Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/44

 30 FEDEEAL EEPOETEB. �and professional mind never fuUy recognized the soundness ot the position. Yet it is well settled that a bill or note is not negotiable unless it contains these words, or some Tvord of like effect, except where made so by local statute. 1 Am. Lead. Cas. (5th Ed.) 399, top page; 3 Kent, (12th Ed.) 77; 1 Dan'l, Neg. Inst. §§ lOe-107. The most direct and satis- factory case I have found is Gerard v. La Corte, 1 Dali. 194; S. C. 1 Am. Lead. Cas. (5th Ed.) 369. �The unsatisfaetory state of the law on this subject induced the state of North Carolina, from which we bave derived it, nearly 100 years ago, to enact that "every bill, bond, or note for money, whether sealed or not, and whether expressed to he payable to order, or for value received, or not, shall be nego- tiable in the same manner as promissory notes." Act 1786, c. 4, § 1; T. & B. Code, § 1937. The act of 1762 (ohapter 9) had Bubstantially re-enacted the statute of Anne. T. & 8. Code, § 1956. The argument now made is that the only effect of the act of 1786 was to make bills single negotiable in the same manner as promissory notes were under the act of 1762, and notes like this assignable. This is contrary to the ■words of the act itself, which says that "every note for money, whether expressed to be payable to order or not, shall be negotiable in the same manner as promissory notes." This is more manifest by reference to the original act itself, which this section of the Code more briefly expresses. Be- sides, it was further amended by the acts of 1820 (chapter 25) and 1837, (chapter 5,) where it is enacted that upon every such instrument the holder may main tain a joint action against the maker and the indorsers, or a several action against any one or more of the indorsers. T. & S. Code, § 1958. See, also, Id. § 1967. �The cases cited in the notes to these sections of the Code fuUy sustain this construction, which is too plain to require further notice. This note is, then, fully negotiable by our local statute. It is confidently argued, however, that the federal courts do not recognize or enforce the laws of the states upon the subject of commercial law, and that this question must be decided according to the law merchant and the statute of Anne, and that this act cannot change the ����