HENRY SCHAEFER, Respondent, v. JULIUS A. BIDWELL, Appellant
Schaefer v. Bidwell
HENRY SCHAEFER, Respondent, v. JULIUS A. BIDWELL, Appellant.
HENRY SCHAEFER, Respondent, v. JULIUS A. BIDWELL, Appellant.
Dde Bills Signed by Superintendent oe Mixing Company. In a siiit against the superintendent of a mining company on due bills signed by him, but adding after his signature “ Supt. C. S. M. Co.” : Held, that he might show that the consideration for the bills passed to the company, that the credit was given to it, that he had authority to bind it, and acted solely as such agent to the knowledge of the payers of thd bills ; and that the rejection of such preferred evidence was error.
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Lincoln County.
Plaintiff sued to recover $2,840 10 on a number of due bills, made to himself and others, his assignors, in the form recited in the opinion. They were all given about the middle of the year 1867; but it appears that defendant had departed from the State soon after . giving them, and did not return until May, 1872, and such absence was alleged in the complaint. The answer denied that defendant had executed the bills, and set up that he was at the time superintendent and finance agent of the Crescent Silver Mining Company, and that as such agent and on behalf of said company, and not otherwise, he signed the bills referred to. It also set up other defenses.
On the trial all the testimony tending to prove that defendant was acting in signing the bills merely as agent of the Crescent City Mining Company, and not in his individual capacity was stricken out; and an offer to prove that fact and the further facts that the consideration passed to the company and that the credit that was given to it, was rejected. The court instructed the jury that the bills were the bills of defendant, and they were not to take into consideration any evidence to show that any one ' else or any company was responsible for the payment of them; that it made no difference what the letters following the name of J. A. Bidwell
on the bills meant; that the court bad given the legal construction to the bills and was alone responsible for doing so, and the jury was bound to apply the law as given by the court.
The jury, under the instructions, found a verdict in favor of plaintiff on the small bills for $442 10; and on the bill for $2,110, claimed to be due plaintiff bimself, “in favor of defendant, believing that it never existed.” Judgment was entered upon the verdict for the sum so found due and interest amounting in all to $740, and costs and disbursements amounting to $3,683 50. The sheriff’s fees were set down in the cost bill at $2,954 50; but they were afterwards on motion reduced to $94 50, making the costs in the aggregate $823 50.
1 Defendant appealed.
Fitter & Corson, Bishop & Sabin and A. B. Hunt, for Appellant.
I. There is sufficient appearing upon the face of the due bills, to show that the engagement of Bidwell was that of an agent and not that of a principal. The form of the bills, dating them at “Crescent Mill” and adding “Supt. C. S. M. Co.,” bring the case clearly within those of Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass. 560; Hovey v. McCill, 2 Conn. 680; 1 Parsons on Bills and Notes, 97; Houghton v. National Bank of Elko, 24’Wis. 663; Means v. Dwaimsted; 32Ind. 87; Gillig, Mott & Co. v. Lake B. B. Co., 2 Nev. 321.
II. There was at least sufficient appearing upon the face of the paper to make it doubtful whether or not the person signing intended to bind bimself individually or only to engage as agent; in which case all the evidence offered was admissible for the purpose of resolving that doubt and showing the true nature of the transaction. 1 Parsons on Bills and Notes, 94-95; Meehanids Bank v. Bank of Colum bia, 5 Wheat. 326; Haile v. Pierce, 32 Maryland, 327; Hides v. Hinde, 9 Barbour,'528; Mott v. Hides, 1 Cowen, 513; Sayre y. Nichols, 7 Cal. 535; 1N. J. 683; 2 Ala. 657; 6 J. J. Marsh, 31; 5 B. Mon. 51; 17 Wend. 40; 9 Grat. 68; 29 N. V. 619; 21 Ind. 90.
J. G. Foster and G’. S. Sawyer, for Respondent.
No brief on file.
By the Court,
Whitman, C. J.:
Respondent claimed and had recovery on certain bills, of which the following is a sample in form :
" $50.00. One day after date, due Henry Devann fifty dollars, value received. J. A. Bidwell,
" Supt. C. S. M. Co.
" Crescent Mill, June 18th, 1867."
The appellant, under proper averments in his answer, sought to prove that the consideration for the bills passed to a corporation, of which he was the superintendent; that the credit was given to it; and that he had authority to bind it by the bills, and acted solely as such superintendent to the knowledge of the world, and especially to that of the payees of the bills and respondent, their assignee. The proffered evidence was rejected, and the jury instructed that the bills were the individual paper of appellant. There was enough on the face of the bills to entitle appellant to make the desired proof. Gillig, Mott & Co. v. Lake Bigler Road Co. 2 Nev. 214. To refuse its admission was error. The jury were deprived of proper evidence, and wrongly instructed. The judgment is reversed,' and case remanded for a new trial.