Byars v. Doores' Administrator

1. A note was signed “ A. B., attorney for C. D.” Held, A. B. was personally liable in an action upon the note upon proof of his want of authority.

Error to Jackson Circuit Court. This was a demand exhibited for allowance in the county court against the estate of Walker Doores, founded upon the following note: “ One day after date, I promise to pay Edmund Byars four hundred and six dollars for Elias Fisher, French Doores and H. H. Southworth, being money advanced by said Byars in a suit for the above named. “ Walker Doores, Attorney for Elias Fisher, French Doores, and Hunter H. Southworth.” At the trial in the Circuit Court, this note was read in evidence, although objected to. The plaintiff then offered evidence tending to show that Walker Doores had no authority from Fisher, French Doores, or Southworth, to execute said note as attorney or agent. An exception was taken to the admission of this testimony. There was a judgment for the plaintiff. 1. The note sued on is not the note of Walker Doores. It is and purports to be the note of Elias Fisher, French Doores and H. H. Southworth. (Combe’s case, 9 Co. 77 a. Wilkes v. Bush, 2 East, 141. Spikle v. Lavender, 2 B. & B. 452. Long v. Colburn, 11 Mass. Rep. 97. 12 Mass. 237. Ballou v. Talbot, 16 Mass. 460.) 2. If the note was signed by Walker Doores, without authority, his administrator is responsible for damages in an action on the case, but not in an action on the note. (11 Mass. 97. 16 Mass. 460.) 1. The defendant’s intestate was the maker of the note sued upon. It was a contract by Mm on his own account to pay the sum specified for Eisber, French Doores and Southworth. (2 Kent’s Comm. 631. White v. Skinner, 13 Johns. Rep. 307.) 2. Even if the note had been given by the intestate as an attorney, yet, having no authority to act as such, he wouM be personally liable. (12 N. H. Rep. 191. 9 N. H. 58 and 59, 3 Johns. Cases, 70, 71. 1 Am. Lead. Cases, 458.)