, 1860-12-19

TIE DEc7sIoE or THE THE arFnkA1 torRr OF
OF nLNotI, hHsPrc11xo rHox1asonI roT1s,
fA1Ah1x WITH xxcHAxaI.
Nc hsve at length besn ahle to procores . oopy
OF Tie recent dcsiston Of the Supreme Court Of
this State upon ths subject, which va puh!sah 1t
length,
Supreme G1uTLs!ate ,er 1zinott: Daeld u:
e.; as.rf 9s's"aa"1' I" Error: 0p'aiaa o6 as
Ihe qaestioois then presented, whether this In
Et[nment was admissible under the common counts
uotes. bills OF c1chanSe and .eaIcd tu.t9ument:.
all import consideration, and when they form the
pa 1aais o. an :ctioni consideration need neither
Instruments. This Instrument is not under ssai.
hos u It bill ol exchange. Was It a promissory
nosst n That u defined to b - promise or agree
t5epcin mere HM5iing to Pay specified sum as time
Person Therein named, or to bis order, or to tho
6ester" Chit. on Bills, SIG, Bsyiey on Bills. p i,
Hennes fo me note to be wEitteu promise
the application Of the fnld, the doctrine seems 10
hsi' pn aahs5s t3 with entire unanlity that note
;aat may m be ins h sun or a. fast for sun
dent Of al other evidence II Al instrument Be Tor
aepeelaed sum Of money. and also for the payment
o. something else. the value Of which IL not ascer-
tatneu. bnt depends upon e1trinaic evidence. 1t
@onad not BE- bill OF note. lad this prunisc been
LOT the sum Of money nAmcd, and for the value OF
four days labor, no one would hare supposed it to
be promtssory note, beesuse proof woald have to
oe retored to for the purpose Of ascertatning tie
Falne Of the labor, end consequently 1t would not
pc Tor speeiaed sum Of money: Such pEomite
le3ves the SUM agreed 10 be paid wholly uncertain
We know that current rates Of ofe1ch1nge between
commercial pofnts Is 1uct1atine aud subject to
rs ,nd essnge Depending upon tas balance Of
tect ductn3tton the value OF abos or the price
ofTain. cattle or other articles OF property. And
= aas rs never been held that court MAY jldicial1y
W the price Of any Of these commodities fudepend-
ht Of proof aud yet 10 do wopld be no more uu-
than to take judicial notice Ut tho rate
u u exchange between different commercial places.
CONT may take notice Of snch facts, nor has any
decision been referred to which holds such 3n IN
stsumeat to be promissorJ note. Nor can 1t te
Law, and rendered such Instruments valid protnis-
snry notea. These Instruments owe their uevotta-
putty and evidence Of the receipt Of conside.a-
common law. Prior to the adoption OF the statute
OF Anne 10 Great Britain, and our statute fpxuatn
nogotAo!e tnstrumeuts they. neither in that eoun-
under the Brfts statute they must be for the INV
nent Of certain specified sum of money. and 70
under our statute. and not mere immateiiai arrec-
ments OF covenants to have thas elect
Unless the instrument declared upon po...,,r.
n. the qualities Of bill note, OF be under seal
II declared upon special! ! confederation nost
courts. This instrument being 4 simple coufrsct'
not under sca1, aud neither note or btlI il sub-
Jsct TO all the rules hich arc applied to other
simple contracts. When 1t was odered under de
eo:ntnoa counts. as 1t imports no consideration 10
authorizes recovery, . sufficient consideration
should hare been proved When offered under the
Common counts. 1t dispensed with no rroof that
would been required under properly framed spe-
eIal count. II, unlike note OF Bit, Afforded no
evidence Of money 1eat, 1drauced, Or had aud re-
ccived to the use Of tho plaintiff.
Hnti it Il insisted that no objection wa. m.de
when It WAS offered in evidence On the trial below
anler the common courts. aud a1l obicctiod4 uu.t
be considered as wa.yed. WEea the defendant
permitted 1t TO be read without objection he mast
ne held to havc admitted that It was cyidcucc and
that It WAS daily executed but not that It was su-
dctelt evidence to War1ant recovery It certain
r was evidence. and had there been further cyi-
acnee q the confederation upon which /. was
based. then recovery would have been proper.
hut for the want Of such additional proof the de-
lendant may be hca1d TO Insist that the evidence.
although legitimate. Is Insufficient The LII OF
s5ceptioa, embodied In the Eecu7. states that II
.ontains all the evidence, and We cannot presume
:h1t there was any peoof Of a consideration. aad
N Its absence the court errrd In rendering ird@-
nent In favor Of the plaintiff below
~ l4c rate Or current exchange IN New York was
Lied By agreement Of the pa1,1ea and proof as to
hat fact was thereby rendered unnecessa.y. The
udsment OF the court below Is rcverscd, and the
.lusc rcmaudcd,