brought error:
C. De Witt, for the plaintiff in error.
A. Schell, for the defendants in error.

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,

p. 444
8 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.[1]

Judgment affirmed.

(a) (a) See Rogers v. Coit, (ante, p. 322, 3.)