
    * Arnold Buffum versus Isaac Chadwick.
    A promissory note was given to A. 'B., agent of a manufacturing company: — . held that an action lay for A. B. on the note, and his styling himself agent, Sic., in his writ and declaration, was merely descriptio persanes.
    
    The defendant was attached “ to answer to Arnold Buffum, of Providence, in the county of Providence, Sfc., agent of the Providence Hat-manufacturing Company, in a plea of the case for that the said I. C., at, &c., on, &c., by his note of hand of that date, for value received of the Providence Hat-manufacturing Company, promised the said A. B., as agent thereof, to pay to him or order the sum of, &c., to the damage of the said A. B., in his said capacity,” &c
    After a verdict for the plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas, the defendant moved in arrest of judgment, assigning the following reasons, viz.
    
    1. Because there is no party named in the writ, to whom by law the said Chadwick is bound to answer.
    
      2. Because there is no promise, alleged in the declaration of the writ, to any person or persons, body politic or corporate, legally described therein.
    3. Because there is no consideration for any supposed promise alleged in the declaration.
    4. Because there is no damage laid to any person or persons, body politic or corporate, for the breach of any supposed promise alleged in the declaration.
    5. Because it does not appear, by the writ and declaration, that there is any cause of action against the defendant.
    6. Because a judgment in the present action would be no bar to an action to be hereafter brought for the same cause.
    7. Because the said writ and declaration are so uncertain, defective, and informal, that no judgment can by law be rendered thereon.
    The action being brought up by appeal, it was agreed that if, in the opinion of the Court, judgment could by law be rendered upon any verdict found in this action for the plaintiff, the defendant should be defaulted; otherwise the plaintiff should become nonsuit and judgment in either case be rendered accordingly.
    * And now, at this term, Lincoln, of counsel for the defendant, cited the case of Gilmore vs. Pope, 
       as showing that, if any action lies on the promise declared on, it must be brought in the name of the company, whose agent only the plaintiff is, and from whom alone the consideration moved.
    
      Bangs for the plaintiff.
    
      
       5 Mass. Rep. 491.
    
   By the Court.

The cases are different. The contract in the case cited was directly with the corporation. In the case at bar the contract was with the agent personally, and his adding his character to his name in the writ and declaration amounts only to a description of his person. Let the defendant be called.

Defendant defaulted.  