Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/153

 Sunmn Conf or Pouwlvqaiy: :44 Q lad. :26. and ra Mad. 1-ga. There the plaintitl} who was rygg. I thepayee,had indorfed thebill, and afterwards brought this  l a&ion againlt the acceptor. It was objeéled, that the plaintiff': i right had been transferredbythe endorfement ;.and that hewuld g Ilct maintain the aelion ; butthe'Court held, thatthe indorfement, being in Haul, did not necellhrily import a transfer 5 and they ad: · gy: but if the blankhad been filled up, the indorfeeaIm¢coul_ _ maintained the a&i0n." Thisatoueediftinguifhesa fpecial from a general indorfement; and proves that the polfelion of a _ bill, fpeeially indorfed, is no evidence of a right to itscontents. But the plaiutilis rely on the cafe of _ Mm-ir and Fmuumfbj rleteminedin this Court, where it is faid the  that » “ the pollellion ofabillofexchauge isevidenceb an aut orit · to •* demand it contcnts."_ This is but a lhort note of the cafe, without any {late of fa&s; and feems to me’more extenlive thanthe principle of _the cafewill warrant. I have examined the record, and enquired in the fa&s of that· caufe, and that the deciliou may be underllood I will ilate them. It was an a&ioubetween the  parties, brought by the payee ag gainh the drawer, upon a bill drawn under a patticularagrees ‘ ment, refpeéling the damages in cafe of a protellg Morrji: re- ‘ mitted this bill to Lsmlm on his own account, to is correfpon- dents Cigfwd and Tyfot, who had no interell whatever in its contents ; but with this indorfement: “ Pay to the order of Clif- jird and T_gfat." The bill being protelled, this aélzion was. brought; and the indorfement appearing on the bill and protelt, the defendant moved for a non-fuit, inlillinxgl that the aétion could be brought only by the indorfee ;but_ e Court held that the a&ion was maintainable in the name of the plai¤tiEZ Un- der all the eircumliances before them, the Court doubtlefs con- lidered the indorfement as a mere authority to receive the mo- ney for the plaintifs ufe, and not as a transfer of the interell:. In this view it isno more than what was ruled long ago in Drberr vnfu Harrzbt. Sbaw. I64,. There the plaintiff had indorfed the billasfollows : “ Pray pay to D. value on my “ account.” And it was ohjeéted that the plaintitf's iuterell: was transferred bythe indorfement. But it being proved that D. . had no interelt m the monies; and the indorfement bein " on the plaintifs account," it was held, that no interclt pag. fed, and the aétion was fullaincd. In itriélnefs, perhaps, it. ought to appear on the jim gf the ind¤:_#m¢m{¢j whether it was intended as atransfer, or an authority ; but be this as it. _ may, the principle which governed in the cafe of Mo:·ri: and .lf`;m·wi, does not in any dcgrcc interfere with the prefent de- ci mu. T2 The ` (tz) 12. Mod. l93• (6) i Dall. Rep. 15 3. (c) z Barr. l12-Q'-

�