Case Name: Cox's Administrator v. William Jones
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1823-04
Citations: 2 Cranch 370
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cox’s Administrator v. William Jones.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 2
Pages: 370–370

Head Matter:
Cox’s Administrator v. William Jones.
If tlie payee of a promissory note, payable to order, indorses it after it has been dishonored, he thereby becomes the drawer of a new bill upon the maker in favor of the indorsee, and is not liable to such indorsee without demand and notice; but he cannot set up, against a remote indorsee, an agreement, with his immediate indorsee, not appearing upon the note itself.
Assumpsit, against the indorser of W. S. Itadcliff’s note, dated October, 9th, 1816, for $120, payable thirty days after date to the defendant or order. Long after the expiration of the thirty days, namely, on the 3d of January, 1818, this note was indorsed by the defendant to one Joshua Tennison or order, who indorsed it to the plaintiff’s intestate.
The defendant, upon the trial, offered to prove a written separate agreement, between him and Tennison, that he should not be liable as indorser.

Opinion:
The Court
(nem. con.) rejected the evidence, and said the in-dorsement became a new bill. The holder was bound to present the note again to Badeliffe for payment; and, if not paid, to give notice to the defendant, of the non-payment. It would be a fraud in the defendant to indorse the note generally, so as to give a new negotiability to the instrument, and then to set up his secret equity against an innocent holder.
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.