Kerr v. Billingsly
Tennessee Supreme Court
This was an action in the Circuit Court of Roane County brought .by the plaintiff against the defendants, upon a sealed instrument originally executed for the sum of Eight Hundred and-Dollars.
Read the full summary
This was an action in the Circuit Court of Roane County brought .by the plaintiff against the defendants, upon a sealed instrument originally executed for the sum of Eight Hundred and-Dollars. Afterwards, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, and in the absence of the defendants, the blank was filled with the words “ Eighty|Eour,” by an agent of the defendants, having merely a parol authority to do so.' Each of the defendants demurred and filed a special plea of non est factum., upon which the Circuit Court held the writing void, and gave judgment for the defendants, Billingsly and Witten,…
1Opinion of the Court
Reese,J.í
This case falls within thé principle of Smith et al. v. Dickinson, 6 Humphreys 261, and Turbeville v. Ryan, 1 Humphreys 113. Before the plaintiff can make the defendants liable, he must show that the agent had authority by deed to fill the blank in the instrument. The fact that this is by statute a negotiable instrument, does not put it upon the footing of negotiable instruments with respect to the authority to execute. (1)
Judgment affirmed.
Nunnelly v. Doherty, 1 Yerg. 26-33; Blackburn v. McAllister, Peck, 371; Harris v. Miller, Miegs, 158-161; Napier v. Catron, 2 Humph. 536; Boyd v.…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Farmland Mutual Insurance Co. v. JohnsonKentucky Supreme Court · 2001
- Vermont Mutual Insurance v. Singleton Ex Rel. SingletonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1994
- Hall v. OttersonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1894
- State v. MissioTennessee Supreme Court · 1900
- Commonwealth v. City of RoxburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1857
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.