Legal Opinion

Peabody School Furniture Co. v. Whitman

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided November 14, 1912PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court. Heard before Hou. W. W. Haralson. Assupmsit by the Peabody School Furniture Company, against F. E. Whitman and another. Judgment for defendants and plaintiffs appeal. The contract was not for a principal and so bound the signers individually. — Richmond L. Whs. v. Montague, 119 Ala. 84; Briel v. Exchange Nat.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court. Heard before Hou. W. W. Haralson. Assupmsit by the Peabody School Furniture Company, against F. E. Whitman and another. Judgment for defendants and plaintiffs appeal. The contract was not for a principal and so bound the signers individually. — Richmond L. Whs. v. Montague, 119 Ala. 84; Briel v. Exchange Nat. Bank, 55 South. 81. The addition of the office, etc., does not exempt from personal liability. — Section 4977, Code 1907; Brannen’s Negotia. Inst. Law, 25; 9 Atl. 466. An inspection of the note shows that there was no intention to become personally…

1Opinion of the Court

•PELHAM, J.

The note sued upon is signed “Board •of Trustees,” and underneath these words are the signatures “E. F. Whitman,” followed by the word “Chairman,” and “Q-. .M. E. Mann,” followed by the abbreviation “Secy.” The note is made payable to the appellant, and the appellees (defendants below), who do not deny executing the instrument as described, are sued individually, and do deny personal or individual *184liability, and filed pleas of non est factum and want of consideration.'

The evidence without conflict shows that the note was given for certain school furniture for the sole use and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ware, Murphy & Co. v. Morgan & DuncanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
  2. Briel v. Exchange Nat. BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
  3. Richardson Bros. & Co. v. FieldsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1899
  4. Oldacre v. StuartSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Spencer v. Blanke Mfg. & Supply Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  2. Consumers Twine & Machinery Co. v. Mount Pleasant Thermo Tank Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1923

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API