Case Name: Hudson Hughes against Benjamin Kiddell
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1801
Citations: 2 Bay 324
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hudson Hughes against Benjamin Kiddell.
Judges: Present, GeimkR, W.vni;s, Bay and Johnson",
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
Hudson Hughes against Benjamin Kiddell.
Charleston District,
1801.
Kndorscment of a note in t»avl, and af-terwards the residue, not frond so as to «‘harnean en-dorsen.*.
MOTION for a new trial.
This was an action against defendant as endorsor on a note of hand, in which there was a verdict for defendants The note of hand in question was given by David Bush, of Camden, to the defendant Kiddell, for 473/. sterling. Kiddell afterwards made the following endorsement, viz: “ I assign “ over to Hudson Hughes, the sum of 1,930 dollars and 50 “ cents, as part of this note of hand.
“ Signed,
“ Benjamin Kiddell.”
Afterwards he made another endorsement, and assigned over the residue of said note. (Signed, Benjamin Kiddell.')
Mr. Ford, for the mdtion,
contended, that both these endorse ments ought to be taken together, and considered as one endorsement, as it appeared to be one transaction, done at the same time, on the same day, and made to the same person. He admitted, that an endorsement of part was not good, but that the two parts in this case, to the same person, made the whole good ; and as such, the coui'i was bound to give it a reasonable and liberal construction, as it would not subject the party to different actions ; which, was the reason, why the law of merchants would not admit of the splitting up contracts, and allow of different endorsements on bills and notes.
Mr. Pringle, in reply,
contended, that from the very na» ture of the transaction, it must have been the intention of the defendant to restrain the negotiability of this note, as jvell as to exempt himself from responsibility ; taking these endorsements either severally or jointly, they amount to no more than a bare authority to receive the money, or a relinquishment of the defendant’s right to the note. It is not expressed for value received, so as to raise an implied assumption at law ; but the law is clear that an endorsement for part is bad. Bailey on Bills, 34.
For if it were allowable for a man to endorse for part, he might endorse 100 dollars to A. another 100 to B. and so on ; and by that means, defendant might become liable to twenty different actions on the same bill. For these reasons, and to guard against this monstrous inconvenience, the law of merchants has established it as a rule, that a bill cannot be endorsed for part. Gunn, on Bills, 37.
Now it is clear, from the gentleman’s own acknowledgment, that the first endorsement for 1,930 dollars and 50 cents in part, is bad ab initio ; and if so, then the subsequent endorsement for the residue never can give the first, legal validity; as it is most evident to reason and common sense, that two vitious or bad endorsements can never constitute a good whole^endorsement.

Opinion:
The Court,
after hearing the arguments, refused to grant a new trial, on the ground that an endorsement for part of a note or bill is bad. Lex Mercatoria, 445. Carth. 466. And if so, then two vitious endorsements can never constitute a good one.
Rule discharged.
Present, GeimkR, W.vni;s, Bay and Johnson",