Case Name: Robert Vincent vs. Wm. Groom
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1830-09
Citations: 1 Yer. 430
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert Vincent vs. Wm. Groom.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
Robert Vincent vs. Wm. Groom.
Sparta,
September, 1830.
A suit may be brought upon a negotiable instrument, in the name of one person for the use of another.
A note, made in pursuance of a contract to suppress a prosecution for an assault and battery, without leave of the court, is illegal and void.
This suit was instituted in the name of William Groom for the use of James Rucks, upon a note executed by Vincent to Groom. The consideration of the note, was to suppress a prosecution for an assault and battery, which was done without the permission of the court.
The circuit court charged the jury, that a recovery could be had upon the note, although the consideration was that a prosecution on behalf of the State against the maker of the note should be suppressed, the payee being the prosecutor and only witness to prove the offence charged.
Ready & Samuel Turney, for the pl’ff. in error, Vincent.
Taul, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We are of opinion that Groom could sue for the use of Rucks; nothing is better settled in the courts oí this State. And this practice applies to negotiable instruments as well as covenants or other contracts not negotiable. In the case'of West for the use of Brinson vs. M'Clure, (Peck's Rep. 206,) a mere doubt was thrown out by Judge Haywood, neither intended by him, or re-cognised by this court as authority. It was merely intended as a speculation to produce an examination of the practice.
The point made by the counsel, whether a suit can be brought before the expiration of the three days of grace, as between maker and payee, is not properly raised by the record. We are also of opinion, that a contract made to suppress an assault and battery, without leave of the court, by withholding the evidence of the principal witness, wth a view to prevent the due course of justice, is illegal and void. The proof, parol and written, was competent in this cause, and clearly establishes the fact that the consideration is illegal. Com. on contracts 30-34. 1 Leonard Rep. 180.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.