Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/37

 26  That there is no ground for uppoing the intention of the law was only to give a chancery juridiction; becaue there was a chancery in this Province until the year 1718; ince this act paed, and as oon as ever the chancery powers ceaed to be exercied, the Courts of Law took them, and have exercied them to the great atisfaction of the Province.—That, if they were competent in one cae, they were alo in another; and they have in many intances gone much farther than in this. That, in contruing this law, we are to regard the tate of the Province at that time. There was little Specie; no Paper Currency; a medium of trade was wanted; the act of Parliament had hewn how promiory notes had been made a medium of commerce; they took it for their guide, and extend it to bond and penal bills. That the variance in wording the act is eaily accounted for. Foreign bills of exchange were not in much ue, Inland Bills not known; to have ued the language of the act of Parliament, would have been penning laws in a language not undertood, and it would be aburd to refer to a pecies of contracts known and undertood by very few in the Province. That cutom and practice is with the plaintiff, as there is carcely a news-paper which does not forewarn perons from taking aignments of bonds, bills, notes, &c.—a practice peculiar to this Province, and, therefore, mot plainly demontrating, that this law made uch a change in thee aignments, as to put an obligor in a wore ituation in cae his bond was aigned, than while it continued in the hands of the obligee. That the practice of declarers in this Province on promiory notes under the tatute, may with more propriety be reolved into the convenience and eae of lawyers, than flowing from any principle of law. That the defalcation act is expresly confined to perons having dealings together; and as a scire acias is admitted not to ly, it mut be a new contruction of tatutes, which makes a peron a ubject of a tatute in one part, and not in another;—that he may be prejudiced under the law, but can receive no benefit from it. The Plaintiff’s council cloed with a cae from Lancater determinded by Meieurs Lawrence and Willing. It was that of Bauman aignee of Henry Bough, aignee of Jacob Stily, aignee of Henry Waggoner. The action was brought on a note of hand for one hundred and four pounds. Plea, payment. Defendant offered to hew in evidence an agreement, igned by Waggoner, the original promiee, made at the time the note was given, tending to hew a want of conideration. Plaintiff objected—The court held it could not be offered, as it would effectually detroy the negotiability of notes; and aid it would be attended with the mot dangerous conequences, if the claim of an honet aignee of a bond, or note, hould be defeated by any bargains, or agreements, made at the giving uch notes, or bonds, and not expreed therein. The evidence was accordingly over-ruled.

The court took time, till the 25th April, to conider, and this day gave judgment. ,