Goodloe v. Taylor, 10 N.C. 458, 3 Hawks 458 (1825)

June 1825 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

10 N.C. 458, 3 Hawks 458

Goodloe, assignee, v. Taylor.

Y L From Granville. J

The payment of negotiable instru ments should not be dependant on a contingency.

Where a note was dráwn as follows, " against the 25th of December, 1819, or when the house John Mayfield has undertaken to build for me is completed, I promise to pay, &c.” it was held, that the parties by inserting a specific date of payment, had made it payable at all events, whether the house was completed or not, and that consequently the note was negotiable.

This was an action of debt, brought on a bond in the words and figures following, viz:

Against the 25th December, 1819, or when the house John May-field has undertaken to build for me is completed, I promise to pay to John Mayfield, or order, the just and full sum of eight hundred and eighteen dollars 23J cents, for value received, as witness my hand and seal this 21st February, 1818.

(Signed) Warner Taylor, [h. S.j

Whereon was the following endorsement, viz.

Pay tbe within to David S. Goodloe.

(Signed) John Mayfield.

June IS, 1819.

The defendant offered to prove that the said Mayfield contracted with the defendant to build for him a large dwelling house at the pi’ice of g 3000 or thereabouts, which the defendant paid to him, excepting the sum mentioned in the said bond; that said Mayfield began the, house, but did not finish it; and the work not done by him was of much greater value than the sum mentioned in the bond, and remains undone to this time, and that said Mayfield has abandoned the work; and the defendant farther contended, that the said bond was not negotiable, and that no action could be maintained by Good-loe thereon.

The Court, Nash judge, refused to hear the evidence offered, and instructed the jury that the said bond is negotiable, and that Goodloe as assignee, might maintain the action. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appealed.

Ruffin, for the appellant.

Hillman and Hawks, contra.

Taylor, Chief Justice

The question arising on this record is, whether the bond declared on is negotiable by force of the two acts of 1762 and 1786, the former making promissory notes assignable in like manner with bills of exchange, and the latter making bonds negotiable in the same way as promissory notes. With respect to bills of exchange the law has been long considered settled. That the payment of them should not he contingent, since it would greatly perplex commercial transactions, if the persons to whom they were negotiated were obliged to inquire when the contingencies were likely to happen. The same rule is equally applicable to all negp-"tiable instruments, and it may be assumed as a principle-too clearly established by an unvarying series of authorities to need any reference to cases. The question then is, whether this bond is, by its terras, payable at all events, or payabie only on the contingency of Mayfield’s completing the defendant’s house. If the latter be the case, the bond is clearly not negotiable, for the event may never happen; and a recovery could only he had by May-field, upon his proving that he had performed the condition. But I am of opinion that this is not the true construction of the bond, since the parties by inserting a specific date of payment, have made it payable then at all events, whether the house would then be completed or not. If the work had been done before 25th December, 1819, Mayfield would then have acquired a right to the money; but in no event was he obliged to wait beyond that time. If an authority were required for so plain a case, there is one precisely in point in 7 Mass. R. 240. in which case the wrords of the note were: «This may certify that I do agree to pay to Solomon Stevens, or order, forty dollars by the twentieth of May, or when he completes the building according to contract.” The note was endorsed and sued for in the name of the assignee; and the objection taken was, as in this case', that the note was payable on a contingency, and therefore not negotiable; but the Court held the note to be payable absolutely at a day certain. As therefore, the bond was negotiable, and was actually endorsed before it became due, the evidence offered by the defendant to show a failure of the consideration, was properly rejected. The judgment must be affirmed.

Hall, Judge.

I entertain no doubt but that the note on which this action is brought is negotiable. Had it been payable on the contingency only of the building of the house, it would have been otherwise. But whether the house is built or not, it is payable at a particular time; and that time is ascertained from the face of the note; and tor that reason it is negotiable. See Chilly on Bills, 345. r-r".

J3y the Court:

Judgment affirmed.