Hyperlawhypertext legal database Stearns v. Allen 32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 558

← Cases

Stearns v. Allen

32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 558 Court N.Y. Gen. Term English

Judges Learned, P. J., and Boardman, J., concurred in result.

Delivered by Bookes, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 558
HENRY M. STEARNS, Appellant, v. CHARLES L. ALLEN and Others, Respondents.

Headnote

Note given by trustees — when they are not liable upon it individually.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants, entered upon a verdict directed at the circuit.
The action was brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, personally, on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ $125.00.
“ On or before the 1st day of April, 1876, we promise to pay, as trustees of Corinth Lodge No. 683, F. and A. M., to D. Y. Sturdevan or bearer one hundred and twenty-five dollars, with interest payable annually. Note payable at N. W. Buckmaster’s store when due.
“April 25, 1871.
“CHAS. L. ALLEN.
“N. W. BUCKMASTER.
“M. OWENS.”
The defendants in their answer set up the tact that the note in question was given by them as duly elected and acting trustees of Corinth Lodge No. 683 of Free and Accepted Masons, a corporation duly organized and empowered to transact such business, and that
p. 559
the}', as such trustees and officers, were duly authorized by the lodge to give said promissory note, and that the same was given for a debt of said lodge and accepted as its obligation, and that they received no part of the proceeds thereof and denied their liability thereon.
Upon the trial the defendants were allowed, against the plaintiffs objection and exception, to prove the facts so set up. The court thereupon directed a verdict in their favor.
The court at General Term said: “As I understand this case it presents the precise question considered and determined in Hood v. Hollenbeck ( 7 Hun, 362 ). The question was examined by me in that case with great care on the authorities, and I can only add that a reexamination of them confirms me in the conclusions there reached and declared. The question in very nearly the same form was again under examination in Whitford v. Laidler,[1] decided at the last General Term in this department, where in a dissenting opinion I repeated to some extent my own views of the law on the point here before us for discussion, which views are in entire harmony with those expressed in Hood v. Hollenbeck. For myself I am satisfied that the latter case was well decided, as the law is settled by numerous decisions in this State. In Whitford v. LctMler I took occasion to say that the decisions in some of our sister States were not, as I thought, in harmony with those of our own State. Following the decision in Hood v. Hollenbeck, and the many decisions referred to in the opinion in that case, die judgment here ordered should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.”
A. Pond, for the appellant.
J. W. Houghton, for the respondents.

Opinion by

Learned, P. J., and Boardman, J., concurred in result.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.