Case Name: Mandeville & Jameson v. Patton & Scott
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1801-04-15
Citations: 3 Call 9
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mandeville & Jameson v. Patton & Scott.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
Mandeville & Jameson v. Patton & Scott.
[Saturday, April 15th, 1801.]
Promissory Notes — Set-Off by Assignee against Assignor — Case at Bar. — The assignee oí a promissory note negotiable at the Bank of Alexandria, cannot offer it in discount, to a suit brought against him by the assignor, upon a note in writing to deliver to the plaintiff wet goods and groceries to a certain amount.
Patton & Scott brought an action of as-sumpsit against Mandeville & Jameson, in the Hustings Court of Alexandria, and declared upon a note given bjr the defendants, wherein they promised to deliver to the plaintiffs wet goods and groceries to the amount of 1,800 dollars, at cash price, for value received of William Young. Plea, non assumpsit. Issue.
Upon the trial of the cause, the defendants filed a bill of exceptions to the Court’s opinion, which stated, that the defendants offered in evidence as an offset, a note given by Fletcher & Ottoway to the plaintiffs, and assigned by them to the defendants, which is in these words: “1,125 dollars due July 20-23. Alexandria, 21st April, 1797, ninety days after date, we promise to pay to Messrs. Patton & Scott, or order, eleven hundred and twenty-five dollars, value received, negotiable, in the Bank of Alexandria.” The bill of exceptions, after reciting the said note, adds, “which note is endorsed by Robert Patton and Charles Scott and Theodorick Lee, and which assignment is in these words, to wit: Pay to the order of Mandeville & Jameson.” The bill of exceptions then sets forth in haec verba, a protest of the said note on the 24th July, 1797, for non-payment, at the request of the president and directors of the Bank of Alexandria, by the notary public at Alexan dria; - that the plaintiffs' objected to the note’s being given *in evidencié ; and that the Court would not permit it to go to the jury.- Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant's appealed1 to the District Court, where the judgment was affirmed; and from tlie judgment of affirmance, the defendants appealed to this Court.
Randolph, for the appellants.
The Court should have suffered the evidence to go to the jury, to háve had as much weight as they might have thought proper to give it; because, they would have disregarded it if there was delay in the assignees, and so no inconvenience would have resulted from1 the' reception of it: whereas-, the course pursued was calculated to produce great injury to the defendants; for, if they were guilty of no delay or other fault, the note -ought to have been discounted, as the plaintiffs" w'ere liable ’in-consequence of the failure of the makers to pay. This - argument is the stronger, on account of the note’s being made negotiable at the Bank of Alexandria; which made the assignors liable like the endorsers of an inland bill.
Botts, contra.
The defendants were not entitléd to the discount, without having, previously, sued the maker, Lee -v. Loye- & Co. in this Court. 1 Call 497. For, that case not only decided that a suit was necessary, but that the note’s being made negotiable at Bank created no difference: arid, .the true‘'cori-' struction of the act' establishing the Bank always has -been, that it applied only between the Bank and those having transactions with them.
Cur. adv. vult.
See monographic note on ‘’Bills, Notes and Checks” appended to Archer v. Ward, 9 Gratt. 622.

Opinion:
LYONS, Judge..
Delivered the resolution of the Court: That there was no error in the judgment of the Hustings Court in rejecting the evidence; and, therefore, that the judgment' of the District Court was to be affirmed.