Halifax County NcArchives Court.....Drew, Vs. Jacocks 1811-18 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 8, 2008, 2:04 pm Source: North Carolina Reports Written: 1811-18 January Term 1812. WILLIAM DREW, Assignee, etc., v. ADMINISTRATOR OF JONATHAN JACOCKS. Deceased. From Halifax. A bill of exchange drawn by B on C, in favor of D, was protested for nonacceptance, D wrote on the bill, "Sent to F to collect for D." This is such an indorsement as will enable F to maintain an action against B in his own name as indorsee. But the indorsement being for a special purpose, F cannot transfer the bill to another person, so as to give to that person a right of action against D, or any of the preceding parties. The indorsement confines the bill in the hands of the indorsee to the very purpose for which the indorsement was made. A bill of exchange was drawn by defendant's intestate on Samuel Jackson, of New York, in favor of Conway and Fortune Whittle, and protested for nonacceptance. On the bill there was an indorsement in the words following, to wit: "Sent to William Drew. Esq., to collect for Conway and F. Whittle." This action was brought by William Drew as indorsee; and it was submitted to the court, whether the indorsement transferred the interest to William Drew so as to enable him to maintain an action in his own name against the drawer. Taylor, C. J. No particular form of words is necessary to make an indorsement; but the name of the indorser must appear upon the bill, and it must be signed by him or by some person authorized by him for that purpose. Indorsements, however, are of two kinds, general and restrictive, the latter precluding the person to whom it is made from transferring the instrument over to another, so as to give him a right of action, either against the person imposing the restriction or against any of the preceding parties. Such an indorsement may give a bare authority to the indorsee to receive the money for the indorser; as if it say, "pay the money to such a one for my use," or use any expressions which necessarily imply that he does not mean to transfer his interest in the bill or note, but merely to give a power to receive the money. This is the case before us. It is evident, from the indorsement, that William Drew paid no valuable consideration for the note, and therefore could not sue the indorsers, nor indorse it to any other person who could sue either them or the preceding parties. The indorsement is restrained to him merely, and is to the same amount as if it had been, "pay the within to my use," or "I indorse the within to William Drew to collect for me." These indorsements confine the bill in the hands of the indorsee to the very purpose for which they were made, the indorser not meaning either to make himself liable or to enable the indorsee to raise money on the bill. The action in this case can well be maintained in the name of William Drew. Additional Comments: North Caroline Reports, Vol. 6, Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Reported by A.D. Murphey, Annotated by Walter Clark. 1811 to 1813, Inclusive and at July Term, 1818. Reprinted by the State. E.M. Uzzell and Company, State printers and binders, 1910. File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/halifax/court/drew531gwl.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/ File size: 3.7 Kb