
    The First National Bank of the City of Brooklyn, Respondent, v. Herman Stuetzer and Another, Defendants; William T. Wallis and Another, Appellants.
    
      Promissory note — when it is a personal obligation of the makers who sign it in a representative capacity.
    
    An action was brought upon a promissory note in the following form:
    “ $1,100. Jersey City, N. J., Jan. 20, 1893.
    “ Wallis Three months after date, we promise to pay to the order of H. Iron Stuetzer & Co., Eleven Hundred Dollars & 00-100 at the First Works. National Bank of Jersey City. Yalue received.
    “WILLIAM T. WALLIS, President.
    
    “GEO. T. SMITH, Treasurer.”
    
    It was shown upon the trial of the action that the payee on the date of the note obtained the discount of the same at a bank which had no knowledge, except from what appeared upon the face of the note, whether the note was an individual note of the persons signing the same, or a note of the Wallis Iron Works.
    
      Held, that the bank discounting the note was a bona fide holder for value, and was authorized to treat the note as a personal obligation of the individual makers.
    Appeal by the defendants, William T. Wallis and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 11th day of April, 1894, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court after a trial at the Kings County Circuit.
    
      Hamilton Wallis, for the appellants.
    
      Jos. A. Purr, for the respondent.
   Dykman, J.:

This is an appeal by the defendants, William T. Wallis and George T. Smith, from a judgment entered against them and the other defendants.

The action is upon a promissory note in the following form : ■

“ $1,100. Jersey City, N. J., Jan. 20, 1893.

“Wallis Three months after date, we promise to pay to the Iron order of H. Stuetzer & Co., Eleven Hundred & Works. Dollars at the First National Bank of Jersey City. Yalue received. WILLIAM T. WALLIS, President.

“ GEO. T. SMITH, Treasurer

On the day of its date the note was presented by the defendant Herman Stuetzer, one of the members of the firm to whom it was payable, to the plaintiff for discount, and it was discounted by the plaintiff and the proceeds paid to Stuetzer.

When the note was discounted no knowledge had been communicated to the plaintiff respecting the purpose for which the note was given.

The discount was made on the faith of Stuetzer, without inquiry or knowledge whether it was the note of the Wallis Iron Works or the individual note of the defendants Wallis and Smith, except what appeared upon the face of the note.

Under such circumstances the plaintiff was authorized to treat the note as the personal obligation of the persons whose names were signed to the paper as makers.

The plaintiff was a bona fide holder for value, and the case is controlled by the case of Casco N. Bank v. Clark (139 N. Y. 307) and The Merchants’ N. Bank v. Clark (139 id. 114).

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Brown, P. J., concurred; Cullen, J., not sitting.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  