Case Name: Titus G. Farr ads. William Hemmingway
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1815-11
Citations: 2 Tread 753
Docket Number: 
Parties: Titus G. Farr ads. William Hemmingway.
Judges: Grimke, J. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 753–755

Head Matter:
Columbia,
November Term, 1815.
Titus G. Farr ads. William Hemmingway.
Johnson, for the Mo* Hon.
Thomson* Contra.
Anote bffmáy be set up count to P’tionfby' as-signee.
This was another case within the summary jurisdiction of the court* to recover a note of 66 dollars;
Defendant offered in discount a due bill given by the plaintiff, to W. B. Farr, and by him assigned to the defendant, for 80 dollars.
The court, (Judge Brevard presiding,) decreed for defendant, and allowed hini the balance, between the note and due bill. But the day following, upon reconsidering the case* reversed the above deeree, rejected the discount altogether, and gave judgment for the amount of the note, upon the ground that the, due bill was not negotiable.
This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground of the decree being against law.

Opinion:
Bay, J.
I am clearly of opinion that the decree in this case ought to be set aside j and a new trial granted.
The law previous to the year 1798 was, as Judge Brevard eventually decreed in this case. But the act of December, 1798, altered the old law upon this subject, and ma'de bonds, bills and notes, and which were not negotiable in their nature, assignable; and empowered the assignee to bring suit, and recover the same in his own name.
Now, it is evident that if the assignee of such a bond, bill, or note, can recover in his own name as assignee, and appropriate the money to his own use, he may, when sued, offer it in evidence by way of discount, because, when it is assigned, it then becomes a matter in his own right, which comes clearly under the discount law.
Grimke, J. concurred.
Colcock, J.
This case was tried at the same time with the case of E Farmer vs. Baker and Leach. I consent to the motion for the same reasons which governed me in that case.
Smith, J.
The only difference between this case and the case of E. Farmer vs. Baker and Leach, is that that ease was founded on the bill, and here the bib was offered in discount. I am also of opinion, that a new trial should be granted in this case.