Case Name: R. C. Tuten, bearer, vs. Patrick Ryan
Court: South Carolina Court of Errors
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1843-05
Citations: 1 Speers 240
Docket Number: 
Parties: R. C. Tuten, bearer, vs. Patrick Ryan.
Judges: Richardson, Evans, Butler, and Wardlaw, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
R. C. Tuten, bearer, vs. Patrick Ryan.
1. Where a promissory note was drawn, payable to the firm of R. &. S. or bearér, and R., one of the firm, put his individual name on the back of the note, it was held tlmt he could not be charged as an original party and maker, though he might be, as drawer of a bill of exchange; for, as one of the firm, he might negotiate the note.
2. In such case, a bill directing the maker to pay the contents to the holder, may be written above his name.
3. Where a note is payable to A, or bearer, and he writes his name on tire back of it, he does not become liable as an endorser.
Before Butler, J., Gillisonville, Fall Term, 1842.
This was an action within the process jurisdiction, on the following note:
“ One day after date, 1 promise to pay Ryan & Speaks, or bearer, the sum of eighty-two dollars fifty cents, for value received. January 1st, 1842.
(Signed,) R. W. Singleton.”
Patrick Ryan, one of the firm of Ryan & Speaks, the payees, put his individual name' on. the back of this note, and the plaintiff, as “ bearer,” brought his action against him, (Ryan,) as an original party and maker of the note. The presiding Judge non-suited the plaintiff, on the ground that Ryan, being one of the payees, could not be charged as maker, though he might be charged as an original party, in the character of draioer of a bill of exchange.
The plaintiff appealed, and moved to set aside the non-suit, oh the following ground:
Because it is respectfully submitted, that his Honor erred in deciding that one partner of a firm putting his individual name on the back of a note payable to the firm or bearer, is not chargeable as. a new party and maker thereof.
Colcock, for the motion. Allston, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, per
O'Neall, J.
The case of Stoney vs. Beaubein, decided Febr uary Term, 1842, does not touch this case. There, the suit was on a note made by Zealy to Stoney, or order, payable nearly five months after date, and on the back of it, to enable the maker to pass the note to the plaintiff, and to get the money, Beaubein wrote his name. He was held to be a maker; for otherwise no effect could have been given to his name as a party to the contract. But if he had been the payee of the note, then he would have been clearly the endorser, and must have been proceeded against as such. So, where a note is payable to A, or bearer, and he writes his name on the back of it, he does not become liable as endorser ; for the note is not payable to order, but to bearer, and the legal interest passes by delivery. So, too, he cannot be treated as maker, for he is already a party, the payee, and to treat him as maker, would make him promise to pay himself, which is too absurd to be talked about. But he is entitled to direct the maker to pay the money to the holder, and if he chooses to do this by writing his name on the back of the note, a bill directing the maker to pay the contents of the note to B, the holder, may be written above his name, and he then will be liable, as the drawer of a bill of exchange.
In this case, Patrick Ryan, of the firm of Ryan & Speaks, wrote his name on the back of the note payable to Ryan & Speaks, or bearer. There is no doubt, according to the principles laid down, he cannot, as one of the payees, be treated as maker. He may be charged as drawer of a bill of exchange, for, as one of the firm, he might negotiaate the note. The motion'is dismissed.
Richardson, Evans, Butler, and Wardlaw, JJ., concurred.