Case ID: ala_3/html/0515-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GOLDTHWAITE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sprowl, et al. v. Simpkins.
    1. A note, payable to J. E. or bearer, made previously to the enactment of the slat, ute of 1837: — Meek’s Supplement. 108 — ¿improperly sued in the name of one who holds it by delivery without any indorsement from J. E. the payee.
    Writ of error to the Circuit Court of Barbour county.
    ASSUMPSIT on a promissory note, dated 2d October, 1835, payable to John Ethridge, or bearer on the first, day of January, then next.
    The declaration avers, that the note when-made by the defendants, was delivered to one Slaughter, who indorsed it to the plaintiff.
    The defendants appeared and suffered judgment by nil dicit.
    
    They now prosecute this writ of error, and assign, that the plaintiff shows no title to sustain this action, nor does the record-show that the note was produced when the judgment was rendered.
    
      Phelan, for the plaintiffs in error,
    cited, Meejt’s Supplement, 108. ,
    No counsel appeared for the defendant.
   GOLDTHWAITE, J.

The statute passed in 1837, requires notes, payable to bearer, to be assigned by the person whose name is mentioned on the face, before a,suit can be maintained in the name of the holder: Meek’s Sup, 108. But it has no operation on notes then in existence.

As this is the only question insisted on, the judgment must be affirmed.