# Brown v. Butchers & Drovers' Bank

> New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1844 · 6 Hill & Den. 443

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5466492

## Case

- **Full name:** Brown v. The Butchers & Drovers' Bank
- **Court:** New York Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 15, 1844
- **Citations:** 6 Hill & Den. 443
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Nelson
- **Judges:** Nelson
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5466492

## Opinion text

By the Court, Nelson, Ch. J.
It has been expressly decided that an endorsement written in pencil is sufficient; (Geary v. Physic, 5 Barn. & Cress. 234;) and also that it may be made by a mark. (George v. Surrey, 1 Mood. & Malk. 516.) In a recent case in the K. B. it was held that a mark was a good signing within the statute of frauds ; and the court refused to allow an enquiry into the fact whether the party could write, saying that would make no difference. (Baker v. Dening, *444 8 Adol. & Ellis, 94; and see Harrison v. Harrison, 8 Ves. 186 ; Addy v. Grix, id. 504.)
These cases fully sustain the ruling of the court below. They • show, I think,, that a person may become bound by any mark or designation he thinks proper to adopt, provided it be used as a substitute for his name, and he intend to bind himself. (a)
Judgment affirmed.
See Rogers v. Coit, (ante, p. 322, 3.)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5466492. Public record. Not legal advice.