Leeds v. Vail

• Decision Date: 01 January 1854
• Citation: 15 Pa. 185
• Parties: Leeds versus Vail.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 185

15 Pa. 185

Leeds versus Vail.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the District Court of Philadelphia.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Smith, for plaintiff in error.—The husband's authority may be implied in those cases where he is acquainted with the course of dealing of his wife, and does not forbid it, or put others on their guard. It need not be shown that he knew of the particular transaction: 5 Bin. 235; 3 Whar. 393; Story on Agency, sec. 104; Greenleaf, sec. 65; 5 Barr 333.

If it be said that in this case the power to endorse was for collection only, it may be answered that the law knows no difference in endorsements in the hand of bona fide holders.

Emlen, with whom was Bouvier, for defendant.—That, to render the husband liable on the note, it must be given by his authority and approbation, and this must be shown. It does not appear that the wife received any consideration for endorsing the note, or that her husband authorized her to endorse it: 5 W. & Ser. 164; 5 Bin. 235. That she never endorsed a note for the purpose of making herself liable, but merely for the purpose of collecting money due to her on account of the estate held in trust for her. When a credit is given to the wife alone, the husband is not responsible: 1 Mod. 138; 5 Taun. 356; 7 Term Rep. 166; 3 B. & Cr. 631.

The opinion of the court was delivered by BURNSIDE, J.

The promissory note in question was drawn on the 30th day of May, 1839, by John Carr, to the order of John S. Warner, for $530, at 90 days, and purported to be endorsed by John S. Warner, Hiram Ellis, Hannah Vail, Ellen McEwen, and Joseph Leeds, who added agent to his name. On the trial, Benjamin Leeds, the plaintiff, attempted to prove that the endorsement by Hannah Vail was by direction and with the authority of her husband. Upon a careful examination of the evidence, I am well satisfied that in this he utterly failed. No one witness speaks of this note. He proved that Mrs. Vail lived with her husband for the last twenty years; that her husband was a feeble old man, and that she had a trustee. She sometimes did business as his agent, under the name of Hannah Harris; that she made caps for sale, and did a small business in company with her daughter-in-law, whether as R. & H. Vail, or as Rebecca, the witness could not recollect. She had collected some notes through the bank, and endorsed them Hannah Harris. Why or wherefore she endorsed this note did not appear, or that her husband had any knowledge...