Case ID: scl_9/html/0031-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Cheves.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Price, Executor of William Simpson, deceased, against Abraham Perry.
    e aa„“™ fore due evidence of any intent of “le“nt0from“s St 'mt'tfbe juryivfimitogtha verdict conform-the ieg«i purport, the veriSSf10 hed,s
    This was art action of assumpsit against the deiendant, as an endorser oí a promissory note 7 * ^ given by Thomas Lee to the defendant, and by him endorsed by the plaintiff’s testator.
    The plaintiff proved the endorsement, &c. mi _ _ . - I he defendant then produced a witness, who x 7 swore that he was present when the defendant endorsed the note; that the plaintiff’s testator said to the defendant, he must endorse the note to enable him to sue the maker, from which it was inferred he was not to be liable, according to the legal effect of the endorsement; that Lee, at the time of the endorsement, was solvent, but at the time of this trial was insolvent. Plaintiff’s testator sued Lee on the note, but never in his life-time called on the defendant.
    The case was tried before Abraham, Blanding, Esquire, sitting Under a special commission, (for Judge Bing,) at Lancaster, in the Spring Term of 1817; who left the case with the Jury, upon the intention of the parties, at the time of the endorsement. The Jury found for the plaintiff.
    A motion for a new trial is now made, on the ground, that the defendant only endorsed the note to enable the endorsee to sue the maker ; and ought not, therefore, to be liable, according to the legal effect of the endorsement.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cheves.

The evidence to contradict or vary the legal efFedt of the endorsement, 1 think, was not legally admissible: but that is not made a question in this case. The evidence went to the Jury, and was fairly submitted to them. They were the proper judges of it, and the Court sees no reason to believe they drew a wrong conclusion. The motion is, therefore, refused.

Grimké, Colcock, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.

Mott, J. dissented.