Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/38

 24 FEDERAL REPORTER. �pany, New York," and was accepted by "John E. Livingston, Jr., president Eosendale Mining Company, 16 Wall street," and the court held that the company was not bound by it, saying : "The bill cannot ,be deemed the obligation of the com- pany. It does not purport to have been drawu in their behalf, nor was addressed to them, or accepted in their cor- porate name. They were not, therefore, bound by it. In order, then, to give it any legal effeet, we must hold it to be the private aet of the parties whose names are written upon it, and binding ùpon them as an ordinary bill of ex- change." �There are many other cases of similar tenor which hold that affixing an officiai or representative designation to the name of a promissor will not change the personal imporfc and char- acter of an obligation which does not indicate a different liability on its face. These cases are collected in 1 Daniell on Neg. Inst. § 455d, and in the note to Burlingame v. Bfew- ster, 22 Amer. Eep. 177, to which no more than this general reference is needed. �Now, that there are cases in conflict with these referred to is undeniable ; but, whether the preponderance of authority is in favor of the plaintiff's or the defendant's contention, is in- decisive of this case. Intelligent and cautions judgment, upon the information with which it was supplied, and reason- able diligence, are the conditions which the defendant en- gaged to fulfil. If, then, in aecordance with the decisions of the courts of the state in which the drawee of the drafts re- sided, and where they were to be accepted and paid, and of concurrent decisions elsewhere, it treàted them as drawn on Walter M. Conger, and took his aeceptances accordingly, it did not commit any breach of duty, and the plaintiff cannot recover. �Moreover, the plaintifiF alone knew who was the intended drawee, as understood between it and the drawers. Of this its agent ought to have been advised, that it might have a certain guide in the performance of its duty. But the plain- tiff omitted to furnish this information, and now seeks com- pensation for an alleged injury, which the exercise of thought- ful diligence on its part would have averted. If there was ����