Case Name: David Smith versus Aaron Whiting, Jun
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1812-10
Citations: 8 Tyng 334
Docket Number: 
Parties: David Smith versus Aaron Whiting, Jun.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
David Smith versus Aaron Whiting, Jun.
One of two executors cannot assign a negotiable promissory note, made to them, as executors, for a debt due to their testatoi.
Case, “ for that the said Aaron, at, &e., on, &c., by his note under his hand of that date, for value received in a debt due to the estate of Ephraim Pollard, deceased, promised John Hartwell and Mary Pollard, executors of the last will of said Ephraim. Pollard, to pay them 566 dollars 22 cents in one year from date, with interest; and the said John, who acted as executor as aforesaid, afterwards, on, &c., at, &.C., by his endorsement on said note, under his hand, for value received, ordered the contents thereof, then due and unpaid, to be paid to the plaintiff; of all which the said Aaron then and there had due notice, and thereupon became liable to pay the same to the plaintiff. Yet, though requested,” &c.
* The defendant demurred generally to the declaratian, and the plaintiff joined in demurrer.
Chickering,
in support of the demurrer, cited the cases of Betts vs. Mitchel, Orde vs. Fenwick, Hosier & Al. vs. Lord Arundel.
J. Richardson, for the plaintiff, cited the cases of Rawlinson vs. Stone, and King & Al. vs. Thom.
The action stood continued nisi, and the next week, in Middlesex,
10 Mod. 315.
3 East, 104.
3 B. & P. 7.
3 Wils. 1.
1 D.& E. 487.

Opinion:
The Court
observed that, having to ked into the cases cited in the argument, they were satisfied that the defendant must prevail. The question is, whether one of two executors is competent to transfer, by endorsement, a negotiable promissory note made to the two in their character of executors. The promisees, not being copartners, had each but a moiety. One, therefore, could not assign the whole. Nor was it competent for him to assign his moiety,
Declaration adjudged had
[Mangram vs Sirurus, 1 Car L. R. 547. — Ed.]