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 "pres.,"4 "agt.,"5 or "exr.,"6

6 Savage v. Rix, 9 N. H. 263. 7 Prescott v. Hixon, 22 Ind. App. 139, 72 Am. St. Rep. 291, 53 N. E. 391.

8 Richmond, etc., Works v. Moragne, 119 Ala. 80, 24 So. 834.

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

10 Bank v. Cook, 38 O. S. 442.

11Tannatt v. Bank, 1 Colo. 278, 9 Am. Rep. 156; Sturdivant v. Hull, 59 Me. 172, 8 Am. Rep. 409.

12Barnhisel v. Bank, 14 Ohio C. C. 124

Contra, Babcock v. Beman, UN. Y. 200.

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

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

15Costello v. Bridges, 81 Wash. 192, L. R. A. 1915A, 853, 142 Pac. 687.

1 Alabama. Lutz v. Van Heynigen Brokerage Co., - Ala. - , 75 So. 284.

Georgia. Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. Pullman Co., 122 Ga. 700, 50 S. E. 1008.

Iowa. Farmers National Bank v. Hatcher, 176 Ia. 259, 157 N. W. 876.

Kentucky. Riordan v. Thornsbury, 178 Ky. 324, 198 S. W. 920.

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

New Mexico. Ellis v. Stone, 21 N. M. 730, L. R. A. 1916F, 1228, 158 Pac. 480.

Tennessee. Powell v. Construction Co., 88 Tenn. 692, 17 Am. St. Rep. 925, 13 S. W. 691.

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

Washington. Richardson v. Hunter, 88 Wash. 375, 153 Pac. 325.

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 Farmers' National Bank v. Hatcher, 176 Ia. 259, 157 N. W. 876.

5 Keidan v. Winegar, 95 Mich. 430, 20 L. R. A. 705, 54 N. W. 901; Clark v. Talbott, 72 W. Va. 46, 44 L. R. A. (N.S.) 731, 77 S. E. 523.

6 Schmittler v. Simon, 114 N. Y. 176, 11 Am. St. Rep. 621, 21 N. E. 162.

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.7 So where a note given by a corporation was signed on the back by the individual names of the directors, with the addition, " Board of Directors," extrinsic evidence is admissible.8 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;9

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.10 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.11 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, president," is so ambiguous that extrinsic evidence is admissible.12 A written contract, at the top of which appears the words, "X, bank, A, Pres.," and which is signed, "A, Pres.," is so ambiguous that extrinsic evidence is admissible to show whether or not A was bound personally thereby.13 If a note begins, "We promise," and is signed, "X Company, by A, direct.," which is followed by the signatures of "B, direct.," and "C, direct.," each on a separate line below the signature of A, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show whether B and C intended a personal liability or not.14 A contract which is signed, "X Works, by A and B, trustees," may be explained by reference to the articles of such organization for the purpose of showing that A and B are the proper persons in whose name to bring an action.15 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.16 If one of the memoranda of a written contract is signed, "X, by A," and another memorandum is signed, "A," extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that A signed as agent for X, and did not intend to incur personal liability.17 A contract consisting of writings on two pieces of paper, each headed, "Neubauer Decorating Company," one signed, "D. E. L„ mfg. agt. and 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.18

7 Benham v. Smith, 53 Kan. 495, 36 Pac. 097.

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

9 Gardner v. Cooper, 9 Ivan. App. 587, 60 Pac. 540 [affirming on rehearing, 58 Pac. 230; citing, Benham 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 N. W. 227].

10 Armstrong v. Andrews, 10!) Mich. 537, 67 K W. 567; W. C. Dean Jewelry Co. v. Storm, - Okla. - , 166 Pav 1046.

11Haile v. Peirce, 32 Md. 327, 3 Am Rep. 139.

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

13 Ellin v. Stone, 21 N. M. 730, L. R. A. 1916F, 1228. 158 Pac. 480.

14 Penman v. Brennamcn, 48 Okla. 566, L. R. A. 1915E, 1047, 149 Pac. 1105.