Alexander v. . Oaks
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff as assignee, against the maker and endorser of the following sealed instrument, to wit:— “1400. Thirty days after date, I promise to pay, William W. Long, or order, the sum of fourteen hundred dollars, in bank stock, or lawful money of the United States, for value received, this 4th November, 1831. A. Oaics. [ l. s.]” On the instrument was the following endorsement, viz : “ I assign the within, to R. H. Alexander, trustee,…
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff as assignee, against the maker and endorser of the following sealed instrument, to wit:— “1400. Thirty days after date, I promise to pay, William W. Long, or order, the sum of fourteen hundred dollars, in bank stock, or lawful money of the United States, for value received, this 4th November, 1831. A. Oaics. [ l. s.]” On the instrument was the following endorsement, viz : “ I assign the within, to R. H. Alexander, trustee, 24th Nov. 1834. W. W. Long.” Upon the trial at Rowan, on the last Circuit, his Honor Judge Toomer was of opinion, that…
1Opinion of the Court
Daniel, Judge.
The only question submitted for our decision in this case is, whether the single bill or bond declared on is negotiable, so as to enable the plaintiff as assignee to sue in his own name. The bond is drawn for fourteen hundred dollars payable “ in bank stock or lawful money of the United States.” By the act of 1762, (1 Rev. Stat. c. 13, sec. 1,) promissory notes drawn for the payment of money, were made negotiable and assignable over, in like manner as inland bills of exchange are by the custom of merchants in England; and the person to whom the same is assigned, may maintain an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jones v. FalesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- M'Cormick v. TrotterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823