#### Hill Binding Company, Defendant in Error, v. F. J. Koch Company, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 22,484.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Corporations, § 370 * — when use of first person in note does not avoid liability of corporation. The use of the expression “I promise to pay” preceding a signature to a note which is the name *218of both the president of a corporation, who signs the note and procures the money for the corporation, and the corporation itself, does not avoid the liability of the corporation, especially where the corporation has the benefit of the money.

*217Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Dennis W. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 11, 1917.

Rehearing denied July 23, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by the Hill Binding Company, plaintiff, against F. J. Koch Company, defendant, to recover on two promissory notes, signed, “F. J. Koch,” by the president of the company bearing such name. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $846.25, defendant brings error.

The name of defendant corporation at the time of the execution of the notes was F. J. Koch. Each note contained the words “after date I promise to pay” and the proceeds of the notes were used in the business of the F. J. Koch corporation.

Samuel K. Markman and Francis E. Hinckley, for plaintiff in error.

Campbell & Fischer, for defendant in error; John D. Peterson, of counsel.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.

*2182. Corporations, § 515 * — when parol evidence is admissible to show character of signature to notes. Whether notes signed by the president of a corporation, who has the same name as the corporation itself, are personal or corporate, is a matter of fact and not of law, and evidence is admissible to show whether the signature was intended to be that of the president personally or of the corporation.