Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1863-06-11

All thst is shown by the authorities re-
lied on ~ the appellant is that where q
note payable to order, has lever been in.
dorsed bV the pasee, within the meaning
OF the law merchant, the legal title has not
passed, and The equities between the origi-
nal PARTIES sr= mot cut on. But no case
Was citeti ana think n"ne can be found
To show that the name Of the payee, on
another paper attached TO the mole anG
plainly intended TO operate as an indorse-
ment so far as to transfer the title, would
not have that effect.
There are cases showing that al assign
ment of number OF notes at once, in a
separate paper, never attached to either
OF the notes or intended TO be, is not al
Endorsement 10 the law merchant. French
vs.. Turner. 18th Ind, SO; Hopkirk VS..
Page, ID Brockenbrough. Al. But such a
transfer is so widely different from the
present, and there was really so little
ground TO claim that it was an indorse
ment, that while the correctness of these
decisions is uuquestioned, 1t is equally
clear that they are not applicable here.
On the contrary, Chief Justice Marshal
based his conclusion upon the TACT that
the mode of transfer there in question,
separates the evidence of ownership
from the bill ITSELF" implying plainly that
the same conclusion would not be true
where this evidence was attached to the
note, so as to travel with it wherever it
might go.
have not deemed it necessary 10 enter
into any detailed examination of suthori-
I Stoto1 tho Mo h oh
seem fairly to be derived from them, and
although no case is found where con.
tract precisely like this has been passed on,
it seems TO me fully within those pr;nci.
pies The rules of the mercantile law are
based upon convenience. For this very
reason they DO not harden so as to impose
upon one age the mere shapes and forms
OF business which may have been in vogue
10 another. This would be extremely in
convenient. Those rules are therefore
flexible and adapt themselves to the
changes of progress and experience, so as
to be always founded on convenience. No
better illustration OF this can be given
than is furnished by the history of nego-
table bonds like the one, in connection
with which this note was transferred.
DDlCS anu OtGSI SSdlcO "SIS
not negotiable within the law merchant.
They were always open to any defence
existing between the original parties. But
in the great increase OF corporations, who
became borrowers in the money markets
OF the world, it was found that their
bonds were performing the same functions
as negotiable paper, and that the interest
and convenience or the mercantile public
required that they be governed substan-
italy by the same rules. This rule has
accordingly been established. See opinion
of Justice Cole in Clark VS.. GAINESVILLE, 10
Wis. 1873, and cases cited.
1t would be an extraordinary departure
from the spirit of those decisions, which
held that these bonds though in torn not
within the law merchant, were yet within
its reason and should be entitled to its
protection, if we should now hold that by
connecting one of them with note which
was negotiable within the law merchant,
the latter should be taken out of it.
| think the judgment should be affirmed