McClellan v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 31 January 1872
• Citation: 49 Mo. 312
• Parties: WILLIAM MCCLELLAN et al., Respondents, v. P. T. REYNOLDS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

49 Mo. 312

WILLIAM MCCLELLAN et al., Respondents,

v.P. T. REYNOLDS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1872.

Appeal from Saline Court of Common Pleas.

Wm. D. Bush, for appellant, cited 2 Kent, 830-2, note 1, § 647, and authorities referred to; Unwin v. Wolsely, 1 Term, 674; Hodges v. Dexter, 1 Cranch, 345; Olney v. Wilkes, 18 Johns. 122; Daws v. Jackson, 9 Mass. 490; Fox v. Drake, 8 Cow. 191; Wiggins v. Hathaway, 6 Barb., S. C., 632; Smith Merc. Law, 144; Paley on Agency, §§ 368-9; Sto. Agency, 160, 261-3; Roberts v. Butler, 14 Verm. 195; Kirkpatrick v. Stainer, 22 Wend. 962; Shelton v. Darling, 2 Conn. 435; Matt v. Hicks, 1 Cow. 513; Rockaway v. Allen, 17 Wend 40; Stanton v. Comp, 4 Barb., S. C., 274; Smith v. Alexander, 31 Mo. 193; Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of Columbia, 5 Wheat. 336; Lazarus v. Shearer, 2 Ala. 718; Kicks v. Hinde, 9 Barb. 529.

BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs brought suit for a balance due upon the following note: “One day after date, for value received I promise to pay Wm. McClellan and A. McAllister six hundred and forty-five dollars, a balance due them for building a school-house in school district No. 3, in township 51, range 21, with ten per cent, interest from date. This first day of November, 1869. P. T. Reynolds, Local Director.”

The defendant answered, denying any personal promise, and averring that he was local director of the school district named, and executed the note in his official capacity. He set out in detail his election, etc.; that it was deemed necessary to have a schoolhouse in said sub-district; that a tax was levied for that purpose; that plaintiffs were employed by him, as the law required, to build the same; that after its completion, defendant paid them all the tax that had been collected, and, in behalf of said sub-district, gave said note for the balance; that it was understood at the time that the debt was a debt of the sub-district alone, and that defendant was not to be held personally, etc. This answer was stricken out on motion of plaintiffs, and they secured judgment for the amount due on the note.

The only questions presented are whether the facts set out in the answer can be shown by parol, and whether under them the defendant is personally liable. Under the facts as they appear upon the face of the note and as set out in the answer, there was no personal liability. We are not held to the technical rule that if an agent or officer of a corporation puts his own name officially to an obligation, and not the name of the principal or of the corporation, it necessarily becomes his obligation. The doctrine is correctly stated in Smith v....