Judgment for the defendant.
Hodges v. Clinton, 1 N.C. 76, 1 Mart. 76 (1792)
Oct. 1792
·
North Carolina Superior Court
1 N.C. 76, 1 Mart. 76
Fayetteville,
October Term, 1792.
HODGES versus CLINTON.
CASE. The Jury found the following special verdict.
“The Jury sworn, find that the defendant did assume; find “no set-off, find the defendant did not take the benefit of the act “of insolvency, and assess the plaintiff’s damage to £. 73 16s. and “6s. costs: subject to the opinion of the Court, whether the note *77“on which the plaintiff’s action is grounded, is a negotiable note “within the statute, if it is, they find for plaintiff, if not, for defend"ant.”
The note was for £. 100 currency, payable in tobacco.
Taylor for the defendant,
argued, that no decision upon the 3d & 4th Anne 9, to which our act of 1762 was in analogy was to be found, that gave negociability to notes, except they were for the payment of money alone. Besides the many cases establishing the doctrine, that even notes payable in money are not negotiable, if they are contingent, the case of the East-India bond is in point with the present. Moore vs. Venlute. And if any thing else is promised besides the payment of money, the note is not negociable. 1 Sharp. 629. The design of the act, which was to give to notes a circulation equally beneficial to commerce with bills of exchange, would be frustrated by a contrary decision.