Pacific Guano Co. v. Holleman

The agreement of counsel submits to the court two questions: (1) Whether, on the agreed state of facts, the plaintiff can maintain the action. (2) Whether parol evidence is admissible on the trial to show that the note is in fact the property of the plaintiff. The facts agreed on are that Ayres, the agent named in the note, is a resident of this district, and the plaintiff is the holder of the note sued on, and is a corporation domiciled in the state of Massachusetts. The other facts appear in the petition. We are agreed that both questions shall be answered in the affirmative. That a note given to Asher Ayres, agent, may be sued on by the principal, who is the owner and holder, is well settled by all the later authorities. See 12 Am. Dec. 713, 715, and authorities there cited; Daniell, Neg. Inst. § 1187; Baldwin v. Bank of Newbury, 1 Wall. 234.

The authority cited by counsel for defendant in 1 Addison on Contracts, § 51, does not apply, as that section relates to equities between the parties in cases of concealed agency.

The case of Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472, does not conflict, for the court in that case did not deny the right of the principal to bring the suit, but maintained the right of the payee named also to sue. To the same effect is the extract from the decision of Chief Justice Marshall in Van Ness v. Forrest, 8 Cranch, 30, for the point in that case was whether the payee named could sue, and his right was maintained. The admissibility of parol evidence to show that the plain*63tiff is the real owner and holder of the note sued on, when such ownership is put at issue by the defendant, is elementary. And in principle and authority the plaintiff may offer such evidence when in cases like this under consideration it may be held necessary for him to make such proof in order to maintain his action. See Daniell, Neg. Inst. § 1187, and cases there cited.