May v. Hancock

Decided December 15, 1829

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1829-12-15

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. Vide 2 Faust ^4-

Decided 1829-12-15

Huger, J.

¶1sitting for Colcock, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2As 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.

¶3Tile 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.

¶4These 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.