Case ID: johns_3/html/0439-02.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

Brush against The Administrators of Reeves.
    ALBANY,
    August, 1808.
    If the payee of toTim ^¿ear-er’ Puts '“s name on the back, he may Endorser,** in tile same manner as if it w&s payable to his order.
    THE plaintiff declared on a promissory note, given by one Spring to Reeves, the intestate, and payable to him or bearer. The note was indorsed over by Reeves, and the present suit was brought by the indorsee against his administrators. There was a general demurrer to the declaration, which was in the usual form against the indorser.
    
      E. Williams, for the defendant,
    objected that the deelaration ought to have been special.
   Per Curiam.

The note was negotiable under the statute, and transferable without indorsement; but if the payee chose to put his name on the back, he became as much bound as an indorser, as if the note had been made payable to him or order.

It was ruled by Chief Justice Holt, in the case of The Bank of England v. Newman, (1 Lord Raym. 442.) that if a person indorses a bill payable to beater, he becomes a new security, and is liable on the indorsement. The declaration at least is good on a special demurrer. But the defendant may withdraw the demurrer, on payment of costs, and pleading forthwith.

Judgment for the plaintiff.