Passmore v. Mott
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THESE causes were brought before the court by certio-' rari to an alderman of the city, and depended upon the same principle.
Read the full summary
THESE causes were brought before the court by certio-' rari to an alderman of the city, and depended upon the same principle. By the evidence which accompanied the alderman’s return, the defendant was sued in each case for the price of a ticket in the Easton Delaware Bridge Lottery, which he had signed as secretary to the corporation of the Easton Delaware Bridge Company, purporting in the usual form, that the bearer would be entitled to the prize drawn to the number of the ticket, if demanded in one year. Whether the tickets were drawn prize or blank, did not appear; but it was understood…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
after stating the case, delivered judgment.
The question in these causes is, whether the defendant, acting as secretary to an incorporated company, and signing his name as secretary, is responsible personally to the plaintiffs. It would be extremely hard if he were so responsible, because the contract was expressly made by him on behalf of the company; nor is there the least reason to suppose that the plaintiffs trusted to his individual credit. The law has *202been long settled in cases similar to the present. In Macbeath v. Haldimand, it was decided that general Haldimand was not…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Woodward v. WebbSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870