Case ID: mass_15/html/0474-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Bowman versus Abiel Wood.
    A sheriff received of a judgment debtor a negotiable promissory note, payable to and endorsed in blank by the debtor, as security on the execution, and afterwards sold the same at auction to himself as the highest bidder, making a return of such sale upon the execution; and afterwards maintained an action, as endorsee, against the maker of the note.
    Assumpsit by the endorsee against the maker of a negotiable promissory note. The plaintiff, a deputy sheriff, having an execution against one Hodge, received from him the note in question as a pledge, or collateral security, for the discharge of the execution, the note being signed by the defendant, and endorsed in blank by Hodge. The plaintiff kept the note two months, and then advertised it as the property of Hodge, and sold it at auction to himself as the highest bidder, of which he made return on the execution. At the time of the plaintiff’s receiving the note from Hodge, cross actions were pending between this latter and the defendant, which, with all demands between the parties, had been submitted to referees. This note was not considered by the referees, and they reported a largei sum than the amount of the note, as due from Hodge to the defend ant, which remained unpaid.
    
      
      S. E. Smith for the plaintiff.
    
      Bailey for the defendant.
   Curia.

It is not pretended, by the counsel for the plaintiff that to acquired a title to this note by virtue of the sale on the execution, although it should seem that the plaintiff himself supposed a title so acquired was valid.

But the note was put into his hands as a pledge, with the name of the promisee endorsed upon it, and it was a negotiable * note in its form. This was a transfer, sufficient to enable the plaintiff to maintain the action; for the endorsement comprehended an authority to bring a suit, and to receive the money of the promisor. Otherwise, upon non-payment of the debt by the endorser, the plaintiff had no security.

The note being due when endorsed, the defendant might have shown in evidence that it was paid. But the facts proved contain no such evidence. There was an unsettled account between the maker of the note and the promisee, on which a balance has been found due to the former. For this, however, he has recovered his judgment; so that the note cannot be paid by this account; and the referees excluded the note from their consideration, because it was not in the hands of the payee.

The note being negotiable, having been endorsed for a valuable consideration, and there being no proof that it has been paid, the plaintiff is of course entitled to recover; and having received it as a pledge for the payment of the execution, he must account to the endorser for the proceeds.

There is nothing in the case which would have constituted a defence, if Hodge himself had been the plaintiff; and the only remedy would have been under the statute authorizing the officer to set off one execution against the other. This remedy cannot be applied in this case, because the plaintiff and defendant are not mutual debtors, 
      
      
        Stat. 1810, c. 84.
     
      
      
         Vide Hatch vs. Green, 12 Mass. Rep. 195. — Jones vs. Witter, 13 Mass. Rep. 304 .— Jenkins vs. Brewster, 4 Mass. Rep. 291. — Gardner vs. Corson, 15 Mass. Rep. 504 — Sargent vs. Southgate, 5 Pick. 320.