Knight v. Clark

• Decision Date: 18 February 1886
• Citation: 48 N.J.L. 22,2 A. 780
• Parties: KNIGHT v. CLARK and others.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

2 A. 780

48 N.J.L. 22

KNIGHT

v. CLARK and others.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

February 18, 1886.

The action was founded on the following sealed bill:

"$407 17-100.

"FIVE POINTS, GLOUCESTER CO., N. J., October 28, 1884.

"For value received, we, Allen S. Clark, William M. Colson, and Joseph H. Knight, members of the township committee of the township of Harrison, county of Gloucester, N. J., and our successors in office, promise to pay Edward B. Knight, or order, in six months from the date hereof, with lawful interest from date, four hundred seven dollars and seventeen cents, without defalcation. And, in case of default of payment as aforesaid, we hereby empower any attorney at law to be appointed by said Edward B. Knight, or his assigns, to appear in any court which said Edward B. Knight, or his assigns, may select, and commence or prosecute a suit against us, or our successors in office, on said note, to confess judgment for all and every part of the interest or principal on said note in the payment of which we or our successors in office may be delinquent.

"Witness our hands and seals this twenty-eighth day of October, A. D. 1884. ALLEN S. CLARK. [L. S.]

"WILLIAM M. COLSON. [L. S.]

"JOSEPH H. KNIGHT. [L. S.]

"Witness: WM. F. IREDELL."

David J. Pancoast, for plaintiff.

Robert S. Clymer, for defendants.

BEASLEY, C. J. The court has been asked by the counsel of the respective parties to decide the question involved, irrespectively of the pleadings. The case will be decided from the facts stated in the record, and the admitted fact that the debt secured by the sealed instrument sued on was the debt of the township of Harrison. The only inquiry, therefore, is whether the defendants, by the form of the deed executed by them, have made themselves personally responsible for this public debt. The counsel of the plaintiff, in support of the right of action, has referred to the case of Dayton v. Warne, 43 N. J. Law, 659. But that case is not in any degree applicable, for it was a case of a private agency, and the defendants in the present instance acted in a public capacity. The principle of decision in the reported case was that when a private agent does not attempt, in a sealed instrument, to bind his principal, but in terms imposes the obligation on himself, he incurs by such an act a personal responsibility. But it is well settled that a public agent does not stand on the same footing. It is much against public policy to cast the obligations that justly belong to the body...