President of Hartford Bank v. Hart
Connecticut Superior Court
T HE plaintiffs declared against the defendant as the endorsor of a promissory note executed by Joseph Hart. The general issue was pleaded, and closed to the jury. The note Vicing produced on the trial, it purported to be made and endorsed as stated in the declaration. The defence, set up by the defendant, was, that the endorsement was a forgery.
Read the full summary
T HE plaintiffs declared against the defendant as the endorsor of a promissory note executed by Joseph Hart. The general issue was pleaded, and closed to the jury. The note Vicing produced on the trial, it purported to be made and endorsed as stated in the declaration. The defence, set up by the defendant, was, that the endorsement was a forgery. The plaintiffs admitted that it was not the hand-writing of the defendant, but contended, that he had virtually authorized it, and made it his own. After the jury were called, Jngersoll objected to S. O. as a juror, on the ground that he had married…
1Opinion of the Court
By thk Court.
It is clear, that the doings of a corporation can be known only by its corporate acts, The confessions of individual members cannot be received. Though the directors have certain powers, resulting from their act of incorporation, and are, for certain purposes, agents; and though their acts, when in strict relation to their agency, are binding en the corporation; yet, as to the matters attempted to be proved, it does not appear that they were agents. The evidence is, therefore, inadmissible.(a)
Vide Head et al v. Providence Insurance Company, 2 Crunch, 137. Scatty v. Marine…
2Cited by6 opinions
- County of Mono v. FlaniganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Polleys v. Ocean InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1837
- Lauderdale v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
- Lauderdale v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
- Loomis, Campbell & Co. v. Eagle BankOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1857
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.