| Volume 194, Page 892 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
892 S & 4. ANN. CAP. 9, PROMISSORY NOTES. of error, because the indorsements thereon may be in blank, but such judg- ment shall be as good and valid as if such indorsements were properly filled up. "Any holder, therefore, with a blank indorsement may now sue in his own name, but the Act of 1826 cannot be construed to extend the right of action to one who has no interest in the bill, either as holder or owner" per Chambers J. in Whiteford v. Burckmyer, 1 Gill, 147. And so a mere stranger, having no legal interest in a note either by the terms of indorsement, or by possession of the note, cannot maintain an action in his own name. But possession of a note indorsed in blank will, in gen- eral, enable the party having it to maintain suit upon it. The Courts will never inquire whether a party sues for himself or as trustee for another, nor into the right of possession, unless on allegation of maid. fides; see Kunkel v. Spooner, 9 Md. 462. Notes payable to bearer pass by delivery, and the property and legal dominion over the money represented by them pass, in like manner, with the possession from donor to donee, Bradley v. Hunt, 5 G. & J. 54. When an indorsement has been made, and the indorser afterwards pays the money due on the note to the indorsee, he has only his own rights as indorser, and does not succeed to those of the indorsee. Hence it has been held that he cannot proceed with a bill brought by the indorsee against the maker to vacate a deed made by the latter to defraud his creditors, Heighe v. Farmers' Bank, 5 H. & J. 68. However, by Art. 9, sec. 5* of the Code, the surety in any bond or other obligation for the payment of money, or promissory note, or the indorser of any protested bill of ex- change, who shall pay or tender the money due thereon, whether the whole be due or part has been previously paid, shall be entitled to an assignment thereof; and may, by virtue of such assignment (see Noland v. Ringgold, 3 H. & J. 218), maintain an action in his own name against the principal debtor. And by the 1st section of the same Article,3 the assignee of any judgment, bond, specialty, or other chose in action for the payment of money, or any legacy or distributive share of the estate of a deceased person, bona fide entitled thereto by assignment in writing (see Chesley v. Taylor, 3 Gill, 251), signed by the person authorized to make the same, may, by virtue of such assignment, maintain an action or issue an execution in his own name against the debtor therein named, in the same manner as the assignor might have done before the assignment. It has been held that the choses in action contemplated by this provision are those purely for the payment of money, not those containing a stipu- lation to do or omit some act or duty, and this is in analogy to the con- struction of the Statute of Anne, Gordon v. Downey, 1 Gill, 41; New York Ins. Co. v, Flack, 8 Md. 341; Crawford v. Brooke, 4 Gill, 213. One test of the assignability of a chose in action seems to be whether it would be a proper matter of set-off in an action brought by the debtor thereon against the assignor, Dakin v. Pomeroy, 9 Gill, 1, where it was held that a cove- nant for quiet enjoyment could not be assigned after breach. See also Kent v. Somervell, 7 G. & J. 265. 4 Code 1911, Art. 8, sec. 5. 5 Code 1911, Art. 8, sec. 1. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
| Volume 194, Page 892 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives