Putnam v. Crymes

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Putnam v. Crymes

26 S.C.L. 9

DecidedDecember 15, 1840

StatusPublished

This text of 26 S.C.L. 9 (Putnam v. Crymes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Putnam v. Crymes, 26 S.C.L. 9 (S.C. Ct. App. 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

Butler J.

The word bearer is usually inserted in a negotiable note, transferable by delivery. But without it, the maker of a note may make it transferable by delivery, either by circumlocution, or using a word of precisely the same import. As if a note were made payable to A. B. or to any one to whom he may deliver it; or to any one who might hold the same by delivery. In both cases the bearer would be sufficiently meant and designated, although the word was not used. If it was the intention of the maker to make it payable to any one who acquires possession by delivery, he has no right to complain when it is presented to him without a written transfer. Holder is a word of the same import as bearer, and both may acquire a title by lawful delivery, according to the terms of the contract. All the law requires is, that the paper must have negotiable words on its face, showing it to be the intention to give it a transferable quality by delivery; otherwise the instrument must be transferred by * written endorsement, if payable to ftrder; or sued on by the original payee, if there are no negotiable words at all.

The decision below is affirmed :

the whole court concurring.

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

Curia, per

Butler J.

The word bearer is usually inserted in a negotiable note, transferable by delivery. But without it, the maker of a note may make it transferable by delivery, either by circumlocution, or using a word of precisely the same import. As if a note were made payable to A. B. or to any one to whom he may deliver it; or to any one who might hold the same by delivery. In both cases the bearer would be sufficiently meant and designated, although the word was not used. If it was the intention of the maker to make it payable to any one who acquires possession by delivery, he has no right to complain when it is presented to him without a written transfer. Holder is a word of the same import as bearer, and both may acquire a title by lawful delivery, according to the terms of the contract. All the law requires is, that the paper must have negotiable words on its face, showing it to be the intention to give it a transferable quality by delivery; otherwise the instrument must be transferred by * written endorsement, if payable to ftrder; or sued on by the original payee, if there are no negotiable words at all.

The decision below is affirmed :

the whole court concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 S.C.L. 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnam-v-crymes-scctapp-1840.