This is an action at law to recover on a promissory *74 note. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff is the payee and holder of a note in the principal amount of $10,000, dated July 29,1969, executed in the following form:

“Morse Bros. Painting and Weatherproofing, a

Corporation

By /s/ J. L. Morse President

By /s/ Doris N. Morse Secretary”

Morse Bros. Painting and Waterproofing, Inc., ① is a California corporation. At the time the note was executed defendant and her husband, J. L. Morse, were the corporation’s officers and sole shareholders. The plaintiff bank had done business with the corporation for some time prior to the date of the note, and accepted the note as that of the corporation.

On January 4, 1965, the State of California had suspended the corporation’s powers for failure to pay state corporation taxes under the authority of the. following statute:

“Except for the purpose of amending the articles of incorporation to set forth a new name, the corporate powers, rights and privileges of a domestic taxpayer shall be suspended * * * if any of the following conditions occur:

“(b) If any tax, penalty or interest, or any portion thereof, other than jeopardy or fraud assessments, due and payable upon notice and demand from the Franchise Tax Board, is not paid on *75 or before 6 o’clock p.m. on the last day of the eleventh month following the due date of said tax; # # #

California Revenue and Taxation Code § 23301.

Although the suspension was in effect on the date of the execution of the note, the bank was unaware of the suspension. The trial court found as a fact ② that defendant was also unaware of the suspension, although in addition to being a corporate officer she was active in the business, performing the bookkeeping and secretarial work.

The corporation ceased to do business in January, 1970, shortly after the death of J. L. Morse. So far as it appears, however, the corporation has never been formally dissolved.

The bank contends that defendant is personally liable on two alternative theories: (1) The suspension of the corporation’s “powers, rights and privileges” imposed, as a matter of law, personal liability for corporate debts upon the officers and directors. (2) Defendant is liable on the note because, although purporting to sign as an officer on behalf of the corporation, she was without authority to do so. As the entire transaction took place in California, the parties agree that the substantive law of California is to be applied.

In considering plaintiff’s first contention, we find no California cases directly in point. The statute upon which plaintiff relies does not in terms make the *76 corporation’s officers or directors liable for debts incurred during suspension, but provides only for tbe suspension of the corporation’s “powers, rights and privileges:”;Among the powers suspended is .the .power «to borrow money and issue notes. California Corporations Code § 802 (c). Under a similar suspension statute (see California Corporations C.ode § 5901) it was said in Silvey v. Fink, 99. Cal App 528, 279 P 202, 203 (1929)

“Under.the above section, the corporation and its directors, as such, were without power, during the period of suspension, to borrow money of execute the corporation’s note therefOr, * •*

The purpose of the. statute is to bring pressure upon the corpofatio'n to pay the tax. A. E. Cook Company v. K S Racing Enterprises, 274 Cal App 2d 499, 79 Cal Rptr 123, 124 (1969); City National Bank of Beverly Hills v. Jay Miles, Inc., 227 Cal App 2d 837, 39 Cal Rptr 184, 187 (1964). To this end the Be venue and ’Taxation .Code also provides, in § 23304:

' “Every contract made in violation of this article is hereby declared to be voidable, at the instance of any party other than the taxpayer.” ■

In addition, criminal penalties may be imposed, undér § 25962.1, upon “Any person who attempts or purports to exercise the' powers, rights and privileges of a * *' * corporation which has been suspended pursuant to 'See-lion 23301 •* * A” 7 - ' . . .

In Silvey v. Fink, supra, plaintiffs brought an action against certain individuals who had acted--as tiie board, óf directors of a suspended corporation. Plaintiffs alleged that they had- loaned- the corporation money and had been given a note-purportedly executed on behalf of the corporation. The evidence showed that *77 the nóte had been given and the money advanced as part of a stock subscription transaction. Plaintiffs were allowed to recover from the directors on a restitu.tionary theory, the opinion stating that there had been a total failure of consideration for the money paid by plaintiffs. 279 P at 204. In Silvey the statute provided and the parties admitted that the note was void.

The present case is distinguishable, as the governing statute does not make the note void, but only voidable at the instance of the bank. The bank has made no attempt to avoid the transaction. Moreover, under the statute, the corporation remained in existence although its powers and privileges were suspended. It apparently continued to do business, and had assets, until after the note’s maturity date, October 29, 1969. The facts in this ease do not show a failure of consideration.

The California statute, providing for suspension rather than forfeiture of corporate powers is apparently unusual. A Michigan statute provides for suspension of corporate powers upon failure to pay license fees or to file required annual reports with the state. That statute, unlike the California provision, expressly makes. corporate officers liable for corporate debts contracted during the period of default. Mich. Comp. Laws Anno § 450.87. ③ It is not unusual for state law to impose personal liability on officers or directors for *78 debts contracted while the corporation is in default under the statutes requiring the filing of reports. See, generally, 5 Fletcher, Cyclopedia of Corporations (1967 revision) 985-991. It has been held that this liability is ■purely statutory, and that the statutes are to be strictly construed. Bremer v. Equitable Construction & Mortgage Corp., 26 Mich App 204, 182 NW2d 69, 71 (1970); Mountain States Supply v. Mountain States F. & L. Co., 149 Mont 198, 425 P2d 75, 77 (1967); Butler v. Peters, 62 Mont 381, 205 P 247, 248-249, 26 ALR 560 (1922).

Unlike the above statutes, which are intended to enforce the duty to file reports which provide the public with information about the corporation’s affairs, the California statute is designed only to aid the state in its collection of revenue. There is no purpose to protect individuals as potential creditors of investors. There is no compelling reason why a corporation’s tax delinquency should result in its officers being individually liable for corporate debts. In the absence of any indication in the statute that , the legislature intended that result, this court will not construe the California statute as imposing liability on defendant.

Plaintiff’s other theory is that defendant is personally liable on the note by virtue of her signature. Section 3404 of the California Commercial Code (UCC § 3-404) provides:

“(1) Any unauthorized signature is wholly inoperative as that of the person whose name is signed unless he ratifies it or is precluded from denying it; but it operates as the signature of the unauthorized signer in favor of any person who in good faith pays the instrument or takes it for value.”

See, also, Comment 2 to § 3-404 of the Uniform Commercial Code:

“The final clause of subsection (1) is new. It *79 states the generally accepted rule that the unauthorized signature, while it is wholly inoperative as that of the person whose name is signed, is effective to impose liability upon the actual signer or to transfer any rights that he may have in the instrument. His liability is not in damages for breach of a warranty of his authority, but is full liability on the instrument in the capacity in which he has signed. * * *”

This was the general rule under the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law. See 5 Uniform Laws Annotated 209-210. See, also, Restatement of Agency 2d, § 324 (2):

“An agent is not liable as a party to a negotiable instrument on which the name of the principal appears if it is interpreted as being executed by the agent only on behalf of such principal and if the agent has poiver to hind the principal.” (Emphasis added.)

Comment a to this section reads:

“Where agent has no power to hind principal. Although a negotiable instrument is signed by an agent in the name of a principal and does not purport to be the agent’s instrument, he is subject to liability upon it if he has no power to bind the principal, or if the principal is nonexistent, and this fact is not known to the party to whom it is delivered. * * *”

Again, there are no California cases in point, nor have we found any similar cases from other jurisdictions decided under the Uniform Commercial Code.

Plaintiff contends that when the corporation’s powers were suspended, it was deprived not only of the power to borrow money and issue notes, see Silvey v. Fink, supra, but also of the power to authorize defendant to do so on its behalf. Her signature on the *80 note,therefore, was an “unauthorized signatrir'e’’ within the-meaning of § 3404 and ás a result’-she is personally liable ;on the mstrnment.. In Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. v. Connell, 149 Kan 118, 86 P2d 545 (1939),-decided under- the ■ Uniform Negotiable instruments Layg the corporation’s charter had been forfeited under a" state Statute. After this'forfeiture, the-’corporation’s-president executed a corporate note. He was held personally liable by virtue of his signature, on the instrument. Plaintiff- relies on. this ease; -but we agree with defend: ant that -it .is distinguishable.. The corporation- in’ that case had lost its charter; the court characterised its status as follows : • - , ~

1 “* * Upon the forfeiture'-of. the charter ;of a r ’” corporation it ceases to/exist.':.* * * ’The title to its assets-vests in the’.-stockholders. It has'ho power ■A /.thereafter-.; to do anything, /-or. to' authorize - anyone to do things for it. * * * The situation hás been compared to that of .the death of an individual whose ability to do things;-dr to authorize-anyone to do .V- - things fo-rChim, necessarily has ceased. #-* *” 86 P2d at 547.

Under the California-suspension statute, the;cói;póratio.n has mo right.'to exercise its powers,.but'it.continues to exist! ¡Moreover,, the.statutes réeognize the possibility tjfat-the corporation.,may continue ;tp- do-business in violation of the suspension, and C 23304 makes- contract^ .entered during.the -suspension..period-,voidable at -the option, of the other,, parties. From- this ,.it ,follows thai.such contracts may be enforced, against the. corporation, and that the " Calif ornia statutes r ecognize the-corporation’s power: ho --Authorize-agents- to-make commitments On'its hOhalP-during- the pér-i'ód of suspension: Tf' plaintiff had: Sought to enforce the noté 'against the corporation,1'the corporation could hot-'have defended-on the' ground-thát/thé note was'unauthorized, *81 as the statutes makes contracts entered in violation of the suspension “voidable at the instance of any party other than the [corporate] taxpayer.” Under the Uniform Commercial Code the unauthorized signer of a note can be held liable only if the purported principal is not bound. The holder is not entitled to a choice between the agent and his principal.

The trial court’s judgment for- plaintiff is incorrect on the law and must be reversed.

The note provides for the award of attorney fees in the event of an action for its enforcement. Defendant’s answer included a prayer for an award of hér attorney fees in the event she prevailed, as provided by OES 20.096(1). ④ Plaintiff contends that the statute does, not apply as the note was executed before its effective date. In Dean Vincent, Inc. v. Chamberlain, 264 Or 187, 504 P2d 722, 725 (1972) we held that the statute would be applied retroactively.

Eeversed and remanded for entry of judgment for defendant, including attorney fees in the amount found by the trial court to be reasonable.