Ryan v. Hebert
| Decision Date | 04 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 5882.,5882. |
| Citation | 124 A. 657 |
| Parties | RYAN v. HEBERT. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Antonio A. Capotosto, Judge.
Action by Joseph S. Ryan against Prank Hebert. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled, and case remanded, with directions.
Malcolm D. Champlin, of Providence, for plaintiff.
Greene, Kennedy & Greene, of Woonsocket, for defendant.
This is an action of assumpsit brought by the payee of a promissory note for $800 dated January 10, 1920. The note is signed "Est. of Felix Hebert, Frank Hebert, Adm'r." At the close of the testimony the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant has brought the case to this court by his bill of exceptions, claiming that the direction of a verdict was against the law and the evidence. The action is brought against Frank Hebert individually. The declaration contains a count on the note; a count stating that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $800, and gave him a note therefor which was not binding on the estate of Felix Hebert; a count for goods, and chattels sold and delivered, and the money counts. The plea is the general issue.
The testimony shows that the defendant purchased a truck on conditional sale October 28, 1919, and gave a series of notes therefor, some of which he paid. The note sued on is a renewal note for the balance due the plaintiff as commission on the sale of the truck. The plaintiff testified that the defendant also owed him $51.90 for repairs on the truck, gasoline, and oil.
The defendant admitted buying the truck from the plaintiff; that he gave him the note in suit for the balance of his commission on the sale; and that it has not been paid. Defendant testified that he is in the teaming and trucking business in succession to his father. It does not appear in evidence when or where defendant was appointed administrator upon the estate of Felix Hebert, nor does it appear that he purchased the truck for the estate, or that he had any authority to do so.
The defendant claims that he made the note in a representative capacity on behalf of his principal, and that he is not liable personally, although he had no authority to make the note. Section 26, c. 200, General Laws 1909, provides, among other things, that, where a person adds to his signature words indicating that he signs (a negotiable instrument) in a representative capacity, he is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Georgia Nat. Bank of Albany v. Lippmann
...Neg. Instr. Law, supra). There are decisions and dicta to the same effect, Pain v. Holtcamp (C. C. A.) 10 F. (2d) 443, 444;Ryan v. Hebert, 46 R. I. 47, 124 A. 657;Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Gross, 98 Conn. 782, 120 A. 596;Schwab v. Getty, 145 Wash. 66, 258 P. 1035,34 A. L. R. 1382;Jump v. Spa......
-
Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. v. Connell
... ... 560, 105 Am.St.Rep. 420; Dunham v ... Blood, 207 Mass. 512, 93 N.E. 804; Trust Co. of New ... Jersey v. Bream, 167 A. 163, 11 N.J.Misc. 569; Ryan ... v. Hebert, 46 R.I. 47, 124 A. 657; Vorachek v ... Anderson, 54 N.D. 891, 211 N.W. 984; Clover Leaf ... Creamery Co. v. Bjornstad, 168 Minn ... ...
-
Schwab v. Getty
... ... Instrument Law; Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Gross, 98 ... Conn. 782, 120 A. 596; Ryan v. Hebert, 46 R.I. 47, ... 124 A. 657. But the Negotiable Instrument Act has no direct ... application. This is not here a question of ... ...
-
Trust Co. of N.J. v. Bream
...the whole consideration therefor, at the request of such administrator or executor. 24 C. J. 60. § 480: 11 R. C. L. p. 166, § 177; Ryan v. Hebert, 46 R. I. 47. 124 A. The rule, so far as it applies to the personal liability of the representative, is not so broadly applied, however, in all j......