Miller v. Roach
| Decision Date | 27 November 1889 |
| Citation | 150 Mass. 140,22 N.E. 634 |
| Parties | MILLER v. ROACH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Mark E. Couch, for plaintiff.
C.J Parkhurst, for defendant.
This suit is brought upon a promissory note in the usual form containing the words, "we promise to pay," with nothing in the body of the note to indicate who is meant by the word "we." On that part of the note where the signature is usually found there is stamped a large circular, corporate seal, upon the face of which, in a circle near its outer edge, appear in print the words "New York Skating Rink Construction Company," and in the centre of it the words, "Incorporated, 1884." A little to the left, and below the centre of the seal, in such positions that the circumference passes through the last letter of the word "ROACH," and also through the word "Treasurer," are written the words, "JOHN ROACH, Treasurer," and the question is whether this is the note of the defendant or of the corporation. The answer to this question depends upon whether it fairly appears that John Roach, in signing it, acted as the agent of the corporation. The case is peculiar in the use of the corporate seal. If the words which appear on the face of the seal had been written in their place on the note, and had been followed by the words, "JOHN ROACH, Treasurer," there would have been no doubt that they were so written as the signature of the corporation appended by its treasurer. Draper v. Steam Heating Co., 5 Allen, 338. That mode of signing is common among corporations, and if the words had been affixed in print, by a stamp designed to be used in signing the corporate name, and a blank space had been left in which the treasurer's name was afterwards inserted by him in manuscript, the result would have been the same. We think it makes no difference that the name of the corporation impressed upon the paper was so impressed by the corporate seal, which is ordinarily used only in connection with a corporate act of signing. We are of opinion that the paper should be treated as a promissory note, signed with the signature of the corporation, affixed by its treasurer, who for convenience in affixing it used a stamp, except in that part which contained for verification his own name and official designation. See Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass 561; Mann v. Chandler, 9 Mass. 335; Fuller v. Hooper, 3 Gray, 334; Chipman v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawthorne v. Austin Organ Co.
...form led to variant conclusions. See, e. g., Barker v. Mechanic Fire Ins. Co., 3 Wend. N. Y. 94, 20 Am. Dec. 664; Miller v. Roach, 150 Mass. 140, 22 N. E. 634, 6 L. R. A. 71; Mechem, § 1124. The refinement of distinction was mystifying even to the courts. It must have been more mystifying t......
-
Taylor v. Fluharty
... ... exclusively the obligation of the corporation. ( Means v ... Swormstedt, 32 Ind. 87, 2 Am. Rep. 330; Miller v ... Roach, 150 Mass. 140, 22 N.E. 634, 6 L. R. A. 71; ... Hovey v. Magill, 2 Conn. 680; 1 Par. Con., sec. 97; ... Angell & Ames on Corp., ... ...
-
Taylor v. Fluharty
... ... Swormstedt, 32 Ind. 87, 2 Am. Rep. 330; ... Aggs v. Nicholson, 1 H. & N. 165; Pitman v ... Kintner, 5 Blackf. 250, 33 Am. Dec. 461; Miller v ... Roach, 150 Mass. 140, 22 N.E. 634, 6 L. R. A. 71; ... Hovey v. Magill, 2 Conn. 680; New England Elec. Co ... v. Shook, 27 Colo. App. 30, ... ...
-
Consumers' Twine & Mach. Co. v. Mt. Pleasant Thermo Tank Co., 35106.
...324, 105 N. E. 878;Somers v. Hanson, 78 Or. 429, 153 Pac. 43;Aungst v. Creque, 72 Ohio St. 551, 74 N. E. 1073;Miller v. Roach, 150 Mass. 140, 22 N. E. 634, 6 L. R. A. 71;Reeve v. First Nat. Bank, 54 N. J. Law, 208, 23 Atl. 853, 16 L. R. A. 143, 33 Am. St. Rep. 675. The mere addition of word......