Hovey v. Magill
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an action on a promissory note, wherein the plaintiff declared, that the defendant, by the name, of Arthur IV. Magill, agent for the Middletown Manufacturing yConi-pany, in and by a certain writing or note, under his hand, and by him well executed, dated the 18th day of August 1815, promised the plaintiff, sixty days from date, to pay to ■him» for value received, the sum of 300 dollars, in Mew-Fork money ; making a proferí of the note, and alleging a breach.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on a promissory note, wherein the plaintiff declared, that the defendant, by the name, of Arthur IV. Magill, agent for the Middletown Manufacturing yConi-pany, in and by a certain writing or note, under his hand, and by him well executed, dated the 18th day of August 1815, promised the plaintiff, sixty days from date, to pay to ■him» for value received, the sum of 300 dollars, in Mew-Fork money ; making a proferí of the note, and alleging a breach. The note read: on oyer was as follows : « Sixty days from date, I promise to pay William Hovey the sum of three hundred…
1Opinion of the Court
Swift, Ch. J.
In this case, it is conceded, that the defendant was agent for the Middletown Manufacturing Company ; that he had power to bind them ; and that this contract was made for their use and benefit. It is also agreed, that an agent can make himself personally liable on a contract for his principal. So that the question is, whether the signature of the defendant, “ Arthur W. Magill, agent of the Middletown Manufacturing Company,” is obligatory on the. company, or on himself.
When an agent, duly authorized, subscribes an engagement, in such manner as to manifest an intent not to bind…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Thacher v. DinsmoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Hodgson v. DexterSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Odiorne v. MaxcyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Shelton v. DarlingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
- Frost v. WoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1816
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Austin, Nichols Co., Inc. v. GrossSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
- Landeman v. Wilson & BeardsleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- Means v. SwormstedtIndiana Supreme Court · 1869
- Devendorf v. West Virginia Oil & Oil Land Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
- Pearse v. WelbornIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.