RONEY'S ADM'R vs. WINTER

RONEY’S ADM’R vs. WINTER. [ACTION ON PROMISSORY NOTH,, BY PAYER AGAINST MAKER.] I». Note signed by agent, for principal, Mid prima feme contract of principal. A promissory note, beginning tlius, “Twelve months after dato, we promise to pay,” &c.; and signed thus,, “For the Montgomery Iron Worts, J. S. W., president, S. J., .secretary,” — is, prima facie, the contract of the principal, and not tending on J. S. W. personally.. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery.. Tried before tbe Hon. S. D. Hale. This action was brought by William C. Roney, (and was revived in the name of his administrator,) against Joseph S. Winter ;. -and was founded on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy : “$390. Montgomery, Ala., Jan. 1‘, 18551. “Twelve months after, date, we promise to pay Wm. C. Roney, or bearer, three-hundred and ninety dollars, for the ■hire of Jim and Jerry for. the present year. Wé are to feed the said negroes, and furnish them with the usual clothing j usual terms. of hiring governing. “For-, the Montgomery Iron Works, “J1 S. WINTER, President, “SaNders Irving, Secretary.” The record does not" show what pleas were filed. On the trial, as appears from the bill of"exceptions, the plaintiff proved the defendant’s signature to this note, and then offered to read if to-the jury; but; on the defendant’s motion, the court excluded it. 'The plaintiff excepted to this ruling of the-court; and was thereby compelled to take a nonsuit; and' lie-now assigns the ruling of the court as error, and movesto^set aside the nonsuit. Watts, Judge & JacicsON, for the appellant, cited Story on Agency, §§ 147, 154-57, 269, 270:; Baivson v. Cotton, 26 Ala. 591; Bradlee v. Boston Glass •'■Go,, 16 Pick. 350 ; .Harwood- v. Humes,. 9- Ala.. 659”;, Lazarus- «„ >,Shearer, Ala. 718 ;\ Gillespie v: Wesson, 7 Porter, 454.. Jno. A. Elhore, contra. [MAJORITY — R. W. WALKER, J.] R. W. WALKER, J. The rigid rule of the common law, which requires that a deed, executed by an attorney, for a principal, must be made and executed in the name of the principal, in order to operate as his deed, does not apply to instruments not under seal. — Carter v. Doe d. Chaudron, 21 Ala. 72, 83-7 ; New England Marine Ins. Co. v. Dewolf, 8 Pick. 56 ; Andrews v. Estes, 2 Fairfield, 267 ; Robertson v. Pope, 1 Rich. L. 501; Story Ag. § 148 ; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. (2d ed.) 609. ifn reference to this latter class of instruments, the rule lis,; that if-the name of the principal appears in the instrument, and it is evident from the writing, as a whole, that the intention was'that the principal, and not the agent, was the person to be bound,the principal alone will be bound, if the agent had authority to make the agreement, although the instrument be signed in the agent’s name only. — Townsend v. Hubbard, 4 Hill, 351, 357; Rathbon v. Budlong, 15 Johns. 1 ; Penty v. Stanton, 10 Wend. 271 ; Bradlee v. Boston Glass Co., 16 Pick. 347 ; Robertson v. Pope, 1 Rich. 501; Abbey v. Chase, 6 Cush. 56; Hicks v. Hurde, 9 Barb. 529. The principle is thus stated, in Key v. Parnham, 6 Harris & Johns. 418 : — “Whenever, upon the face of an agreement, a party contracting,plainly appears to be acting as the-agent of another, the stipulations of the contract are to be considered as operating solely to bind the principal; unless it manifestly appears, by the terms of the instrument, that the agent intendedrio-superadd or substitute his own responsibility for that of his principal. In such case, and in such case only, if acting-within the scope of his powers, is he personally responsible.” Applying this principle to "the .present case, it ..is very-clear that the note offered in evidence did not, prima facie, bind Winter personally; and this conclusion is abundantly sustained by numerous decisions, in regard to instruments substantially indentical in form with the note here sued on. Rice v. Gove, 22 Pick. 158; Long v. Colburn, 11 Mass. 97; Robertson v. Pope, 1 Rich. 501 ; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Bank v. Troy Bank, 1 Dougl. 458; Emerson v. Prov. Hat Man. Co., 12 Mass. 237; Ballou v. Talbot, 16 Mass. 641; Key v. Parnham, 6 Harr. & Johns. 418; Stringfellow & Hobson v. Marriott, 1 Ala. 573; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 624-7; Rathbon v. Budlong, 15 Johns. 1; 1 Parsons Contr. 48. As the note, standing by itself, did not import an obligartion on the defendant, and as it was not proposed to introduce any other evidence in connection with it, it was properly excluded. .Judgment affirmed.