Holmes v. Hooper

1 S.C.L. 160
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas
DecidedJuly 1, 1791
StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.C.L. 160 (Holmes v. Hooper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Holmes v. Hooper, 1 S.C.L. 160 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1791).

Opinion

Bay, J.

Although the original payee of a negotiable note may restrain its negotiability, yet a subsequent indorser may give it currency and negotiability from him, and then the negotiable quality of it recommences; for every in-dorsement is in nature of a new bill, and the indorser may make it negotiable or not, as he pleases. Bay v. Fraser, in this court; and also Salk. 133.

[161]*161With regard to the second point, it does not appear at what time this note was negotiated to the plaintiff, whether before or after the isth August, 1788 ; besides, it may have been in full for other transactions, of which this note formed no part. It would be dangerous, indeed, were the ¿ourt to suffer a loose receipt of this kind, in which the note was not mentioned, to affect its credit or negotiability.

1/erdict for plaintiff.

Sunt gave notice of a motion he intended to make for a new trial, but afterwards acquiesced in the opinion of the raurt, and never brought it forward»

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 S.C.L. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-hooper-pactcompl-1791.