Lazarus v. Shearer
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writ of error to the County of Dallas. The plaintiff declared against the defendant in assumpsit as the acceptor of a bill of exchange of the following tenor, viz “Dollars 1276 89. Mobile, 24th April, 1838. On the first day of January, 1839, of this nay first of exchange, second of the same tenor and date unpaid, pay Henry Lazarus or bearer twelve hundred and seventy-six eighty-nine one-hundredths dollars, for value received, negotiable and pay-, able at the Bank of Mobile.
Read the full summary
Writ of error to the County of Dallas. The plaintiff declared against the defendant in assumpsit as the acceptor of a bill of exchange of the following tenor, viz “Dollars 1276 89. Mobile, 24th April, 1838. On the first day of January, 1839, of this nay first of exchange, second of the same tenor and date unpaid, pay Henry Lazarus or bearer twelve hundred and seventy-six eighty-nine one-hundredths dollars, for value received, negotiable and pay-, able at the Bank of Mobile. ANDREW ALFRED DEXTER, Ch’f Engn’r S. & T. R. R. Co. To Gilbert Shearer, Pres’t. of the Selma and Tennessee-Railroad…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
— The formality once required in the execution of written contracts, made through the medium of agents is now to a great extent dispensed with. It is however necessary, in order to make it binding upon the principal, per se, that it should appear to have been made in his name. The form of the signature is unimportant, it may be either “ A. B. by C. D.” or “ C. D. for A. B.” [Stringfellow & Hobson v. Mariott, 1 Alabama Rep. N. S. 573.] But a mere addition to the name of the party signing a contract, cannot be regarded as a certain indicium, that it was made on the behalf and account of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Story v. ElliotCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1827
- Rossiter v. RossiterNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Brockway v. AllenNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Arfridson v. LaddMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
3Cited by35 opinions
- Lutz v. Van Heynigen Brokerage Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Von Schmidt Dredge Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
- Mobile, J. &. K. C. R. R. v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Briel v. Exchange Nat. BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Mobile & Montgomery Railway Co. v. GilmerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.