Case ID: us_10/html/0203-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Marshall, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STEWART v. ANDERSON
    . In at>. in vn^lnla by rhe assignee of á negotiable íotT’^against the maker, the note of tbe ?a-signor which he held at the time of receiving notice of the assignment of his own note, although the note thus set off was not due at the time of the notice, but became due before the note upon which the suit was brought.
    
      ERROR to thé circuit court for the district of Columbia.
    Stewart, the endorsee of a promissory note, brought his action of debt, under the statute of Virginia, against Anderson, the maker. The note was paade payable to W. Hodgson, and by him assigned to Stewart. It was dated the 25th of April, 1807, and payable 18© days after date, for'330 dollars and 56 cents. ' r ’
    The defendant pleaded,
    1. Nil debet; and.
    2, That at the time the note became due, and before the defendant had notice of the assignment thereof to the plaintiff by W. .Hodgson, the latter became, and now is, indebted to the defendant in the sum of 566 dollars and 67 centá, by note dated the 29th of June, 1807, and payable 60 days after its date. That the defendant has been, and'still is, ready and doth offer to set off against the money due from him by the note mentioned in the declaration, so much of the 566. dollars and 67 cents, as will be and is sufficient to discharge all that is due and owing from him for andón account of the note in the declaration mentioned.
    Upon the trial in the court below the jury found a special verdict, which states, that Hodgson transferred to the plaintiff the note in the declaration mentioned; and afterwards, on the 14th of August, 1807, for the first time informed the defendant that the note was transferred, but did not say to whom. At the time of that information, the defendant held a.note of W. Iiodgson, dated the 29th of June, 1807, for .566 dollars and 67 cents which was given for a full andvaluable consideration, and payable 60 days after date. When the defendant was informed of the transfer of the note he made no reply. The jury finally conclude by saying that they “find for the ^defendant, provided the court are of opinion that the verbal notice given by Hodgson to the defendant, on the 14th of August, of . the transfer of the note in the declaration mentioned, was not sufficient to bar the defendant’s right of offsetting his aforesaid note of 566 dollars and 67 cents, against the plaintiff’s note in the declaration mentioned. But should the court be of opinion that the said notice was sufficient to entitle' the plaintiff to the money in the declaration mentioned, as against the defendant, then they find for the plaintiff,” &c.
    
      Upon this special verdict the judgment of the court below was for the defendant; and thé plaintiff brought his writ of error.
    Youngs, for the plaintiff in error,
    contended that the note offered in discount was not a good set-off, because it was not payable at the time the defendant had notice of the assignment.
    The act of assembly of Virginia (P. P. 36.) provides, that 44 assignments of bonds, bills, and promissory-notes, and other writings obligatory, for payment -of money or tobacco, shall be valid ; and an assignee of any such may thereupon maintain an 'action of debt, in his own. name, but shall allow all just discounts, not only against himself, but against the assignor, before notice of the assignment was given to the defendant
    
    Under this act of assembly it must be a just discount before notice ; this could not be a just discount until it became payable. Money- cannot be offset before it be due.'
    The act of assembly was hot intended to embrace commercial cases. If it did, it would destroy- the negotiability-of notes, and all credit and confidence in mercantile transactions.
    The Court stopped E. J. Lee, contra.
   Marshall, Ch. J.

If Hodgson’s note had. not been payable till alter Anderson’s, it would have ■ been a different case; but being pay able, before Anderson’s, and holden by Anderson' before notice, it is such an offset as he might avail himself of at the trial.

Judgment affirmed..