250 Casas ruled and adjudged in the !796- eoniideration of the faid indorfement, upon himfelf aifumcd and vw`! then— and there to the faid Peter Barrier: faithfully promifed that he would well and truly pay to him the contents of the faid note, whenever afterwards he ihould be by him thereunto required." A ]udgment had been obtained for want of a plea; a writ of inquiry of damages had been thereupon ilfued and returned; and now M4 Leu made a motion in arrelt of judgment on this ground,*——that the declaration fets forth a Promiiliiry Note pay- able to Vuynm alone, and not toorder; and, therefore, there ia no authority for the plaintiff to bring the a&i¤¤ in his own name, as indorfee. H BI. 605. 2 Ld. Ra . rggy. Busby on Bdlrg" Exchange 1. I Perm; Law: (DHL p. N7. _> Du Paueeau, admitted the general principle of the objeétiona but contended, that it was too late to make it, after the return of a writ of inquiry, which mult be regarded in the light of a general verdiét. If it docs not appear to be a note to order, neither does the contrary appear; and, after a general verdiét, the prefumption will be in favor of the plaintiff’s right to fue. In r DaII.Rep. rg4, the cafe was- founded on a fpeciul verdi&,the defendant not daring to trufl: it to a general verdidt; and in V Doug. 683, the judgment was arrelted becaufe there was no al- legation of notice of the protelt, which could not be prefumed from any faét Rated in the declaration. Where, indeed, a title appears defeétive on the face of the record, a verdiéb will be fet alide; but not where the title is merely defeélively fet forth. 4 Burr. 2020. If a fad} mufi have been proved on the trial, it will be prcfumed after a general verdifl, even though it be mat- ter of fubftance. Cervp. 82 5. Here a fuffieient title is proved, becaufe the plaintifffues as indorfee ea nmine, and after (Eating ` the note and indorfement, the defendant became liable; and as the flatute, which makes a defendant liable, in an aétion by the indorfee, exprefsly and exclulively refers to notes made payable to order or alligns, the plaintiff mult, of courfe, have proved · every thing on the trial that the ltatutc requires to entitle him 'to an aétion-—to wit, that the note was an indorfable note. The objeétion, therefore, is founded on a mere omillion, which is aided by a general verdift. M. Levy, in reply :—The plaintiff mult bring himfelf within the aét of Pemgfylwvania, by fomething appearing on the record : it is neither by the operation of the ltatute of Arm. e. , nor by the cullom of merchants, that he is entitled to inllitute an aélioir
- There was another ground mentioned, to nit, that the original
artiea to the note were both Evnclw citizens, and the plaintiff mere- fy u col|uGveindori`ee, fo that the French (ionful, and not the State Courts, had jurildiction of the eaafe: But this point was not at all argued. ·
�
