A contract may be signed by A with his own name, but entered into by him on behalf of his real principal X, with the adversary party B. If the contract is one which the law requires to be in writing, B cannot use extrinsic evidence to show that X is the real principal and to hold him liable on the contract. The chief example under this rule is the negotiable instrument.1 This is not because of the parol evidence rule, but because such where a note was signed "H. R. Sloan by C. M. Bay, Attorney in Fact," and the payee knew that Bay had no authority to sign Sloan's name, it was held that Bay was not liable on the note even if he did business under Sloan's name.9 In the absence of estoppel, one who signs an assumed name to a contract required by law to be in writing is liable on the contract only when such assumed name is used by him as his trade name under which he does business.10 Otherwise his liability is in tort. If A signs a name not his own to a note, either a fictitious name or the name of a real person which he has no right to use, and does not hold such name out as his own, and it is not the name under which he does business, he cannot be held on such note.11 If the instrument is executed in such a way as to show affirma-tively that B is making the contract through his agent A, extrinsic evidence that A was really acting for himself is inadmissible,12 as where A signs a non-negotiable contract "X per A,"13 or where A signs a promissory note "X by A, Atty. in Fact."14 A warehouse receipt, even if made negotiable by statute,15 is not a negotiable instrument within the meaning of this rule. A party cannot be added to a negotiable contract by oral evidence, even where no liability is sought to be enforced against him. Thus in an action by indorsee against indorser on nonpayment of the note, such evidence cannot be used to show that one who signed as agent was in fact principal, and hence that as no demand had been made on him the indorser was discharged.16

3 Holmes v. Jacques, L. R. 1 Q. B. 376.

4 Young v. Ward, 21 111. 223.

5 Stern v. Eichberg, 83 111. App. 442; Shaw v. Smith, 150 Mass. 16G; 6 L. R. A. 348; 22 N. E. 887.

6 Central State Bank v. Spurlin, 111 la. 187; 82 Am. St. Rep. 511; 49 N. W. 661; 82 N. W. 493; Fox v. Trust Co. (Tenn. Ch. App.), 35 L. R. A. 678; 37 S. W. 1102.

7 New v. Walker, 108 Ind. 365; 5.8 Am. Rep. 40; 9 N. E. 386.

8 Cox v. Alexander, 30 Or. 438; 46 Pac. 794; Manhattan Savings Institution v. Bank, 170 N. Y. 58; 88 Am. St. Rep. 640; 62 N. E. 1079.

9 Rich v. Starbuck, 51 Ind. 87.

10 Manhattan Savings Institution v. Bank, 170 N. Y. 58; 88 Am. St. Rep. 640; 62 N. E. 1079.

11 Gordon v. Bank, - Mich. -;

94 X. W. 741.

1Cragin v. Lovell, 109 U. S. 194; Merrell v. Witherby, 120 Ala. 418; 74 Am. St. Rep. 39; 23 So. 994; 26 So. 974; Heaton v. Myers, 4 Colo. 59; Pease v. Pease, 35 Conn. 131;

95 Am. Dec. 225; Bickford v. Bank, contracts must consist entirely of the writing, and parties cannot be added by parol. Thus if a check is signed "A, agent," the real principal cannot be held liable on the check.2 The same rule applies to a note signed by "A, agent."3 The principal, if unknown when the note was given, may be held liable on the original debt ;4 but if the principal is known, taking such note is an election to hold the agent.5 Holding the principal on such debt is in the nature of quasi-contract.6 Even in negotiable instruments, however, one who does business in the name of another or in a fictitious name and signs negotiable instruments by that name may be held liable thereon.7 Thus where A did business under the name "Pompton Iron Works," and signed notes by such name, he may be held liable thereon.8 However,

42 111. 238; 89 Am. Dec. 436; Wing v. Glick, 56 la. 473; 41 Am. Rep. 118; Kansas National Bank v. Bay, 62 Kan. 692; 84 Am. St. Rep. 417; 54 L. R. A. 408; 64 Pac. 596; Trask v. Roberts, 1 B. Mon. (Ky.) 201; Bedford Commercial Ins. Co. v. Covell, 8 Met. (Mass.) 442; Williams v. Robbins, 16 Gray (Mass.) 77; 77 Am. Dec. 396; Stackpole v. v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 27; 6 Am. Dec. 150; Lewis v. Bank. 1 Neb. (Un.) 177; 95 X. W. 355; Webster v, Wray, 19 Neb. 558; 56 Am. Rep. 754; 27 X. W. 644; Bank v. Cook, 38 O. S. 442; Anderton v. Shoup, 17 O. S. 125; Manufacturers', etc., Bank v. Follett, 11 R. I. 92; 23 Am. Rep. 418; Tarver v. Garlington. 27 S. C. 107; 13 Am. St. Rep. 628; 2 S. E. 846; Arnold v. Sprague, 34 Vt. 402. "It is well settled that any person taking a negotiable promissory note contracts with those only whose names are signed to it as parties, and cannot, therefore, maintain an action upon the note against any other person."Bartlett v. Tucker, 104 Mass. 336, 339; 6 Am. Rep. 240; quoted in Kansas National Bank v. Bay, 62 Kan. 692, 695; 84

Am. St. Rep. 417; 54 L. R. A. 408; 64 Pac. 596. Contra, Mechanics' Bank v. Bank, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 326; Hancock Bank v. Joy, 41 Me. 568; Sharpe v. Bellis, 61 Pa. St. 69; 100 Am. Dec. 618.

2 Anderton v. Shoup, 17 0. S, 125.

3 Shuey v. Adair, 18 Wash. 188; 39 L. R. A. 473; 51 Pac. 388. Contra, Kenyon v. Williams, 19 Ind. 44,

4 Chemical National Bank v. Bank, 156 111. 149; 40 X. E. 328; Lovell v. Williams, 125 Mass. 439; Harper v. Bank. 54 O. S. 425; 44 X. E. 97.

5Merrell v. Witherby, 120 Ala. 418; 74 Am. St. Rep. 39; 23 So. 994; 26 So. 974; Bank v. Hooper, 5 Gray (Mass.) 567; 66 Am. Dee. 390.

6 See Sec. 789 et seq.

7 Pease v. Pease, 35 Conn. 131; 95 Am. Dec. 225; Melledge v. Iron Co., 5 Cush. (Mass.) 158; 51 Am. Dec. 59; Tarver v. Garlington, 27 S. C. 107; 13 Am. St. Rep. 628; 2 S. E. 846. See obiter in Chandler v. Coe, 54 X. H. 561.

8 Fuller v. Hooper, 3 Gray (Mass.) 334.

9 Kansas National Bank v. Bay, 62 Kan. 692; 84 Am. St. Rep. 417; 54 L. R. A. 40S; 64 Pac. 596.

10Bartlett v. Tucker, 104 Mass. 336; 6 Am. Rep. 240.

11 Bartlett v. Tucker, 104 Mass. 336; 6 Am. Rep. 240.

12Heffron v. Pollard, 73 Tex. 96; 15 Am. St. Rep. 764; 11 S. W. 165.

13 Heffron v. Pollard, 73 Tex. 96; 15 Am. St. Rep. 764; 11 S. W. 165.

14 Kansas National Bank v. Bay,

62 Kan. 692; 84 Am. St. Rep. 417; 54 L. R. A. 408, 64 Pac. 596. To the same effect, see Liebscher v. Kraus, 74 Wis. 387; 17 Am. St. Rep. 171; 5 L. R. A. 496; 43 N. W. 166.

15 Anderson v. Flouring Mills. 37 Or. 483; 82 Am. St. Rep. 771; 50 L. R. A. 235; 60 Pac. 839.

16 Reeve v. Bank, 54 N. J. L. 208; 33 Am. St. Rep. 675; 16 L. R. A. 143; 23 Atl. 853.