Holmes v. Hooper

1 S.C.L. 160
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas·Decided July 1, 1791·Published

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] With 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

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

1 S.C.L. 160 (Holmes v. Hooper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.