Case Name: Campbell, Assignee, v. Mumford
Court: North Carolina Superior Court
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1796-10
Citations: 1 Hayw. 459
Docket Number: 
Parties: Campbell, Assignee, v. Mumford.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 459–459

Head Matter:
Campbell, Assignee, v. Mumford.
A bond, upon which is an indorsement, purporting that it may be discharged by the payment 0f so much tobacco, is not negotiable under the act of 1786', liev. c. 248.
Action upon a bond, for ninety-two pounds Virginia money, conditioned for the payment of forty-six pounds. Upon the back of the-bond there was an indorsement purporting that the forty six pounds should be dischargeable in tobacco, delivered at a certain placo. The Defendant objected to tiie Plaintiff’s recovery, upon tiie ground that this bond was not assignable by the act of 1786, c, 4, and he cited a decision at Fayetteville, in the case of Jamie-son, an assignee, v. Farr.

Opinion:
Per curiam•
The indorsement made at tiie same time wiib the bond, is to be taken as a part of the condition, (vide 2 Term 641. Salk. 498. 6 Mod. 37 ) and the bond is not assignable. A bond for any specific article is not assignable — such a bond in the hands of the assignee, cannot be sued upon by him. Suppose at tiie day appointed for payment, the Defendant liad tendered tiie r.obacco, would it not have been a good tender ? It certainly would, and would have discharged the debt. Until the day of payment then, the Defendant may consider it as a bond for tobacco only. These bonds do not answer the purpose of commerce as money, inasmuch as their value at the day of payment, is not easily ascertained, but is liable to be disputed between the parties and to prod bee delay. They were not rendered negotiable by tiie act of 1786, as money bonds were. It is true, if no tender be made at tiie day, tin* obligee may consider it a« a bond for money only ; but then if the bond is not originally negotiable, it cannot afterwards become, so, for at the time of its creation the obligor did not mean to subject himself to the action of an assignee. Judgment for the Defendants.
Note — Vide Jamieson v. Farr, and the note thereto, ante 182.