Case Name: Moses Gorgerat, Francis Gorgerat and John Barnes against William M'Carty
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1792-01
Citations: 1 Yeates 94
Docket Number: 
Parties: Moses Gorgerat, Francis Gorgerat and John Barnes against William M’Carty.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 1
Pages: 94–100

Head Matter:
Moses Gorgerat, Francis Gorgerat and John Barnes against William M’Carty.
S. C. 2 Dall. 144.
The possession of a bill'of exchange and protest, is not sufficient evidence, without further proof, in a suit by the payee or indorsee against the acceptor, of a subsequent indorsee’s having received the amount of the bill. In bills payable to order, there is a distinction between those which are indorsed in blank, and such as are specially indorsed. Possession in the former case is evidence of title, but not in the latter.
Bill of exchange lost, and an indorsement forged thereon, and the money paid by the acceptors (who were of the same house with the drawers) the real payer shall recover the money.
This action was brought on three bills of exchange dated 19th December 1786, and drawn upon the defendant by the plaintiffs, for 3545 livres and two sols each, to be paid to their order. These bills were indorsed by the plaintiffs to Paul Ant. Fauré, and Co., and by them to others. Defendant accepted the bills, but they were protested for non-payment. Plaintiffs in their declaration aver the payment of them with costs and damages to the last indorsee by Paul Ant. Fauré, and Co. and that the plaintiffs repaid the costs and damages to them. A trial was had in July term 1790, and a verdict had for the plaintiffs for 911I. 13s. 5d. besides costs of suit, subject to the opinion of the court ón a point reserved; to wit, whether the possession of the bills and protests be ‘ ‘ sufficient evidence without further proof” that the plaintiffs had paid the subsequent indorsee the amount of the bills, or whether it be prima facie evidence, sufficient, unless contrary evidence be produced on the part of the defendant?
This reserved question was argued last September term by Messrs. Rawle and Du Ponceau for the plaintiffs, and Mr. In-gersol for the defendant.
The plaintiff’s counsel relied greatly on the case of Morris v. Foreman, Dallas 193, and further cited 5 Burr. 2688, that prima facie evidence is conclusive, until contradicted; also the ordinances, of Douis 14th that the bearer of a bill may prosecute it for payment.
For the defendant was cited 1 Ford Raym. 742. Mendez v. Careroon, and much relied 011, which is taken notice of in Dovelass on bills of exchange, 177. But as the arguments on both sides were fully taken up and considered by the court in giving their opinions seriatim, they are here omittted.
The court this term, gave their opinions:

Opinion:
* M' Kean C. J.
The acceptor of a bill of exchange r.x.gg L only to indorsee; dorsers have parted with their interest in it, and are presumed to have received a valuable consideration for it, and therefore can have no right to the money a second time. But if the last indorsee protests the bill for non-payment, and afterwards receives back the money from a prior indorser, such indorser acquires a new title to receive the money from the acceptor, by such payment. So that at the time this action was commenced, the defendant was liable to no person blit the last in-dorsee, or the prior indorser who had paid him. This is by the custom of merchants, as appears by the case of Death v. Serweuters. Eutw. 888. Lewin v. Brunette. Eutw. 898. The plaintiffs have accordingly alleged that they paid the subsequent indorsee, but offered no proof of it except the mere production of the bills and protests. This is not sufficient; they should have produced a receipt from the last in-dorsee, or some witness or evidence of payment. The usual evidence in such a case is a receipt at the foot of the protest. 1 Eord Raym. 742. In that case, the merchants who had been sworn respecting the custom, were of opinion that this was the only evidence; but I agree with Eord Holt, that if payment be any way sufficiently proved, it is sufficient.
If the defendant should pay the plaintiffs the amount of the bill, and the last indorsee should hereafter sue him, what can prevent him from recovering the money? The defendant cannot prove, that he had been paid by the plaintiffs, who may have come to the possession of the bills by trover, bailment for a special purpose, or by fraud. Why was not the action brought in the name of the last indorsee? If it had, the holding of the bills might have raised a presumption that the plaintiffs were agents for him. The case in 1 Eord Raym. 742, is in point. There the plaintiff not only had possession of the bill, but he had been sued by the subsequent indorsee and had a judgment against him. What might be admitted as prima facie evidence in other cases, will not do in such a case as this, by reason that the custom among merchants is otherwise, which appears from all the writers and collectors of cases from the report by Eord Raymond until the present time, to be considered as the rule. I am therefore of opinion with the defendant.