Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Tenn. 345

Union Bank v. Cake

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1841

Tennessee Supreme Court · decided 1841-04-15

The President, Directors & Co. of the Union Bank of Tennessee, instituted this action of assumpsit in the circuit court of Shelby county, on the 16th day of September, 1839, against Carr and Boyers, the drawer and endorser of a bill of exchange.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1950

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1841-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Green, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This is an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs in error against defendants as endorsers of a bill of exchange. The bill endorsed, as in the record, was purchased or discounted by the plaintiffs shortly after its date. Upon the trial in the circuit court of Shelby county, the plaintiffs proposed to strike out the endorse*ment to W. S. Pickett, assistant Cashier of the bank, and make it payable to themselves, upon proving that the endorsement to him. was made only for the purpose of facilitating and rendering safe, the transmission of the bill to New Orleans for collection, where it was payable, and that in fact the bill belonged to them, though it was specially endorsed to'Pickett. The court below would not permit this to be done, for the reason, that the endorsement in full to Pickett vested the legal interest and property in the bill in him; and that, therefore, no suit could be maintained upon it except in-his name or by his assignee. Plaintiffs thereupon took a non-suit, and afterwards moved to set it aside, which the circuit court refused to do, but gave judgment against the plaintiffs for costs, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

¶3We think the court erred in not allowing the endorsement to be. stricken out, and changed as proposed, and consequently, in not setting aside the non-suit. The law is clearly in favor of the right of a plaintiff, or any bona fide holder of a negotiable instrument, to-strike out and change an endoi’sement upon it, made under the circumstances and for the purposes shown in this case. See 18th John. Rep. 230: Chitty on Bills, 257, and note: 4 Peters Con. Rep. 223: 7 Yerg. 477. But we have, heretofore, determined that a writ of error would not lie from the judgment of a circuit court, refusing to set aside a voluntary non-suit. 6 Yerger.

¶4This court, therefore, refusing to take jurisdiction of such case, let this cause be stricken from the docket, and judgment for costs entered against the plaintiffs in error and their security in the appeal.

/21/tenn/345 · .json · Public domain