Case Name: John Wood v. Daniel M'Claurin
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1810-05
Citations: 2 Brev. 377
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Wood v. Daniel M’Claurin.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 377–378

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
MAY, 1810.
John Wood v. Daniel M’Claurin.
A blank indorsement may be stricken out at any time before the trial, if the action be at the suit of the original payee of a note, or bill; but not a full indorsement. The latter transfers the property, the first does 'not.
Motion to set aside a nonsuit, and grant a new trial. Assumpsit on a promissory note, brought to trial in the District Court of Spar-tanburg, before Bhevaüd, J. At the trial, the note being pro•duced in evidence, it appeared that an indorsement on the same had been stricken out by the plaintiff just before, which was in the following words, viz.: “ I assign the within note to Gabriel Benson, for value received, this 9th April, 1807. John Wood.” It was ob. Íecte^’ on Part °f the defendant, that the plaintiff could not take a veidict, as he had transferred his right to another by a special in-dorsement, without proving that the indorsement bad been annulled by the express agreement of the indorsee.
Note. 2 Dallas, 144, and Seq. L’d Raym. 742. Carth. 130. Leitch 888, 896. 4Vin.Abr.265. 1 Salk. 126. 12 Mod. 192. 1 Dali. 193. Show'. 164. 3T.ÍU27.
The presiding judge sustained the objection, and ordered a nonsuit.
The motion in this court, to set aside the nonsuit, was argued in November, 1809, before all the judges, except Wilds, J., sick, by Johnson, for the plaintiff, and Farrow* for the defendant,
For the plaintiff, was cited Hay w. T. R. 145.
For the defendant, was cited 1 Esp. Dig. 31.

Opinion:
May 4th, 1810.
Grimke, J.,
delivered the opinion of a majority of the court, viz.: Grimke, Waties, and Smith, Justices; Bay, J., dissenting. There is a reasonable distinction in law, between indorse-ments in blank, and full indorsements. Blank indorsements are good in the hands of any person, in like manner as notes payable to bearer. But it is not so with respect to full indorsements. Every indorser is in nature of a new maker. The payee of a full indorsement is designated. In a blank indorsement it is not so. Indorsement in blank gives the effect of a note payable to bearer. Indorsement in full does not give that effect. Kyd on Bills, 66. Doug. 611, 633. A note, with an indorsement in blank, passes by delivery, and pos. session gives property. A note with a full indorsement, does not pass by delivery, but by indorsement, and possession does not give property. A blank indorsement may be stricken out, where the person in possession is the original payee, because there would appear no necessity for an indorsement. But not so where the in-dorsement is in'full, because there the property has been transferred by endorsement, and possession does not give property.
Motion rejected.