Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/35

 24  following caes were cited: 1 Siderfin. 134. A. made a feoffment to B. by covin. B. makes a feoffment to D. for a valuable conideration and . The firt feoffor enters and makes a feoffment for a valuable conideration–The feoffee of the firt feoffee hall retain the land. ''Cro. Jac.'' 32. Debt on obligation for two hundred pounds; Defendant pleads the tatute of uury, and hews that he was indebted to one Alder in one hundred pounds, and agreed with him that he hould forbear him for a year in conideration of thirty pounds, and that he hould make a bond to Alder for the payment of thirty pounds, and for payment of one hundred pounds. That then he and Alder entered into the bond for two hundred pounds. The plaintiff replied that Alder was jutly indebted to him in one hundred pounds, and for payment thereof entered into this bond, that he was not knowing to any corrupt agreement between the defendant and Alder. The Court determined in favour of the plaintiff upon his being a fair and innocent creditor.–To hew that promiory notes in England, are not ubject to any dicount or ett off, between the promior and promiee, the following caes were quoted. 1 Salk. 126. Bill lot; finder transfers it to C. for a valuable conideration—the original owner cannot bring trover againt C. 1 Burrow. 459. S. P. 1 L. Raymond 738. 2 Burr. 675. 6. 1224. 1227.—2 Freeman 257. Bill Payable to A. or bearer, is like o much money paid to whomoever the note is given; that let what dicount, or conditions, oever, be between the party who gives the note, and he to whom it is given, yet it hall not affect the bearer.–3 ''Bacon. title. Merchant. Comyns'' 43. Marius 72. 3 Burrows 1523. 27. 29.

It was contended further by the plaintiff, that the act of aembly had changed the nature of thee contracts; that they were not to be contrued on commercial principles only; that the doctrine of the defendant etablihed this principle, that it was , there was no conideration at the time of the bond being given or aigned. To which it was anwered, that, judging on commercial principles, a want of conideration was no objection, for there is no uch thing as  in mercantile tranactions. 3 Burr. 1669.—Plaintiff alo denied defendant to be within the defalcation act.

The council for the defendant contended, that it was not the intention of the Legilature to make bonds negotiable here as promiory notes in England. They allowed the law as laid down in the above caes, but denied the application; initing that they tood upon quite a different footing—That nothing more was meant by the act, than to give aignees the benefit of uing in their own names and preventing any releae, or other dealings, affecting the aignee after aignment once made; that in England, a bond paes into the hands of an aignee ubject to all the equity it had in the hands of the aignor, for which they quoted 6 Vern. 692. 675. 10 Mod. 445. 1 P. Wms. 83. 452. 459. That the contruction, contended for by plaintiff, would open a door to numberle frauds; that a atisfied bond might be paed away, and the obligor compelled to pay it twice; that even a forged bond might pas in the ame manner;