2 S.D. 512 | S.D. | 1892
This was an action upon a contract for the purchase of six copies of a book called “Yaggy’s Anatomical Study.” Upon the trial the defendants objected to the introduction of any evidence because the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants personally. The objection was sustained upon the ground that the contract upon which the action was founded was one made by the school township of Delmont, and that this action could not be maintained, because it is sought to recover of the defendants personally. The only question in the case is, are the defendants personally liable upon the contract on which the action is brought, taken in connection with the allegations of the complaint? In the consideration of this question we must look to the contract and complaint alone. The
The agreement made by the defendants, upon which the plaintiff seeks to recover, does not purport; upon its face to be any other contract than one made by themselves. There is nothing in it that would indicate any other than their jtersonal contract, except the words, “the undersigned members of the board of directors of the school township of Delia on t,” etc. Neither does it appear that the books sold or bought were for the use or benefit of the school township, or any one except the signers of the contract, nor that they had the authority or agency to purchase them for any institution, school or individual. On the face of the instrument, it clearly shows that they were the purchasers for their own benefit; for it says: “We, the undersigned, hereby order shipped to us, as named below, six copies of Yaggy’s Anatomical Study, at thirty-five dollars each. * * * We agree to pay for the above named goods.” The plaintiff agrees in the instrument to accept in payment an order or warrant issued on the treasurer of said township; but this stipulation does not have the effect to show that this is an obligation of the school township, any more than, if the obligors had promised to pay in county or state warrants, it would tend to make the county or state holden for the contract. Upon the face of the instrument the school township is not bound, nor do any of the allegations of the complaint tend to show any such intention on the part of either party to the transaction. When the goods arrived at Winfred the defendants received and receipted for them in their own names.
We are construing the complaint, and the contract upon which it is based, with no reference to any outside or extraneous facts or circumstances attending the execution of the contract, as set forth in the answer, because the answer and those facts have nothing to do with the question before us. What effect the allegations of the answer and the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction may have, or how they may modify or alter the relations of the defendants in the contract, we are not called upon to say. Upon the question pre