Case Name: Peter May v. Eli Hancock
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1829-12
Citations: 1 Bail. 299
Docket Number: 
Parties: Peter May v. Eli Hancock.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
Peter May v. Eli Hancock.
Columbia,
Dec. 1829.
In an action of debt, on a sealed note, the plaintiff declared as “ indorsee,” instead of styling himself, “assignee” of the'payee, as directed by the act of 1798. Held to be no ground for a nonsuit, but that defendant should have demurred specially.
An indorsement by the payee of a sealed note, in these words, “I guarantee the payment of the within note to P. M., for value received.” held a sufficient assignment to enable P. M. to maintain an action against the maker, in his own name, under the act of 1798.
Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Chesterfield, Fall Term, 1829.
This was an action of debt against the maker of a sealed note, payable to [ngo D. Cash, or to his order, and by him indorsed to plaintiff in these words : “ 1 guarantee the payment of the wuSiin note to Peter May, for value received of him the 15th Jany. 1828. [ngo D. Cash.” The plaintiff declared as indorsee, and the defendant pleaded the general issue. At the trial, a nonsuit was moved for, on two grounds. 1. That the note being under seal, the plaintiff could not maintain an action upon it in his own name, as “ indorsee but should have styled himself “ as-signee” of the payee, as required by the act of 1798. 2. That the indorsement was not a sufficient assignment to enable the plaintiff to maintain an action in his own name, under the act.
Vide 2 Faust ^4-
The presiding judge refused the nonsuit, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict; which the defendant now moved to set aside, and renewed his motion for a nonsuit.
Clinton, for motion.
Allsobrook, contra.

Opinion:
Huger, J.
sitting for Colcock, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
As the note was under seal, this action ought to have been brought by the plaintiff as assignee; and had a special demurrer been filed, it must have been sustained. But this is no ground for a nonsuit.
Tile action was debt on a sealed instrument. The plea general issue, and the evidence sufficient for the issue, unless the words "I guarantee the payment of the within note to Peter May," be not an assignment to Peter May.
These words imply a right, if not an obligation, on the part of Peter May, to demand payment of the. drawer, as well as a promise on the part of the payee, to pay the note if the drawer did not. It is to all intents, an assignment. The motion must, therefore, be dismissed.