#### HUBBARD, GARDNER & Co. *vs.*GEORGE WILLIAMSON AND N. M. ROANE.

A blank indorsement by the payee of a bill or note is an authority to a *bona fide*holder to fill it at any time, as an indorsement to himself or any other person or to bearer, and, if not filled up, is now considered as making the bill payable to bearer.

But where there is a first and second *endorser*in blank, the holder of the bill cannot suppottan action against them jointly, without filling up the endorsement of the first endorser, so as to shew an authority in the second endorser to give a title to the plaintiff as holder. The endorsement may be filled up, as a matter of course, on the trial; but, if not done, the plaintiff must be non-suited.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Caswell County at Spring Term 1844, his Honor Judge Dick presiding.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, as the endor-sees and holders of a bill of exchange, payable *to the*defendant, Williamson, and by him endorsed *to Roane and*by Roane to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, under the statute, Rev. Stat. ch. 13, sec. 9, brought a joint action against Roane and Williamson upon their several endorsements. Upon the production of the bill at the trial, the endorsements of the defendants appeared not tobe in full, but both of them to be in blank. Upon objection by the defendants, the Court held, that the plaintiffs could not recover in this action, without *267filling up the endorsements, so as to shew on the bill a title to it in the plaintiffs; and the plaintiffs, insisting that they were entitled to recover without filling up the endorsements, ° declined to do so, and, in submission to the opinion of the Court, suffered a non-suit, and appealed to this Court.

*Palmer*for the plaintiffs,

cited Chitty on Bills, p. 80, 135, 140. Rev. Stat. pa. 119, p. 485. Robinson’s prec. 47. *French*v *Barney,*1 Ired. 219. *Little*v *Obierne,*9 Mass, Rep. *Botvman*v *Wood,*9 Mass. Rep.

*Norwood*and *E. G. Meade*for the defendants.

Ruffin, C. J.

It has long been settled, that a blank endorsement by the payee of a bill or note is air authority to a *bona jide*holder (as these plaintiffs appear to be) to fill it up at any time, as an endorsement to himself, or any other person, or to the bearer. Such blank endorsement, it seems, may now be considered, in itself, as making the bill payable to bearer. Upon this latter ground the plaintiffs might have declared as the holders of the bill, under Williamson’s endorsement, against him, or the acceptor or drawer of the bill, taking no notice of Roane’s endorsement .But the plaintiffs have not so declared. On the contrary, their suit is against both Williamson and Roane, as first and second endorsers, and imports, necessarily, that Williamson’s endorsement, was to Roane, and not to the plaintiff, either specially or as being the bearers of the bill. Therefore, it behooved the plaintiffs to fill up Williamson’s endorsementto Roane, so as to make a title in the latter, and enable Roane by his endorsementto give to the plaintiff an action against Williamson. For in that way alone does or can any'contract arise between Williamson, the first endorser, and the plaintiffs, as the second endor-sees. The endorsement might, as a matter of course, have been filled up at the bar, pending the trial, and we cannot imagine what possible reason could have induced the plaintiff’s counsel to refuse, or rather to decline doing so. Under the present declaration the plaintiffs cannot recover upon the two endorsements in blank, and therefore the nonsuit was proper; and the plaintiffs must be left to a new action, in which they may put the endorsements into a proper state.

Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed,