In other jurisdictions the addition of "agent" or some similar word to the signature is held to make it ambiguous whether personal liability is intended or not, and to make extrinsic evidence of the intention of the parties admissible.1 Thus the addition "Sec'y Enid Town Co.,"2 "Pt.,"3 "agt.,"4 or "executor,"5 have been held to make extrinsic evidence admissible. So where a note is signed "U. M. Benham, President Odd Fellows' Hall Association; A. T. Lea, Secretary," it is held proper to admit evidence to show that the note is the note of the association.6 So where a note given by a corporation was signed on the bank by the individual names of the directors with the addition "Board of Directors," extrinsic evidence is admissible.7 A signature "H. H. Gardner, Cashier," has been held to import a personal liability, but open to so much doubt that extrinsic evidence was admissible.8 In some jurisdictions an instrument in which the official character of the promisor is set forth in the instrument, and individual signature is affixed is so far ambiguous as to make extrinsic evidence admissible to relieve the party so signing from personal liability.9 Thus where the instrument began "We, the president and directors" of a designated company, and was signed individually, extrinsic evidence was admitted to show that no personal liability was intended, but only the liability of the corporation of which such persons were officials.10 The heading or contents of the instrument may help to make the question of personal liability ambiguous. Thus a note headed "Midland Steel Co." and signed "R. J. Beatty, Pres.," is so ambiguous that extrinsic evidence is admissible.11 But in Indiana, while a note signed by the name of the corporation followed by the name of one officer imports signature as agent only, a signature of the corporate name followed by the names of two officials, imports personal liability so clearly that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible, even if "Mngr." and "Pres." are added to the names.12 A contract consisting of writings on two pieces of paper, each headed, "Neubauer Decorating Company," one signed "D. E. L., Mfg. Agt. & Supt. of Contracts," and the other "Neubauer Decorating Company, D. E. L. Supt. of Contracts," may be explained by extrinsic evidence to show that no personal liability was intended.13

5 Savage v. Rix, 9 N. H. 263.

6 Prescott v. Hixon, 22 Ind. App. 139; 72 Am. St. Rep. 291; 53 N. E. 391.

7 Richmond, etc., Works v. Mor-agne, 119 Ala. 80; 24 So. 834.

8 Savings Bank v. Market Co., 122 Cal. 28; 54 Pac. 273.

9 Bank v. Cook, 38 0. S. 442.

10Tannatt v. Bank, 1 Colo. 278; 9 Am. Rep. 156; Sturdivant v. Hull, 59 Me. 172; 8 Am. Rep. 409.

11 Barnhisel v. Bank, 14 Ohio C. C. 124. Contra, Babcock v. Beman, 11 N. Y. 200.

12 Eells v. Shea, 20 Ohio C. C. 527; 11 Ohio C. D. 304.

13 Robinson v. Bank, 44 O. S. 441; 58 Am. Rep. 829; 8 N. E. 583.

1 Powell v. Construction Co., 88 Tenn. 692; 17 Am. St. Rep. 925; 13 S. W. 691; Heffron v. Pollard, 73 Tex. 96; 15 Am. St. Rep. 764; 11 S. W. 165.

2 Janes v. Bank, 9 Okla. 546; 60 Pac. 290; expressly overruling Keokuk, etc., Co. v. Mfg. Co., 5 Okla. 32; 47 Pac. 484.

3 Small v. Elliott, 12 S. D. 570; 76 Am. St. Rep. 630; 82 N. W. 92.

4 Keidan v. Winegar, 95 Mich. 430; 20 L. R. A. 705; 54 N. W. 901.

5Sehmittler v. Simon, 114 N. Y. 176; 11 Am. St. Rep. 621; 21 N. E. 162.

6 Benham v. Smith, 53 Kan. 495; 36 Pac. 997.

7 Kline v. Bank, 50 Kan. 91; 34 Am. St. Rep. 107; 18 L. R. A. 533; 31 Pac. 688. '

8 Gardner v. Cooper, 9 Kan. App. 587; 60 Pac. 540; affirming on rehearing, 58 Pac. 230; (citing Ben-ham v. Smith, 53 Kan. 495; 36 Pac. 997; Kline v. Bank, 50 Kan. 91; 18 L. R. A. 533; 31 Pac. 688; Bank v. Boardman, 46 Minn. 293; 48 N. W. 1116; Rowell v. Alsen, 32 Minn. 288; 20 X. W. 227).

9 Armstrong v. Andrews, 109 Mich. 537; 67 N. W. 567.

10 Haile v. Peirce, 32 Md. 327; 3 Am. Rep. 139.

11 Second National Bank v. Steel Co., 155 Ind. 581; 52 L. R. A. 307; 58 N. E. 833.

12 Albany Furniture Co. v. Bank, 17 Ind. App. 531; 60 Am. St. Rep. 178; 47 N.E. 227.

But extrinsic evidence was admitted under a similar form of signature in Holt v. Sweetzer, 23 Ind. App. 237; 55 N. E. 254.

13 Keeley Brewing Co. v. Decorating Co., 194 111. 580; 62 N. E. 923.