Universal Church of Pierceton"); Hayes v. Matthews, 63 Ind. 412, 30 Am. Rep. 226 ("Trustees of the First Universalist Church of Pierceton, Indiana,"); Hayes v. Brubaker, 65 Ind. 27 ("Trustees of the First Universalist Church of Pierceton"); Williams v. Second Nat. Bank, 83 Ind. 237 ("Trustees Perry Lodge 37, F. & A. M."); McClellan v. Robe, 93 Ind. 298 ("Trustees for Greenwood Lodge, No. 192, P. 4 A. M."); Coburn v. Omega Lodge, 71 Iowa, 681, 32 N. W. 513 ("Trustees Omega Lodge"); Webb v. Burke, 5 B. Mon. 51 ("Agent for Samuel Burke"); Burbank v. Posey, 7 Bush, 372 ("President of the Henderson Coal Co.");. Sheridan v. Carpenter, 61 Me. 83 ("Treasurer of St. Paul's Parish"); Mellon v. Moore, 68 Me. 390, 28 Am. Rep. 77 ("Treasurer of Mechanic Falls Dairying Association"); Rendell v. Harriman, 75 Me. 497, 46 Am. Rep. 421 ("President and Directors of Stockton Cheese Company); Sumwalt v. Ridgeley, 20 Md. 107 ("Treasurer of St. Stephen's Epc'l Church fund"); Haverhill Ins. Co. p. Newhall, 1 Allen, 130 (President of the Dorchester Avenue Railroad Company); Tucker Mfg. Co. v. Fairbanks, 98 Mass. 101 ("Agts. Pis-cataqua F. & M. Ins. Co."); Davis v. England, 141 Mass. 687, 6 N. E. 731 ("Pres. and Treas. Chelsea Iron Foundry"); Tilden v. Barnard, 43 Mich. 376, 5 N. W. 420, 38 Am. Rep. 197 (Vestryman Grace Church); Fowler v. Atkinson, 6 Minn. 578 ("Trustees of School District No. 5"); Byars v. Doores, 20 Mo. 284 (Attorney for Elias French"); Savage v. Rix, 9 N. H. 283 ("Whitefield Road Committee." The note began "We jointly and severally promise"); Terhune c. Parrott, 59 N. J. L. 16, 34 Atl. 4 ("President of Long Branch Hotel & Cottage Co."); Barker v. Mechanic Ins. Co., 3 Wend. 94, 20 Am. Dec. 664 (President of the Mechanic Fire Ins. Co."); Hills v. Bannister, 8 Cow. 31 ("Trustees of Union Religious Society, Phelps"); Merchants' Bank v. Hayes, 7 Hun, 530 ("Attorney for the Estate of L. Hayes"); DeWitt v. Walton, 9 N. Y. 571 ("Agent for the Churchman"); Robinson v. Kanawha Valley Bank, 44 Oh. St. 441, 8 N. E. 583, 68 Am. Rep. 829 ("Agent Kanawha & Ohio Coal Co."); Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. v. Kingsland, etc., Co., S.Okla. 32, 47 Pac. 484 ("As Directors Keokuk Falls Improvement Co."); Early v. Wilkinson, 9 Gratt. 68 ("For Sam'l H. Early"); Scott v. Baker, 3 W. Va. 285 ("President Blannerhassett Oil Co."); Exchange Bank v. Lewis County, 28 W. Va, 273 ("Agent for Lewis County"). But see Johnson v. Smith, 21 Conn. 627, where a note signed by three persons with the addition: "Vestrymen of the Episcopal Society" was held to bind the society.

97 Chamberlain v. Pacific Wool-Growing Co., 54 Cal, 103 (cf. McConnick v. Stockton R. Co., 130 Cal. 100, 62 Pac. 267); Sturdivant v. Hull, 59 Me. 172, 8 Am. Rep. 409; Wyman p. Gray, 7 Harr. & J. 409; Haverhill Mut. Ins. Co. v. Newhall, 1 Allen, 130; Davis v. England, 141 Mass. 587, 6 N. E. 731.

97a Mellen v. Moore, 68 Me, 390, 28

Sometimes a note signed by a corporation has added to the signature of the corporation the names of officers with their official designations as a note signed "A. B. Co." and under this signature the further signatures "X. Y. President," "Y. Z. Treasurer." It is open to argument whether such an instrument is intended to be merely the obligation of the corporation executed by its officers, or is intended to be the joint obligation of the corporation and its officers. By the weight of authority such an instrument is held to import without ambiguity the Bole liability of the corporation.98 In a few States, however, it has been held that the corporation and the individuals are both liable.99 The courts of other States hold with considerable reason that such an instrument is not without ambiguity, and that parol evidence should be admitted to clear up the ambiguity.1

The Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law presumably changes many of the results stated in this section.2 Signatures to non-negotiable notes and other non-negotiable instruments would not be controlled, however, by the statute.

Am. Rep. 77; McClure v. Livermore, 78 Me. 390, 6 Atl. 11.

98Chapman v. Smethuist, [1909] 1 K. B. 927 (rev'g., [1909) 1 K. B. 73); Folk v. Moebs, 127 U. S. 697, 8 8. Ct. R. 1319, 32 L. Ed. 266; Gold, etc, Co. v. Dennis, 21 Colo. App. 284, 121 Pac 677; Farmers', etc. Bank v. Colby, 64 Cal. 352, 28 Pan. 118; Castle v. Belfast Foundry Co., 72 Me. 167; Glea-son v. Sanitary, etc., Co., 93 Me. 544, 45 Atl. 825, 74 Am. St. Rep. 370; Draper v. Massachusetts Steam Heating Co., 6 Allen, 338; Miller v. Roach, 150 Maes. 140, 22 N. E. 634, 6 L. R. A. 71; English, etc, Co. v. Globe, etc., Co., 70 Neb. 435, 97 N. W. 612; Reeve v. First Nat. Bank, 54 N. J. L. 208, 23 Atl. 853, 16 L. R. A. 143, 33 Am. St. Rep. 675; Wilson v. Fite (Tenn.), 46 S. W. 1056; Liebscher v. Kraus, 74 Wis. 387,43 N. W. 166, 5 L. R. A. 496, 17 Am. St. Rep. 171. See also Scanlan v. Keith, 102 111. 634, 40 Am. Rep. 624; Lathan v. Houston Flour Mills, 68 Tex. 127, 3 8. W. 462.

99 Heffner v. Brownell, 75 Iowa, 341, 39 N. W. 640; Mathews c. Dubuque Matties Co., 87 Ia. 246, 64 N. W. 225,

19 L. R. A. 676; Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. v. Kingsland, etc., Mfg. Co., 5 Okl. 32, 47 Pac. 484. In Savings Bank, etc, v. Central Market Co., 122 Cal. 28, 54 Pac. 273, the note was signed by a corporation and by several individuals "as stockholders." It was held that all were liable. But those decisions it seems should be revised if the same question should arise after the enactment of the Negotiable Instrument Law.

1 Briel v. Exchange Nat. Bank, 172 Ala. 475, 55 So. 808, 180 Ala. 576, 61 So. 277; Bean v. Pioneer Mining Co., 66 Cal. 451, 6 Pac 86, 66 Am. Rap. 106; Swarts v. Cohen, 11 Ind. App. 20, 38 N. E. 538; Western, etc., Co. v. Lack-man, 75 Kans. 34, 88 Pac 527; Bnins-wick-Balke, etc, Co. v. Boutell, 45 Minn. 21, 47 N. W. 261. Where the signature of the officer was not followed by his official title, it was held that he might show by parol evidence that he was secretary of the corporation and signed the note merely as such. Gennania Nat. Bank v. Mariner, 129 Wis. 644, 109 N. W. 574.