Note. — Vide Tindall’s exrs. v. Johnston, post 372. Campbell v. Mumford, post 398 Thompson v. Gayland, 2 Hay 150. Wofford v. Greenlee, Conf. Rep. 79. The law is the same of bonds payable on a contingency. Goodloe v. Taylor, 3 Hawks, 458.
Jamieson v. Farr, 2 N.C. 210, 1 Hayw. 210 (1795)
April 1795
·
North Carolina Superior Court
2 N.C. 210, 1 Hayw. 210
Jamieson, assignee, v. Farr.
A bond payable partly in money and partly in specific articles is not negotiable under the act of 1786, JRev.c.U48.
Debt upon bond for fifty pounds, dischargeable part in money, and pact in specific articles. After verdict it was moved in arrest of judgment, that this bond is not assignable so as to enable the assignee, to bring debt in his own name; and it was argued that no bonds are ne-goiiable. unless for money absolutely, not where they are for money and something else beside, or for money, but to be discharged in something else. In support of this doctrine, arrr c.i'e.d Kidd on Bills 32, where it is laid down, that the instrument most be for money in specie, not to be paid fit good East-India bonds, or any thing else but money ; also, 3 FFils. 213. Bull. 273. 2 ¡Str. 1271. Per curiam, the act of 1786, c. 4, makes only bonds for money »> gotiable. Bond, for specific articles could never answer the purposes of trade, not being the vepr-sentnlives of any certain value as money is. The assignee of such bonds could never know how mueii money to expect in lieu (hereof, neither could he know whether the debtor would discharge ¡he- bond in the stipulated afiele or in money. But bonds for money are of a certain precise value, the payment must hern money— the assignee knows exactly how much he is to receive, and when upon a man of good credit, may be readily substituted, for the same sum in money, or almost with the same advantage as if it were money; without any dan - ger of being afterwards involved in disputes about the, value — which in the case of bonds for specific articles is continually fluctuating, and depends upon a great variety of ciecum-tauces. For these reasons the law has never made bonds for specific articles negotiable, but only hills, notes and bonds for money. Tire cases in 3 Wits. ■213, and in Kidd 32, are precisely similar to the present, and the reasons for these decisions are strictly applies.-*211ble to the case now before ns. On the score of reason, the present'case cannot be distinguished from them, therefore toe judgment must be arrested — and it was arrested accordingly.