Hyperlawhypertext legal database United Electric Light & Power Co. v. Blackton 128 N.Y.S. 92

← Cases

United Electric Light & Power Co. v. Blackton

128 N.Y.S. 92 Court N.Y. App. Term English

Delivered by BIJUR, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 92
UNITED ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. v. BLACKTON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February, 1911.)

Headnote

Contracts (§ 179[1] )—Signature—Parties.
The Quoted words in a contract signed, “J. S. B., Treasurer, O. & C_ M. C.,” will be considered descriptio personce, in absence of a showing that B. signed the contract in other than his individual capacity.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 777, 778; Dec. Dig. § 179.[1] ]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by the United Electric Light & Power Company against J„ Stuart Blackton. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.
Beardsley & Hemmens, for appellant.
Waldo & Ball, for respondent.

Plaintiff sues to recover for electric light furnished pursuant to a contract signed by “J. Stuart Blackton, Treasurer, C. & C. M. C.” As there is nothing in the contract to indicate that the defendant contracted in other than his individual capacity, the words following his name are mere descriptio personae. No evidence at all was-offered by defendant to the effect that plaintiff knew him to be representing some principal, or that he did, in fact, represent any one but. himself.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.