Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/34

 Rh  uual coure, having taken out the firt writ, and delivered it as oon as was uual, his writ hould take preference; and the Court accordingly order the return to be made on the . 

OHN HUGHES, the 16th of February 1763, gave his bond to John Baynton, conditioned for the payment of one thouand pounds. On the 3d September, 1764, John Baynton and Samuel Wharton, became bound jointly and everally, to John Hughes in a bond conditioned for the payment of ix hundred and eight pounds ifteen hillings. On the 8th of May 1765, John Baynton, aigned the one thouand pound bond to the plaintiff, Ann Wheeler, for a jut debt, he being ignorant of any dealing, between Hughes and Baynton. The action was brought on the aigned bond; the defendant pleaded payment, and offered in evidence the bond dated in September, in bar of the plaintiff’s recovery. To this the council for the plaintiff objected, and this day, viz. 23d April, the caue came to be argued.

The Council for the Plaintiff contended, that by the act of aembly, bonds, bills and notes were negotiable, as promiory notes in England under the 3 and 4 ''Ann. cap.'' 9; that negotiability imported a currency from hand to hand; that this act of aembly was formed on the plan of the tatue, in many places uing the ame words, and being made for the ame purpoe, viz. to encourage trade and commerce, which could only be effected by uch a contruction, and that an aigned bond hould have a currency, from hand to hand, and that the poeor hould recover, independent of any contracts or dealings between the obligor and obligee; that the claue in the act of aembly, "“Should commence and proecute his, her, or their actions at law, for the recovery of the money mentioned in uch bonds or notes, or o much thereof, as hall appear to be due at the time of uch aignment,”"

meant as hall appear on the face of the intrument itelf—That, for this reaon, the obligator hould either guard, in making the contract, by leaving out the negotiable words, or hould get his payments indoed on the bonds; that the words, “To recover as the peron or perons to whom the ame was or were made payable,” only referred to the mode of recovery, where the aigned brought his action in his own name, as he might under his act; that any other contruction would defeat the intention of the act, which was to encourage trade and commerce; but if the aignee was to take the bond ubject to the dealing between the obligor and obligee, there was an end of this pecies of traffick, as no one would ever take an aigned bond in the coure of trade, or in any other cae, but of a doubtful or deperate debt.

To hew that a third peron, coming in , and for a valuable conideration, would be in a better ituation than his vendor, the following