Case Name: Joseph Howell, Jr., ads. S. Bulkley, Assignee
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1818-05
Citations: 1 Nott & McC. 249
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Howell, Jr., ads. S. Bulkley, Assignee.
Judges: Grimke, Nott, Cheves and Gantt, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 149–150

Head Matter:
Joseph Howell, Jr., ads. S. Bulkley, Assignee.
In an action by the assignee of a bond against the obligor, it is immaterial whether the assignment was made for a consideration or not.
It is not necessary that the assignment of a bond should be under seal.
This was an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff as assignee of Lewis Ogier ; tried at Barnwell, Spring Term, 1818, before Mr. Justice Oolcock.
The general issue of non est factum., was pleaded.
On the production of the bond, it appeared that there was no consideration expressed in the assignment, and that it was not under seal.
It was contended that the plaintiff could not recover, because a sealed instrument could not be transferred, except by seal; and that as no consideration was expressed, it was to be presumed that none was *pa'^ 5 but these objections were overruled, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff.
A motion was now made to set aside the verdict, and to obtain an order for a nonsuit, or for an arrest of judgment, on the following grounds :
1. That the assignment was without consideration and void ; and therefore the plaintiff could not maintain a suit.
2. That the assignment was parol only, not being under seal.
3. That this was not the form of action in which the plaintiff could recover.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
CoiiGOCK, J.
It is not for the defendant in this action to dispute the want of consideration. Between assignee and assignor such a question might be made; but, as to the defendant, it is immaterial whether a full consideration was paid, or whether the bond had been given by the assignor to the assignee. The Act of 1198, (1 Brev. Dig., 96, 2 Faust, 215,) authorizes the assignee of a bond to bring an action in his own name, style himself assignee, which is the. mode' in which the plaintiff in this action has proceeded. The action, therefore, is well brought.
As to the second ground, I do not conceive it to be necessary that the assignment should be under seal. - By the common law, an assignment may be by parol; Croke Eliza., 436; 3 Rep. 63; (a bond is a proper subject of donatio causa mortis, Wells v. Tucker, 3 Binney, 366;) and this has been the invariable mode of transferring bonds in this State.
The motion, therefore, is discharged.
Grimke, Nott, Cheves and Gantt, JJ., concurred.
5 Stat. 330.
6 Rich. 223.