Hypes v. Griffin

Decision Date30 June 1878
Citation1878 WL 9984,31 Am.Rep. 71,89 Ill. 134
PartiesBENJAMIN HYPESv.CHARLES GRIFFIN, Admr. etc.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. WILLIAM H. SNYDER, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of debt, brought by Charles Griffin, administrator of the estate of Joseph Griffin, deceased, against Henry Brown, Thomas H. Shepherd, Benjamin Hypes and Zeno Scott, upon a promissory note of which the following is a copy:

Lebanon, Ill., July 6, 1867.

On the ninth day of October, 1867, we, the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Lebanon, promise to pay to Joseph Griffin, or to his order, $2000, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum from October 9, 1866. Witness our hands and seals.

+----------------------------------------------+
                ¦Henry Brown.   ¦[seal]¦Benjamin Hypes.¦[seal] ¦
                +---------------+------+---------------+-------¦
                ¦T. A. Shepherd.¦[seal]¦Zeno Scott.    ¦[seal]”¦
                +----------------------------------------------+
                

Mr. JAMES M. DILL, Mr. WILLIAM C. KUEFFNER, and Mr. HENRY H. HORNER for the appellant.

Mr. MARSHALL W. WEIR, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

Omitting the date and signatures of the makers, the note, which is the subject of this litigation, is, “On the 9th of October, 1867, we, the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Lebanon, promise to pay to Joseph Griffin, or to his order, $2000, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum, from October 9, 1866,” and was signed with the hands and seals of the makers. But one of the parties sued appears in this court, and that is appellant, Hypes. With the general issue, this defendant filed a special plea, the substance of which is, that the payee of the note, since deceased, was a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Lebanon, and well knew that defendant signed the note in his capacity of trustee, and that it was understood and agreed between the payee and defendant that defendant should not be individually or personally liable to the payee on account of having signed the writing; that the trustees of the church had executed and delivered to the payee a mortgage on church property to secure the note by them signed, and that it was well understood by the payee, when defendant and the other makers executed the note, they were acting in their capacity of trustees of the church; that they intended to obligate the church corporation, having full authority in that regard, and did not intend to bind themselves personally or individually by their writing. A demurrer interposed to that plea was by the court sustained, and, defendant electing to stand by his plea, that decision is assigned for error.

It is conceded that, under the decision in Powers v. Briggs et al. 79 Ill. 493, the note in suit, unexplained, is the individual note of the parties signing it. The instrument declared on in the case cited was in the exact form of the one in this case, and if all extrinsic evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement as to the liability of the makers is to be excluded, the principle of that case is conclusive of the one at bar.

The question made on the plea is, can the facts alleged be shown by extrinsic evidence--by parol testimony? Counsel for defendant assert with great confidence the affirmative of this proposition, but we can not yield our assent to that view of the law. On the face of the instrument signed by defendant, his undertaking is absolute; and to permit him to show by oral testimony that in no event was he to incur any personal liability by the writing, would be to contradict and vary the terms of his positive written agreement. Whatever may be the decisions elsewhere on analogous questions, the authorities in this State are full to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Andrus v. Blazzard
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • February 4, 1901
    ...... Milch v. Armour, 56 P. 1; Connors v. Clark, . 12 Cal. 168; Leonard v. Miner, 52 P. 655 (Cal.);. Robinson v. Bank, 8 N.E. 583; Hypes v. Griffin, 31 Am. Rep. 71 (Ill.); Randell v. Huntington, 46 Am. 421 (Me.); Haskins v. Durn, . 56 P. 953, 954 (Utah); Edgar v. Golden, 60 P. ......
  • Taylor v. Fluharty
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • August 1, 1922
    ......Hubbard ,. 25 Idaho 677, 138 P. 1133), in regard to all contracts, bills. of exchange and promissory notes as well as others. (. Hypes v. Griffin , 89 Ill. 134, 31 Am. Rep. 71;. Traynham v. Jackson , 15 Tex. 170, 65 Am. Dec. 152.). And if from the whole instrument it can be ......
  • Hately v. Pike
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • June 13, 1896
    ...It is mere description of the person.’ See, also, Powers v. Briggs, 79 Ill. 493;Trustees v. Rautenberg, 88 Ill. 219;Hypes v. Griffin, 89 Ill. 134;Vater v. Lewis, 36 Ind. 288. Mr. Daniel, in his work on Negotiable Instruments (4th Ed. vol. 1, § 415), says: ‘If a note be payable to an individ......
  • Owen v. King
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 3, 1935
    ......Tiffin Nat'l Bank, 54 Ohio St. 425, 44 N. E. 97; Lovell v. Williams, 125 Mass. 439; Hypes v. Griffin, 89 Ill. 134, 31 Am. Rep. 71. The right of the creditor to sue the undisclosed principal by an independent action and recover the full ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT