Coursin v. Ledlie's Administrators

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Citation: 31 Pa. 506
• Parties: Coursin versus Ledlie's Administrators.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

31 Pa. 506

Coursin versus Ledlie's Administrators.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county.

G. P. Hamilton and C. Hasbrouck, for the plaintiff in error.— The paper was a good bill of exchange, though not negotiable: Story on Bills, § 60, and note; Bayley on Bills 33, 34; Chitty on Bills 159; Cunningham on Bills 113; Kendall v. Galvin, 3 Shepley 131. Stating in a bill a particular fund from which the drawee is to be reimbursed will not vitiate it: Kelley v. Mayor, 4 Hill 263; Leonard v. Mason, 1 Wend. 522.

The drawer of a bill may maintain an action thereon against the acceptor, though it has not been endorsed by the payee: Zebley v. Voisin, 7 Barr 527; Chitty on Bills 537; Simmonds v. Parminter, 1 Wils. 185; Kingman v. Hotaling, 25 Wend. 423.

The acceptance of a bill is evidence against the acceptor, under the money counts, in an action by the drawee: Benjamin v. Tillman, 2 McLean 213; Byrne v. Schwing, 6 B. Munroe 199; Byles on Bills 215; 1 Pars. on Cont. 211.

If not a bill of exchange, the paper conferred on Miller, the payee, no right of action in his own name; he must have sued in the name of Coursin for his use: Gillespie v. Mather, 10 Barr 30; Fahnestock v. Schoyer, 9 Watts 102; Jackson v. Tilghman, 1 Miles 31. And if so, why may not Coursin sue for his own use after it has been returned to him?

Selden & Burgwin, for the defendants in error.—We do not deny the validity of the bill on which suit is brought; nor do we claim that it is vitiated by the want of negotiable words; but we do contend that in the absence of words of negotiability it can only be sued on in the name of the payee: 1 Bouv. Law Dic. tit. Bill of Exchange; 2 Id. tit. Negotiable Paper; Story on Bills 60; Gerard v. La Coste, 1 Dall. 194; Barriere v. Nairac, 2 Id. 249 (this case was cited and approved in Leidy v. Tammany, 9 Watts 358); Reynolds v. Richards, 2 Harris 205; Bircleback v. Wilkins, 10 Id. 28; Esling v. Zantzinger, 1 Id. 50.

Simmonds v. Parminter, 1 Wils. 185, is the sole authority on which all the cases cited by the plaintiff in error, avowedly depend; and the ground for the decision there, was expressly held to this, that the consideration for the defendant's promise was averred in the narr. to be, that the plaintiff, by reason of defendant's neglect to pay, was obliged to pay, and did pay the bill. This, the court held to be a good consideration to raise the promise. There is no such averment in the plaintiff's declaration here, nor was there any proof offered to that effect on the trial.

The opinion of the court was delivered by THOMPSON, J.

It is not essential to the validity of a bill of exchange, that it be in form negotiable. An endorsement on a bond ordering the contents "to be paid to order for value received, is a good bill of exchange:" 1 Bay 66. The words "for value received" are held not essential: Benjamin v. Tillman, 2 McLean 213; 3 Metcalf 363; 3 Rich. 413.

If it be for the absolute payment of money, at all events, it will not invalidate it, if the fund, on account of which it is drawn, is named as a means whereby the drawee is to be indemnified: 3 Marsh. 184; 2 Greenl. 123; 4 Hill 263; 2 Sandf. Sup. C. Rep. 328; 2 Maine Rep. 442; 25 Miss. Rep. 143; Byles on Bills 74 (note).

The paper, therefore, in evidence in this case, although not in negotiable form, may be treated as a bill of exchange. And a material inquiry arises to be considered, as to the right of the plaintiff, the drawer, to sue the acceptor, in his own name, the bill having been returned to him by the payee in default of payment by the acceptor. That he may do so, seems to have been settled in the affirmative, in every case I have been able to find, where the point was distinctly made. The case of Simmonds v. Parminter, 1 Wilson's Rep. 185, in the King's Bench, before LEE, C. J., and associates, determined after much consideration by that court, and affirmed upon a writ of error in the House of Lords, is the first precedent cited in argument, or that I have discovered for this position, and it fully affirms it. The same doctrine is to be found in Chitty on Bills 537, for which is cited Simmonds v. Parminter. See also 4 Bro. P. C. 604; Louviere v. Laubray, 10 Mod. 36; Chitt. Jr. 230. In Kingman v. Hotaling, 25 Wend. 423, the same doctrine is held: NELSON, C. J., after citing Simmonds v. Parminter, saying, that the plaintiff in that case was held to be entitled to recover without taking title under the payee. So in Zebley v. Voisin, 7 Barr 527, the plaintiff recovered in exact accordance with this doctrine. There was no assignment by the payee, and the point was directly made, that the suit must be in the name of the payee for the use of the drawer, the plaintiff; but the objection was overruled, the court declaring, in affirming the plaintiff's right to sue, in his own name, that the "drawer was in fact and in law the legal plaintiff." In Simmonds v. Parminter, the plaintiff declared upon the bill as within the custom of merchants, and recovered, as we have seen. So here, in addition to the special counts on the...