Case Name: Patrick Elliot for the use of Jonathan Hill v. Samuel Miller
Court: Fayette County Court
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1795-06
Citations: 1 Add. 269
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patrick Elliot for the use of Jonathan Hill v. Samuel Miller.
Judges: 
Reporter: Addison
Volume: 1
Pages: 269–269

Head Matter:
FAYETTE COUNTY,
June Term, 1795.
Patrick Elliot for the use of Jonathan Hill v. Samuel Miller.
JOHN SUNTLIN gave a single bill, dated 25th March, 1786, for the payment of 25l. to Samuel Miller, or his order, heirs, or assigns. Samuel Miller assigned this bill to Patrick Elliot, by an indorsement on it, as follows, “I assign over my rightand title to the within note to Patrick Elliot" (then interlined with other ink) “for value received, witness my hand and seal, this 25th March, 1786, Samuel Miller,” (with a seal annexed.) To this assignment, three other names were added, probably intended as witnesses, but a seal was annexed to each name. This note being afterwards assigned without seal in the presence of two witnesses, this action of covenant was brought against the original obligee, the first assignor, on his assignment. The declaration, stating the note, and also, the money being unpaid, the assignment to Elliot; stated a covenant by Miller, that the money should be paid, and an averment, that it had not been paid by Suntlin, whereby action accrued to Elliot, to demand of Miller, the said sum of 25l. It then averred a demand on 1st October, 1786, and a refusal.
Young, for the defendant,
referring to the case of Cummings v. Lynch, with the cases therein recited, objected, that the assignment, containing no express promise, that the money should be paid, was not evidence to support this declaration on an express covenant.
Dall 444.

Opinion:
The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.