{
  "id": 8693314,
  "name": "Smith v. St. Lawrence",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. St. Lawrence",
  "decision_date": "1795-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "200",
  "last_page": "201",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Hayw. 200"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 N.C. 200"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 22358,
    "name": "North Carolina Superior Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Doug 638",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Doug.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Murph. 138",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688301
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/6/0138-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 4116,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.265,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4140637156838101
    },
    "sha256": "3be18592b9a1d6fb0cf2fd59f9518cc1ccdda56cce9ea7e2b13a0b3b386a2b62",
    "simhash": "1:725fdba0545b90e8",
    "word_count": 754
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:25.463344+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Smith v. St. Lawrence."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam\nThe negotiability of a bill or note may be restrained by indorsement, or by special words in the body of the note itself; and if it could not, yet the origi-na/ payee, having the bill or note in his possession, is evidence of the note having been returned to him by the indorsee after the indorsement; and if a payee indorses by a general or special indot semeut, and the assignee cannot obtain payment of die draper, or maker of the bill or note, he may call upon the indorser, and he is Compellable to pay the money aud take back the bill or. note j and if in such case the indorser or payee could not sue the maker in his own name because of the in-dorsement, he could not recover at all. He may strike out the indorsement, or recover without striking it our \u2014 . his possession of the bill or note being' evidence of such a repayment, until the contrary be shewn. Show. 163. Lutw. 885, 888, 896\u2014So there was a verdict and judgment f.r the Plaintiff.\nNoth. \u2014 Vide L. Ray. 743, where the indorser, who was in possession oi the bill, having paid it to the last indorsee, \u25a0 as nonsuited for not producing a receipt for the moee.i paid from 'he Iasi indorsee\u2014 but the chief-Justice Holt thought proof \u00abfine pie ment would have been sufficient without the receipt. The fact in the cited case was, that Hook the pay -e, had endorsed to Benton, who was an attorney, thai he might institute the suit in ids own came, but to the use of Booh \u2014 Benton gave nothing for the bill, and died before toe com-mencem -\u00a1it of the intended action, tvher ,up.-n the bill was returned by the Executors to Book.\nNote. \u2014 Vide Drew v- Jacoeks\u2019s Adm\u2019r. 2 Murph. 138. Book v. Caswell and the note thereto, ante 18.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Smith v. St. Lawrence.\nThe negotiability of a bill or note may be restrained by indorsement, or by special words, in the body of the not.-. Indorser may sustain an action in his own name, either .trikingout the indorsement, or witlniu it; possession of Ule note being prima facie evidence of payment to indorsee.\nThis was an action instituted upon a note under seal, dated sim e the year 1786, promising to pay toe money to Plaintilf ami to him only. It was indorsed by ihe Plaintiff to an assignee, but the action was still commenced in the name of the original payee. Mr. Moore, for the Defendant, objected that the Plaintiff ought not to recover, because it appeared by this indorsement that the property or interest in flus note, \u2018.vas n \u00bbt, in the. Plaintiff but in another person, the indorsee. Gen. Davie, e oulra \u2014 the indorsement of a note by special words, may restrain its future negotiability, 2 Doug 638.\u2014 And by parity of reason, the uego'i dniity of i no emay-be i-i s' rained by special words in ihe body of the note itseff \u2014 if so, then here is tin word only, meant no d lUitt to restrain its transfer, and \u00a1henil i.- not negotiable under the act of 1786. c. . which only .says, that \u201c all bills, bonds or notes f r money, as wefi those with seal as those without seal ; those which are not expressed to be pay ablet\u00bb order, or for value received, as those which are expressed to be payable to order, or for value received, shall, after lh<\u2018 passing of the; net, bo held and deemed to be negotiable; and ell inte.es? and property therein shall he transferable by indorsement, in the same manner, and under the. same rules, r uiulati.ms and restrictions, as notes, called pio.ui-.c y tr negotiable notes, have heretofore been.\u201d This clause comprehends the case of notes, in v.h:,\u2018b the.e is n ohing expressed towards rendering to mi \u2018gotiaole; but it does not extend to cases like the present, where negotiability is expressly guarded against; and of course the indorsement in rhe present case cannot operate as a legal transfer of the note. One of the Judges mentioned the case of Book t. Caswell, formerly derided in this court, where the note was indorsed to Benton, but the suit commenced in the name of Book, and the court allowed the indorse\u00bb ment to be struck out. upon an objection similar to the present being made. Upon the mentioning this case the record was searched and found to be so."
  },
  "file_name": "0200-01",
  "first_page_order": 208,
  "last_page_order": 209
}