Hitchcock v. Buchanan
105 U.S. 416 (1881)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Hitchcock v. Buchanan, 105 U.S. 416 (1881)

Hitchcock v. Buchanan

105 U.S. 416

Syllabus

1. A bill of exchange headed "Office of Belleville Nail Mill Co." and concluding, "charge same to account of Belleville Nail Mill Co., A. B., Pres't, C. D., Sec'y," is the bill of the company, and not of the individual signers, and a declaration thereon against the latter as drawers, setting forth the instrument, and alleging it to be their bill of exchange, is bad on demurrer.

2. A statute prohibiting defendants, in an action upon a written instrument, from denying their signatures except under plea verified by affidavit, does not apply to a case in which they demur because the instrument declared on appears upon its face to be the contract of their principal, and not of themselves.

This was an action of assumpsit by Hitchcock as endorsee, against Buchanan and Waugh as drawers, of the following bill of exchange:

"OFFICE OF BELLEVILLE NAIL MILL CO., BELLEVILLE, ILLS."

"$5,477.13 Dec. 15th, 1875"

"Four months after date, pay to the order of John Stevens, Jr., cashier, fifty-four hundred and seventy-seven 13/100 dollars,

Page 105 U. S. 417

value received, and charge same to account of Belleville Nail Mill Co."

"WM. C. BUCHANAN, Pres't"

"JAMES C. WAUGH, Sec'y"

"TO J. H. PIEPER, Treas., Belleville, Illinois"

The declaration alleged that the defendants, on the 15th of December, 1875, "at the office of Belleville Nail Mill Co., Belleville, Ills., made their certain bill of exchange" (describing it) and, after it had been accepted by the drawee, delivered it to the payee therein named, and he endorsed it to the plaintiff, and the bill at maturity was presented for payment, and payment refused, and the bill protested for nonpayment, and the defendants, knowing that it would not be paid by the acceptor, had omitted to provide funds for its payment. A copy of the instrument above set forth, and of the acceptance and endorsement thereon, was filed with the declaration.

The defendants, after oyer craved and had, severally filed general demurrers to the declaration, which were sustained by the circuit court and judgment given for the defendants on the ground that the instrument declared on was the bill of exchange of the Belleville Nail Mill Company, and not the bill of the defendants.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.