Case ID: scl_5/html/0549-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      J-\n     Colcock, J. Smith, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    NOV., 1815.
    Titus G. Farr ads. William Hemmingway.
    Anote negotiable, may be set up in discount to plaintiff’s action, by the assignee.
    This was another case within the summary jurisdiction of the court, to recover a note of 86 dollars.
    Defendant offered in discount a due bill given by the plaintiff, to W. B. Farr, and by him assigned to the defendant, for 80 dollars.
    The court, Judge Beevabd, presiding, decreed for defendant, and allowed him the balance, between the note and due bill. But the day following, upon reconsidering the case, reversed the above decree, rejected the discount altogether, and gatfe judgment for the amount of the note, upon the ground that the .due bill was not negotiable.
    This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground of the decree being against law.
    
      Johnson, for the motion. Thomson, contra.
    
   J-

I am dearly of opinion, that the decree in this case ought to be set aside, and a new trial granted.

The law, previous to the year 1798, was, as Judge Brevard eventually decreed in this case. But the act of December, 3798, altered the old law upon this subject, and made bonds, bills, and notes, and which were not negotiable in their nature, assignable ; and empowered the assignee to bring suit, and recover the same in his own name.

Now, it is evident that if the assignee of such a bond, bill, or note, can recover in his own name as assignee, and appropriate the money to his own use, he may, when sued, offer it in evidence by way of discount, because, when it is assigned, it then becomes a matter in his own right, which comes clearly under the discount law.

Grimke, J., concurred.

Colcock, J.

This case was tried at the same time with the case of E. Farmer v. Baker and Leach. I consent to the motion for the same reasons which governed me in that case.

Smith, J.

The only difference between this case and the case of E. Farmer v. Baker and Leach, is that that case was founded on the bill, and here the bill was offered in discount. I am also of opinion, that a new trial should be granted in this case.