| Volume 194, Page 890 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
890 3 & 4 ANN. CAP. 9, PROMISSORY NOTES. not to be paid at all unless the drafts were honoured, Williamson v. Ben- nett, 2 Camp. 417; and see Leeds v. Lancashire, ibid. 205, as to the effect of the indorsement of other terms, written upon the note at the time of its making, as between the parties to it. And if an instrument, good as a note within the case of Green v. Davies supra, contains in addition a promise to pay a contingent demand, it will be deemed entire, and an agreement engrafted upon, and not a promissory note, Bolton v. Dugdale, 4 B. & Ad. 619. So the note must be for the payment of money only, and therefore, in the case of Martin v. Chauntry, 2 Str. 1271, usually cited on this point, it was held on error from the C. B., that a note to deliver up horses and a wharf, and to pay money at a particular day could not be counted on as a note within the Statute. And though the statement of the consideration will not vitiate a note, as if it be made to pay a sum of money so many months after date, "for value received of premises in Rosemary Lane, late in A.'s possession." Bull. N. P. 272, or to pay 50!., "being the portion of a value as under deposited in security for the payment thereof, Hassoullier v. Hartsinck, 7 T. R. 733, yet it is familiar law, that the note must not be made payable out of a particular fund, which may or may not prove productive, Story on Promissory Notes, secs. 25, 26. The Statute expressly provides that the note must be in writing; but it has always been held that the signature may be in any part of it; as if the note be in the defendant's own writing, "I, A. B., promise to pay" is a sufficient signature, nor is it necessary to state the signing in the declaration, Taylor v. Dobbins, 1 Str. 399. So a man not able to write may sign by his mark, and the execution may be proved from inspection by a person who has seen the party so execute instruments, George v. Surrey, 1 Moo. & Malk. 516. The instances of corporation, banker, &c., are put as examples only, and any person may authorize another to draw in his name, and he will be liable on it, per Lord Lyndhurst in Dickenson v. 656 Teague, 4 Tyr. 453,* except of course married women, infants, &c. A promissory note signed by a feme covert jointly with her husband cannot be enforced against her at law2—a judgment by default against her on such a note is a nullity, and execution against her separate estate will be restrained by injunction, Griffith v. Clarke, 18 Md. 457. As to notes made to a married woman, under the Code as construed in Stockett v. Bird, 18 Md. 484, they may be reduced into possession by the husband during his life; otherwise they survive to her, or go to her representative. And if a bill be drawn payable to a married woman, the drawer cannot deny her right to demand payment, Cathell v. Goodwin, 1 H. & G. 468. The contract of an infant on a bill or note is voidable only, and he may consequently affirm it after coming of age, Chesley v. Taylor, 3 Gill, 251. With regard to agents: a general authority to give releases, receive debts, Ac., and even to transact all business for the principal does not authorize an agent to negotiate or indorse bills, Hogg v. Smith, 1 Taunt. 347; Mur- ray v. East India Company, 5 B. & A. 204. But an agent for this pur- 2 Contra, of course, since the Act of 1872, ch, 270, (Code 1888, Art. 45, sec. 2). See now Code 1911, Art. 45, sec. 6. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
| Volume 194, Page 890 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives