Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/256

 250 Casas ruled and adjudged in the !796- eoniideration of the faid indorfement, upon himfelf aifumcd and vw`! then— and there to the faid Peter Barrier: faithfully promifed that he would well and truly pay to him the contents of the faid note, whenever afterwards he ihould be by him thereunto required." A ]udgment had been obtained for want of a plea; a writ of inquiry of damages had been thereupon ilfued and returned; and now M4 Leu made a motion in arrelt of judgment on this ground,*——that the declaration fets forth a Promiiliiry Note pay- able to Vuynm alone, and not toorder; and, therefore, there ia no authority for the plaintiff to bring the a&i¤¤ in his own name, as indorfee. H BI. 605. 2 Ld. Ra . rggy. Busby on Bdlrg" Exchange 1. I Perm; Law: (DHL  p. N7. _> Du Paueeau, admitted the general principle of the objeétiona but contended, that it was too late to make it, after the return of a writ of inquiry, which mult be regarded in the light of a general verdiét. If it docs not appear to be a note to order, neither does the contrary appear; and, after a general verdiét, the prefumption will be in favor of the plaintiff’s right to fue. In r DaII.Rep. rg4, the cafe was- founded on a fpeciul verdi&,the defendant not daring to trufl: it to a general verdidt; and in V Doug. 683, the judgment was arrelted becaufe there was no al- legation of notice of the protelt, which could not be prefumed from any faét Rated in the declaration. Where, indeed, a title appears defeétive on the face of the record, a verdiéb will be fet alide; but not where the title is merely defeélively fet forth. 4 Burr. 2020. If a fad} mufi have been proved on the trial, it will be prcfumed after a general verdifl, even though it be mat- ter of fubftance. Cervp. 82 5. Here a fuffieient title is proved, becaufe the plaintifffues as indorfee ea nmine, and after (Eating ` the note and indorfement, the defendant became liable; and as the flatute, which makes a defendant liable, in an aétion by the indorfee, exprefsly and exclulively refers to notes made payable to order or alligns, the plaintiff mult, of courfe, have proved · every thing on the trial that the ltatutc requires to entitle him 'to an aétion-—to wit, that the note was an indorfable note. The objeétion, therefore, is founded on a mere omillion, which is aided by a general verdift. M. Levy, in reply :—The plaintiff mult bring himfelf within the aét of Pemgfylwvania, by fomething appearing on the record : it is neither by the operation of the ltatute of Arm. e., nor by the cullom of merchants, that he is entitled to inllitute an aélioir artiea to the note were both Evnclw citizens, and the plaintiff mere- fy u col|uGveindori`ee, fo that the French (ionful, and not the State Courts, had jurildiction of the eaafe: But this point was not at all argued. ·
 * There was another ground mentioned, to nit, that the original

�