
    Samuel Gilbert and Another versus the President, Directors and Company of the Nantucket Bank.
    If one endorse a writ with his name only, without adding the capacity in which he acts, he will be estopped from denying that he endorsed as the plaintiff’s agent.
    The defendant must make his exception to the sufficiency of the endorsement of the writ at the first term, or he will be considered as waiving it.
    If a corporation, being sued by a wrong name, plead to the action by its true name, the misnomer is no cause for arresting the judgment; for it should have been pleaded in abatement.
    If a declaration on a bank-bill allege the promise to be made to A. B. or bearer, and that the plaintiff holds the bill for a valuable consideration, it is sufficient. Informality in the service of a writ is no cause for arresting judgment, if the defendant has answered.
    A wrong venue must he shown as cause of demurrer to the declaration, and will not support a motion in arrest of judgment.
    This was also assumpsit on a bank-note which the plaintiffs held as bearers. At the Common Pleas, the general issue was pleaded by the defendants by the name of “ The President and Directors of the Nantucket Bank,” and a verdict was found for the plaintiffs. The defendants moved the Court below in arrest of judgment for divers causes. Failing in their motion, they appealed to this Court, and renewed their motion here, which was submitted without argument. The several grounds of the motion will appear in the opinion of the Court, as delivered by
   Parsons, C. J.

The defendants move in arrest of judgment for several causes,

1. Because the writ is not endorsed by the plaintiffs’ agent or at torney. — The writ is endorsed, “ Seth Briggs,” without adding the capacity in which he acted; but he would be estopped [ * 98 ] from denying that he * endorsed as the plaintiffs’ agent. Besides, if there was no endorsement, it would be no cause of arresting the judgment. The endorsement is a security for the defendants’ benefit, which he may waive; and unless he make his exception at the first term, he is considered as waiving it .

2. Because it does not appear that there is any existing corpora tian, having the corporate name in the writ. — The defendants, who were sued, have pleaded to the action by the corporate name they claim; and this objection amounts to an allegation of misnomer, which should have been pleaded in abatement .

3. Because there appears o be no legal consideration for the promise declared on. — The declaration alleges the promise to be made by the defendants to John Crane or bearer, and that the plaintiffs. held the note for a valuable consideration; and this is sufficient.

4. Because it appears, from the service of the writ, that the defendants were not holden to answer. — They have in fact answered, and therefore cannot, for any irregularity in the service, move in arrest of judgment . But the service appears to be regular. The sheriff summoned the corporation, by leaving an attested copy of the writ with J. C., one of the principal members. This was done on the 9th of May, and the writ was returnable on the first Tuesday of July following.

Lastly. Because the venue 'is laid in the county of Nantucket, and not in the county of Suffolk. — This is no cause to arrest the judgment, being a defect of form only; and the defendants, to have the benefit of it, must have shown it for cause on demurrer, to the declaration. See the case of Briggs vs. the present defend ants, ante.

The judgment cannot be arrested. 
      
      
        Whiting vs. Hollister, ante, Vol. 2.102. [Livermore vs. Boswell, 4 Mass. 437.— Ripley vs. Warren, 2 Pick. 592.]
     
      
      
         Commonwealth vs. Dedham, 16 Mass. 141.
     
      
      
        Colby vs. Dillingham, 7 Mass. 475. — Gage vs. Graffam, 11 Mass. 181.
     