Case ID: sc-eq_31/html/0139-01.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

L. B. Hanks vs. James Dunlap.
    
      Sills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
    
    The payee indorsed the note in blank arid delivered it to B., his agent, to be discounted in Bank. B. owed W. for money lent to game with, and in consideration thereof, transferred the note to W. who, before it fell due, transferred it to D. one of the drawers, for value, and without notice: Held, that D. was entitled to the note.
    BEFORE -WARDLAW, CH., AT KERSHAW,
    JUNE, 1856.
    Wardlaw, Ch. In November, 1854, the plaintiff, a merchant at Sumterville, endorsed in blank and delivered to Andrew G. Baskin, an attorney at law, then residing in Camden, to be discounted in the Branch Bank of the State, a promissory note in the following terms: “ Camden, S. C., April 18, 1854, $213 50, twelve months after date, we or either .of us, promise to pay L. B. , Hanks, or order, at the Bank of Camden, S. C., two hundred and thirteen fifty one-hundredths dollars, with interest from date for value received. J. F. Southerland, James Dunlap.” This note had been accepted by plaintiff in satisfaction of two several judgments obtained by him through the attorneyship of Baskin against one D. S. Sargent. A few days after obtaining possession of the note, Baskin offered it as his own to Southerland for redemption at the price of $200 00, but Southerland, not having the money on hand, declined to pay before the maturity of the note; and as defendant states in his answer, Baskin offered it to him on like terms and with like result. In the course of November, 1854, Baskin borrowed, for the purpose of gaming at faro, the sum of $675 00 from one Watson, who was also addicted to gambling, and lost the money at the game, some of it in the presence of Watson. The latter, Watson, held the money as the price of a negro he had sold for J. J. Dunlap; a week afterwards, on representation of this fact to Baskin, Baskin delivered to Watson the note in question; a due bill on defendant James Dunlap; and perhaps other demands, towards reimbursement of the loan, leaving a sum unpaid. Early in January, 1855, Watson delivered the note to James Dunlap, who was the agent of J. J. Dunlap, in part payment of his debt to J. J. Dunlap; and James Dunlap advanced the amount of the note upon a demand in the Bank, which was pressing against J. J. Dunlap, and took the note as his own. In December, 1854, Baskin became utterly insolvent from gambling; and about the end of January, 1855, he and Watson left Camden as bankrupts. Until a time within a few days of his leaving Camden, notwithstanding he was known generally to be a gambler, Baskin was reputed to be efficient and punctual as a collecting attorney and in ordinary matters of business.
    The plaintiff, Hanks, seeks by this petition to compel the payment of this note from the defendant, James -Dunlap. Baskin and Southerland are among the witnesses. In his answer the defendant denies all notice or suspicion ; that at the time of the transfer of the note to Watson and himself, Baskin was not the bona fide owner of the note, and he claims the position of an innocent endorsee for valuable consideration of a note endorsed and transferred to him before maturity.
    His denial of notice of Baskin’s fraud is not rebutted by the evidence.
    Repayment of the money lent by Watson to Baskin for the illegal purpose of gaming could not be enforced, and a note or other security given by B. to W. for the loan would be void in the hands of an innocent holder, MordecOi vs. Dawkins, 9 Rich. 262. But if B. has repaid the loan, neither he nor any one in his right can recapture the money by reason of the unlawful consideration for the loan. The note in suit is not infected with any unlawful consideration, and the only question is whether the delivery of it to an innocent holder before it was due, endorsed in blank, for value, by one who obtained possession of it with the assent of the owner, passes the title of the instrument. The unauthorized delivery of notes payable to bearer, or of notes payable to order endorsed in blank, gives a bona fide holder, ignorant that the person transferring has no right to pass the note, or is guilty of any breach of trust in doing so, complete right to the instruments against all other parties, Byles on Bills, 24 — 112. It is no defence in a suit by such a holder that the bill or note was accepted for a gambling debt; (Edwards vs. Dick, 4 Barn, and Aid. 212) nor that it was obtained from the payee fraudulently, Sims vs. Stewart, 1 Hill, 39; Peacock vs. Rhodes Doug. 632.
    A distinction is made in some of the cases concerning the valuable consideration given by the holder, between actual payment of money or other thing of value at the time of transfer and the extinction of a pre-existing liability on the part of him who transferred, Godrington vs ..Bay, 20, Johns. 637; but this distinction is not to be much pressed in any case* and is without application here, for the defendant paid in money for the transfer of the note to him. Defendant has the law with him and equal equity. It is ordered and decreed that the petition be dismissed.
    The complainant appealed on the grounds:
    1. That the facts in evidence were sufficient to establish the presumption of notice to the defendant, that the note was the property of complainant, and likewise that it had been received by Watson in remuneration of money knowingly lent to game with.
    2. That the consideration «pon which defendant received the note, was not such as to entitle him to the position of having paid valuable consideration for the same.
    3. That from the facts of the case, the defendant is not enti-tied to the position of holder for valuable consideration, without notice against the equities of the complainant.
    4. That the laws against gaming invalidated the possession and right of the defendant.
    
      Mayrant, for appellant.
    
      Shannon, contra.
   Per curiam.

This Court concurs in the decree of the Circuit Court, which is hereby affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Dunkin, Daiigan and Wardlaw, CC.

Jlppea dismissed.