
    *Shotwell against M’Kown.
    on certiorari.
    Agent not answerable in capacity, 
    
    THIS action would seem, from a very indefinite state of demand, to be founded upon a note, in the following words, “ Rahway, July 30, 1816. Dolls. 113.01. Three months after date, the Patent Cloth Manufacturing Company, promise to pay William Frazee, or order, at their manufactory, one hundred and thirteen 1-100 dollars, with interest, value rec’d, without defalcation or discount. William Shotwett, agent.” On the back of the note, there is an assignment to M’Kown, dated July 31, 1816, and an endorsement in these words : “ Rec’d on account of the within note, at sundry times, in meal, flour, &c., from grist-mill, to the amount of thirty-two dollars, 1-100. Rahway, 1 Oct. 1817. John M’Kown.”
    
    
      W. Halsted, for plaintiff. Scudder, for defendant.
    
      
      
         Tuttle vs. Ayres, Pen. *682. Stephens vs. Bacon, 2 Hal. 1. The Baptist Church vs. Mulford, 3 Hal. 186. Kean vs. Davis, 1 Zab. 683. Stewart vs. Johnson, Coxe 27. Bay vs. Cook, 2 Zab. 343. Perth Amboy Co. vs. Condit, 1 Zab. 659. Burley vs. Kitchell, Spen. 305.
      
    
   Kirkpatrick, C. J.

This action is brought upon a promissory note, purporting to be given by the Patent Cloth Manufacturing Company to William Frazee, for $113.01, dated July 30,1816, and payable, in three months, at their manufactory, signed, “ William Shotwett, agent,” and assigned by William Frazee to John M’Kown, the plaintiff.

Shotwell is not answerable, in his individual capacity, for this money; the agent is not answerable for the principal. The assignee must look to the company.

Judgment reversed.  