Young v Schuler: CA 19 Jun 1883

The issue was whether Schuler had signed an agreement simply under a power of attorney on behalf of one of the named parties or, additionally, on his own behalf as a guarantor. In the case of an equivocal agency signature, it was held that evidence was admissible that the signature was also a personal signature – ‘evidence that he intended to sign in both capacities . . does not contradict the document and is admissible’. Brett said: ‘But the questions whether a person has signed his name at the foot of a document, and if so, for what purpose, are questions of evidence, and any evidence on the subject which does not contradict the document is admissible . . This evidence does not contradict anything on the face of the document, and is, in my opinion, plainly admissible.’


Cotton LJ, Sir William Brett MR


(1883) 11 QBD 651, [1883] UKLawRpKQB 118




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedShogun Finance Limited v Hudson HL 19-Nov-2003
Thief acquired no title and could not sell
A purchaser used a stolen driving licence to obtain credit for and purchase a car. He then purported to sell it to the respondent, and then disappeared. The finance company sought return of the car.
Held: (Lords Nicholls and Millett . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.188451