Case Name: Jordan v. Neilson
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1795-10
Citations: 2 Wash. 164
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Jordan v. Neilson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 694–694

Head Matter:
*Jordan v. Neilson.
October Term, 1795.
Promissory Note — Evidence—Plea of Ni! Debet. — If a promissory note be signed and sent to the payee with a blank for him to insert the amount, it is good evidence on the plea of nil debet.
This was an action of debt brought in the District Court of Charlottesville by Neilson, upon a note of hand for the payment of 71251bs. of crop tobacco. On the plea of nil debet, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered.
At the trial, the defendant below tendered a bill of exceptions which was sealed, stating, that the plaintiff produced in evidence a certain writing in these words, to wit: “I acknowledge myself indebted to James Neilson 71251bs. of crop tobacco, of the Richmond or Manchester inspections, to be paid to said Neilson on demand, to which payment I bind myself, my heirs &c.” signed “B. Jordan” with an indorsement as follows, viz: ‘ ‘ Sir, I am at a loss for the prices of the articles I have taken of you, which prevents my filling up the note, which you will be pleased to do after seeing the memorandum,” also signed “B. Jordan.” That the plaintiff proved the note and endorsement to be of the hand writing of the defendant, except the following words to wit: “7125 pounds.” The defendant objected to this testimony going to the jury, there being no other evidence in the cause, but he was over-ruled by the court.' To the judgment of the District Court, a supersedeas was awarded.
Marshall for the plaintiff in error,
insisted, that the note, upon which the action was founded having been blank when executed, ought not to have been read in evidence on the plea of nil debet, which is tantamount to the plea of non est factum in actions on deeds.
Wickham for the " defendant.
If a man sign a blank bill, or note, he puts it in the power of the person to whom it is made, to fill it up to any amount, Russel v. Lang-staffe, 2 Dougl. 514. In that case, the bill was not thrown into circulation, and is therefore in principle precisely like the present. The maker of a note may fill it up himself, or delegate the power of doing so to another. By delivering, or remitting it in blank, he shews his intention to confide so far in the person to whom it is given, as to authorise him to fill it up. How this doctrine *would apply in the case of a bond I cannot say. Perhaps from the solemnity attending the making of a deed it might be different, since it has no validity without a delivery.
The principal case is cited with approval in Bank v. Jackson, 9 Leigh 238.

Opinion:
The court
being divided in opinion the judgment was affirmed.