Rutherford v. Mitchell

Decided July 1, 1827

Tennessee Supreme Court · decided 1827-07-01

A contract may be declared on, either in the words in which it was made, or according to its legal effect. where a note is payable to the plaintiff, as the agent and 'attorney of another, he may sustain ' an action on the note in his own name, without describing himself as agent or attorney, &c. [Acc.

Decided 1827-07-01

Per Ouriam.

¶1[262] The action is well brought; the legal interest in the bill single was vested in the plaintiff, and he need only declare upon the instrument according to its legal force and effect. It was not necessary that he should describe himself as agent; and had he done so, it would have been surplusage. The judgment must be reversed, and this Court, proceeding to render such judgment as the Circuit Court ought to have done, order and adjudge that the demurrer to the declaration be overruled, *582and judgment be entered up for the plaintiff, for the amount of the note with legal interest thereon, from the time it was due.

¶2Judgment reversed. 1

¶3 Okiginaií Note. —Acc. Buffum v. Chadwick, 8 Mass. Rep. 103.