Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-26
OFFICIAL.
Opinions of the Supreme COurt OF the State
of Tennessee, delivered at Nashville, al
December Term, 1858.
Dorteh and 9th rs vs.. Fra.ier


This was an action Of assurapst upon promissoy note for
81 $50 o. made by the firm OF c. Newell & Co, payable
jordan ETdse co. al Iogr q months and endorsed IN blank
jointly sued and recovery had against them; but only
the endo-sers have appealed.
1t appears r. H. Fraser, Of Nev Orleans accepted two
bills Of exchange Of five thousand dollars EACH for TIE
Of W z. Newell 8: Co. Of Clarksvile Tenn the
Of which fell due the h Of November, 1876, and the
other the December following There being funds in the
one Of Newell Co, addressed letter Frlsier
tceptor time after e first OF November, 1856,
and therein lat able the money
the BILL but he, Frsier could relieve himself by raising
directions giyen instructions imposed regards
the mode in which the notes to he used disposed Of by
Faser the foregoing statement in Prches letter. being al
that was said upon the subject
November paid bill On reception he
Prtchett stating that the worthless
per" would not comuladd moey in the market and ureing
remittance Of the but returning The notes In few days
afterwards the sth Of November, 1855
". Newell Co failed aad made assignment Of their ef
fects for the benefit Of creditors.
Some tine after Fase received said notes.-the date IS not
individual bene6t' By trzy delivery to the plaintiff,
The question suhm. 7-=fs -Sfion f., whether-as
between Frsser and tas . > acquired such an
interest in the note it b his
to maintain an aeirs
It certainly we'll ssttea .-s,ssg, = r.; '.:v
cred to agent for a ss=<-F ~
persons taking the same with known - 49,.
accordingly where bill or note -,s ssaf
plaintiff t. be discounted, he cannot Hpply
satisfaction Of debt andh he pays IL away In On q
debt OF his he will be liable 70 the party from whom
ceiyei it, in the he had discounted the bill
and he cannot avail himself Of set or Chtty Bills, Bd Of
1854 )72. I9S 3lSrg.
this principle, think, application the
fore The notes delivered to Fraser generally the
place Of money with unlimited discretion make any such
disposition Of them might be thought proper, to enable
him to meet the payment Of the bill soon falling due The OBJ
the delivery relieve frser. And II Fraer
might have made valid disposition Of the notes before the
tuiy CT the BILL to raise money meet its payment surely,
be might after being compelled pay the bill, make equally
valid disposition Of the nOes in order TO mbure himself the
amount paid out Of his own funds ts expressly laid down in
Chy Bills p. 239 that IL bill be transmitted 10 person
discounted, and take another bill to which he was
party he 10 suced getting such bill discounted but
the other, he retain the transmitted bill and the
parties thereo in order 10 mburse himself the aonnt Of the
bill which he took up.
The Of Fraer hat notes not available for the
purpose raising money Market fairly regarded
equivalent refusal accept retain the notes for his
benefit But this ths 90 he was at liberty 10
change discrimination, manifest that the notes sent
with tie intention that the proceeds should be applied for his
indemnity.
failure of Newell Co in the aspect in which the case
presented. have influence the determination
Judgment affirmed. MCKINNEY,
A correct copy, J. P. CLARK, Clerk.