36 Ark.] NOVEMBER TERM, 1880, 293 Anderson v: Pearce & Stewart: ANDERSON S PEARCE & STEWART: j Wpirs A an PArICV,, ncfault judomunt A summons issued and serv ud in March, ten days before the March term nf the court, mil commanding the defendant to answer on the hrst day of the next spring term ot the court, is sufficient to support a judgment hy default at the March term: cuEs AND BILLS : AddInq Silff IA- to Inaku name, All instrument as follou s "August 28, 1878, Balance due Pearce & Steuart one hundred and seventy-eight dollars for work on Hazel Valley school-house and halls," signed "Q I Anderson, S J Hop-kins Committee is the personil due -hill of the signers and pay-ahle on demand. APPEAL from Benton Circuit Court. Hon: J. H. BERRY, Circuit judge,
294 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [36 Ark, Anderson v. Pearce & Stewart: 2, Notes and Bills: Adding suffix to maker's name: R. B. Davidsou, for appellant No service shown by record. Galpin v. Page, i8 Wall.; 7 Ark' , 445 ; Henderson v Breeding: Settlevier v Sullivan, S. sup: Ct., October term, 1878. The summons in this case not legal. 3 AIL, 558, 3 Estes, p. 487; i rk,, 376. ariance b Ark., 531, Separate Judgment without snowing dismissal as to the other party sued, error. Other irregularities argued, without authorities cited_ As to what is a promissory note. Danl. pn Neg. Inst., pp. 32, 33. No personal obligation on note signed as trustee or committee. Gillett v. N M. Say. B. R.; Chic. Legal News, Dec. 25, i880. U. M. Rose, for appellee: The writ sufficient. 12 Ala, 444 ; 23 ib., 684 ; 5 Ill., (4 Scam:), 333 ; 41 Mich,, 722. HARRISON, J. This was an action by S. V. Pearce and William T. M. Stewart, partners in the carpenter's trade under the firm name of Pearce & Stewart, against a I. Anderson and , S J_ Hopkins, upon the following instrument "AUGUST 28, 1878. "Balance due Pearce & Stewart, one hundred and sev-enty-eight dollars ($178), for work done on Hazel Valley school-house and hall. "0. I. ANDERSON, "S. J. HOPKINS, Committee." The complaint alleged that the instrument was given to the plaintiffs for work and labor done and performed by them at the instance and request of the defendants in and about the building of a house known as the "Hazel Val-
36 Ark.] NOVEMBER TERM, 1880. 295
Anderson v, Pearce & Stewart, ley school-house and hall," and that they thereby promised to pay them the sum of money therein mentioned on demand. The complaint was filed and the summons issued on the sixth day of March, 1870, The summons was as follows "The state of Arkansas to the sheriff of Benton county : "You are commanded to summon 0. I. Anderson and J. Hopkins to answer on the first da y of the next spring term of the Benton circuit court, a complaint filed against them in said court by Pearce & Stewart, and warn them that upon their failure to answer, the complaint will be taken for confessed And you will make due return of the summons on the first day of the next spring term of said court: "Witness my hand, and seal of said court, this sixth day oF March, 1879. "[L. S.] JOHN BLACK, Clerk:" The summons was served the same day it was issued, on Anderson, hut there was no service on Hopkins. At the succeeding or March term, 1879, of the court, which commenced on the thirty-first day of March, judgment by default was rendered against Anderson for the sum mentioned in the instrument, and interest thereon from the date of it. Anderson appealed. Summons , Sufficiency of, It is contended that the summons was insufficient, and that the judgment by default is for that reason, void. The objections made to the summons are : That it was made returnable to the spring term of the court ; that the full names of the plaintiffs were not stated in it ; and that the plaintiffs were not described as partners, as in the complaint.
296 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [36 Ark Anderson v, Pearce & Stewart, The terms o f the courts arc fixed by law ,, and the summons, unless the next term begins w ithin ten days from its next date, is required to be made returnable to the first day of the next term , appellant must therefore have known to what term the writ was made returnable and when the same was to be held, and could not have been misled by its designation as the next spring instead of more correctly the next March term. Lore v. McRae, 12 Ala., 444 ; Ro,g-ers v. Miller, 4 Scam., 333. The other defects in the summons affected no substantial right of the appellant, and he was in no wise prejudiced by them_ If he had any defense to the action he should have made it. NOTES AND BUTS Adding suffix to maker's name. The appellant also insists that the instrument sued on does not import a promise or obligation of the makers to pay the sum of money specified in it. The word "committee," following the signatures of the makers, does not evince an intention that they themselves were not to be bound, or that the debt thereby admitted was not their own. Daniel, in his work on Negotiable Instruments, says : 'If the agent sign a note with his own name and discloses no principal, he is personally bound The part y so signing must have intended to bind somebody upon the instrument, and no promiser but himself therein appearing, it must be construed as his note, or as a nullity. And though he term himself 'agent,' such suffix to his name will be regarded as a mere descriptio personae, or as a ear-mark of the transaction, and may be rejected as surplusage." i Dan Neg. Ins., see 305 ; Graham V. Campbell, 56 Ga., 258 ; Collins V. Buckeye State Ins, Co., 17 Ohio St., 215, Williams v. Robbins, 16 Gray, 77 ; Arnold v. Sprague, 34 Vt., 402, The instrument was a due-bill, and the law implied
36 Ark.] NOVEMBER TERM, 1880. 297 from the acknowledgment of the debt, a promise to pay it on demand, I Dan, Neg_ 1ns,, sec, 37 ; Huyck v. Afeadot% 24 Ark., 191. The judgment is affirmed:
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.