Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-01-22
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME
COURT.
Nashville, DeeeEabeP Term. 1856.
Reported torthe Union and Dispatch By Pailip
-, Lindsley. EsQ

Nashville, DeeeEaber Term, 1856.
Reported torthe Union and Dispatch By PaiHp
Lindsley, Esq
Richard SimpSOH tS Richard MdiadiaQ
/. NEeoTIABLR PAPEa.-A note payableinc cur
rent bank notes, is not q note for money upon
"hlen debt will lie, and is not negotiable paper.
= AsSIGNAENrs,-lnsthe casetOf note trans
ierred By mere delivery, a third party alter
wards assigningOr endorsing Il, without valuable
OF other consideration, viii not be liable to the
endorsee, except when be specially contracts 10
be so. or for fraud in the transfer and then, not
upon the endorsement. but BY special action for
the consideration paid by the endOrsee.
=, uNNEe0TI4BL2 PAPER--Assi0anesfq a. Same
The eiiect of an assignment of nnHegotiabIe
paper IS 10 dIyeSt the legal property or interest
out OF the paper and vest il in the assignee He
may sue m his own name or in the name of the
MULnGAS, j.. delivered the opinion of the
court.
This il an action of debt in the Circuit
Court OF White county, upon the assign
ment OF the following note:
'Six months after date We-Or either ofus
promise TO pay 7. ]. Jett foIfr hundred dol
Lays in current bank notes, with interest
from date, for value received of him. Oct
+, 1862 JAMES c. KELLY.
C.S. CRowDER."
The assignment is in the following Ian
guage "For value received assign the
within aote to Richard Simpson, waving
necessity Of notice and demand.
Richard MAULDING"
From the bill Of exceptions it appears
that Jet, the payee of the note, transferred
il by delivery to Maulding, and Maulding
to one Gillem, and Gillem TO plaintiff; and
afterwards the above recited assignment
was endorsed upon it by the defendent.
The court, in substance, instructed the
jury: If the note was transferred by de-
livery merely TO the plaintiff, and after
wards the defendant assigned or endorsed
it, without any valuable or other cOnsidera-
tion, he would not be liable; but, if the
assignment was made for a valuable CON
sideration, he would be liable.
There was verdict and Judgment for
the defendant and an appeal in error pros
ecuted to this court.
Exceptions are taken TO the action of the
court during the process ofthe trial. which
we think might be sustained bat, in the
view we have of the law of this case, the
Judgment of the court below cannot be
disturbed.
Waving all questions that might arise
on the transfer of this note by delivery and
treating it as having come into the hands
of the defendant by regular assignment, il
is clear this action cannot be maintained.
The note is negotiable in the sense of the
law merchant and an endorser of such pa
per is not liable to the holder, except when
he specially contracts to be so, or for fraud
in the transfer, and then by special action
by the endorsee for the consideration.
kirkpatrick Ys. Mccullough, Hum, III,
Wheleman vs Childress, 7 Hum, 30S.
The effect of an assignment Of unnego-
table paper is to divest the legal property
or interest out Of the paper, and vest it in
the assignee. He is authorized tosue in his
own name, or in the name Of the payee for
his use. Meigs' Digest, p. 1909 also,
Moorvs Wier & Smith, Sneed, 46. But
without special undertaking in the as
signment, or fraud in the transfer, he is not
liable
Other questions are raised in the record,
on the pleadings, and as to the admissi-
bility of testimony, which We do not deem
it necessary to notice. Il
Affirm the judgment.