Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Norman v. Beling

Decided: December 24, 1959.

GEORGE C. NORMAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER A. BELING, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT



Gaulkin, Sullivan and Foley. The opinion of the court was delivered by Gaulkin, J.A.D.

Gaulkin

[58 NJSuper Page 576] Plaintiff sued in the district court upon a series of promissory notes, alleging that he was a holder in due course. After trial without a jury judgment was entered in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Except for dates the notes were all in the following form:

$50.00

April 18, 1957

Three hundred eighty days AFTER DATE WE PROMISE TO PAY TO THE ORDER OF J.H. Laporte and Company Fifty and 00/100 DOLLARS PAYABLE AT National State Bank of Newark VALUE RECEIVED

TEAL CORPORATION

J. Harold Semar

Christopher A. Beling

No.

DUE April 15, 1958

"Teal Corporation" was typewritten. The signatures of Semar and Beling were, of course, handwritten.

Plaintiff introduced the notes in evidence and then rested. Defendant thereupon made an offer of proof that defendant Beling had signed as treasurer of Teal Corporation (Teal) with no intention to bind himself personally. Defendant argued that the typed name "Teal Corporation" followed by the two individual signatures created an ambiguity on the face of the note as to the capacity in which the individuals signed and, therefore, the proffered evidence was admissible because (to quote defendant's brief) "the existence of the ambiguity precludes the holder from becoming a holder in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.