Case Name: James Parks vs. H. Duke
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1823-05
Citations: 2 McCord 380
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Parks vs. H. Duke.
Judges: Justices Johnson, Huger, Gantt and Nott, concurred-
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 380–381

Head Matter:
James Parks vs. H. Duke.
\n indorser of a sealed note is not liable as an indorser, and: where he suffered judgment to go against him, he was not allowed to recover ijie costs so incurred jfom the drawer.
Laurens district, Spring Term, 1822.
THIS was an action by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant, the amount of costs paid by him in consequence of his assignment of a note made by the defendant to him, on which assignment he bad been sued by Wm Cobb, to whom it was passed, and had suffered judgment to go against him by default. The note was in the following words :
“ On the first day of January next, I promise to pay to James Parks, sen. or order, one hundred dollars, for value received. Witness mjrhand and seal, this 19th March, '83 9. Signed, Ilardhnim Duke.” Witness, John Oaring ton. Endorsed in the following; words. “ I en- ' uorse the within note, for value received, to H'm. Cobb, July 2r 1819. James Pares, Jr.”
Test, Samvel Irby.
On the trial below, the presiding Judge decreed for the plain till, and a motion was now made to reverse that decree, because the plaintiff, Parks, was not liable to an action on the note as endorser, and should have defended himself against the action,
Porter, for the motion.
O’Neal fy Irby, cpntra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Colcock
delivered the opinion of the court:
./This is certainly not a negotiable note. It is under seal. The scrawl must be considered as a seal, because it is clear the parties so considered it. The attestation of the maker says under my hand and seal. The plaintiff was not then liable to be sued as indorser, and might have defended himself against the suit and non suited the holder./ It was then his own fault that he has been subjected to costs, and consequently he has no right to recover them back from the defendant.
The motion is granted.
Justices Johnson, Huger, Gantt and Nott, concurred-