Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1857-05-15
sum mentioned in the note. Tothe validity of every
contract it is essential that it receive the assent of the

sum mentioned In the note. Tothe validity of every
contract essential that it receive the assent OF the
parties, to be bound either payers or performers.
Parsons on Contracts 3s9 In this case it is not PEE
tended that Thomas Dewey ever accepted the note.
On the contrary, the bank through its president and
whose officer Mr.. Dewey was, refused to receive the
note. There is then, no contract between Mr. Dewey
and the defendant. Mr. Dewey has not the legal
title to the note But the action is brought not for
the benefit Of Mr. Dewey or the bank, but for the
use and beneht of Farrar & Brothers, to whom il was
assigned by Hagins. Did they, by this agreement,
acquire such an interest in the note enable them
The original payee? We think they did not The
note in question is made payable and negotiable at
the branch Of the bank of the State. at Charlotte
What is the meaning of the word negotiable? 1t is
admitted that the note is n the usual form OF such
instruments. Put into plain English the word ne
gotiabe means that the money is TO be bor 0wed rom
the bank designated. The sureties bound themselves
that if the bank would discount the note they would
pay it at maturity but they do not promise 10 pay
any other holder of the no!e who does not claim
through the bank. Many reasons might exist why
they would be willing 10 incur that responsibility
when they would not be willing to incur it with
private Individual If the note was discounted at the
bank, they knew that, after ninety days. they could
take up the obligation refuse to prolong Their re.
sponsibility by joining in renewal of the note and
then the bank might, and would proceed TO collect
it, If negotiated 10 private individual, years might
pass before they knew where il was, or before it was
presented for payment, nor could they, until it
presented for payment, know certainly that it was
outstanding whereas. if in the bank, he would know
where to 60, and he could at any time after matur-
ty ascertain whether it had been taken up and dis
charged by his principal, and if not, be enabled 10
secure himself. 1t never intended by he defen-
dant that the note should be thrown into market in
any other way than as pointed out in his contract
The principle controlling the is fully stated in
Respass v. Latham, Bus. Rep. 1873. That was an
action of debt upon sealed instrument; which was
payable to Mrs. Parker. When presented to her, she
refused to lend the money upon it, and it was return
ed to the oblgors Subsequently of the oblgors,
and for whose use the money to be raised was in
tended, induced the payee 10 endorse it without re-
course, and the money was advanced upon it BY the
plaintiff. The Court say, The instrument, in its
original concocton, not intended hy the defen-
dants to be thrown into market 10 raise funds from
any one who would advance them but from a sreci-
fed Individual and that person refusing to lend
money upon it, it must be 81 own that the defendants
agreed to the iRtent that is, becoming bound 10
Repass, which does not appear"
"ln our case the source from which the money
TO be borrowed is specified in the instrument to
wit, the branch bank of the State, at Charlotte and
the bank having refused 10 discount it, the nole to
the defendant, the surety, died, and could not be
vived by transfer 10 Farrar & Brothers without his
assent. Of all this the beneficial owners were ap.
prised from the face of the note. At any rate, the
fact that Mr.. Dewey, the original pay ee, cashier
of the bank, had not endorsed it, taken connection
with the tenor of the note sufficient to put them
on the enquiry"