Case ID: johns_1/html/0143-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cock against Fellows.
    A promissory note m these words “duet® hereof¿"3,18. 10, which I promise to pay to A. or order, payable^ must be trails
    FROM the return to the certiorari in this cause, it appeared that an action had been brought by the defendant in 1 _ ° J error, against the present plaintiff, before a justice of the peace, in which he declared on a writing or note, in the following words, “Due the bearer hereof /" 3, 18, 10, .... . ** which I promise to pay to Abraham Thompson, or order, on demand, as witness my hand, this 22d 11th month, 1803signed, Jordan Cock. The note was not indorsed by Thompson, and the declaration stated the noteas made payable to bearer. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff beloxv, for the amount of the note.
    
      
      Van Antwerp, for the plaintiff in error,
    insisted that the note must be considered as payable to order, and negotiable by indorsement only. The word bearer was introduced merely to shew the person to whom the debt was due, for which the note was given ; the mo'de of payment was. to the order of Thompson, without whose indorsement the plaintiff below, could not maintain his action. Chitty.173.
    
      Metcalf contra,
    
    contended that the note was intended to be made payable to bearer, and transferable without indorsement ; and that the words, or order, ought to be rejected as superfluous.
   Per Curiam.

The word bearer has reference to Thompson as the payee, and as the promise is expressly to pay to him or order, another person could not maintain an action on the note without his indorsement. The judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.-