1

Liability of Transferor of Negotiable paper
without endorsement.

Case stated by CharM. [Blackfud?y], of Lynchburg

Nov. 5. 1857

C sells to D the negotiable note of A, endorsed
by B, but without endorsing it himself. At maturity, the note
is protested, & D sues A & B, It turns out that the signature
of A is a forgery (committed by B), and that B is insolvent, &
was [?], so at the time of the transfer of the [?], D
in [?] the note having relied on the known insolven-
cy of A. D having used all due diligence in his suit, {& having}
failed to [?] the money of A because of the forgery, & of
B because of his insolvency, and the question now is whe-
ther C is responsible to him? {for the signatures}

No fraud is imputed to C who was entirely ig-
norant of the forgery- He is not a licensed [?], but acts
in that capacity so far as to buy [?] many notes, for o-
ther persons on commission. Whether in this case, be acted
for himself, or another, is not stated.

I am of opinion that C is responsible for
the genuineness of the signatures of the note he sells whe-
ther he acts for himself or for another, with or without a li-
cense, unless he disclosed his principal, & professed to be
acting [?] for him.

The leading case is Jones [?] Ryde & 5 [?]/
487 (C 13. 1814).

The defendants were bill-brokers, [?]-
sessed of a Navy [bill?] purporting to be for [?]1884 ,, 16 ,, 10, which
they sold to the plaintiffs without [?]. The bill turned out to have been
altered, (of which, however, the defendants were ignorant) [?]
the amount of [?]844 ,, 16 ,, 10, and government repudiated
it for all but that sum. The action was brought to [?]
the difference.

Gibb C J.- "The ground of the defendants resistance
is that the bill is not endorsed; and that whensoever
instruments are transfered without endorsement,
the negotiator professes not to be answerable for their
validity." x x "But his declining to endorse the bill
does not rid him of that responsibility which attach-
es [on?] him for putting off an instrument as of a
[certain?] description, which turns out not to be [?]
as he represents it. The defendant has in the present
[?] put off this instrument as a Navy bill of a cer-

Liability of Transferor of Negotiable paper
without endorsement.

Case stated by CharM. [Blackfud?y], of Lynchburg

Nov. 5. 1857

C sells to D the negotiable note of A, endorsed
by B, but without endorsing it himself. At maturity, the note
is protested, & D sues A & B, It turns out that the signature
of A is a forgery (committed by B), and that B is insolvent, &
was [?], so at the time of the transfer of the [?], D
in [?] the note having relied on the known insolven-
cy of A. D having used all due diligence in his suit, {& having}
failed to [?] the money of A because of the forgery, & of
B because of his insolvency, and the question now is whe-
ther C is responsible to him? {for the signatures}

No fraud is imputed to C who was entirely ig-
norant of the forgery- He is not a licensed [?], but acts
in that capacity so far as to buy [?] many notes, for o-
ther persons on commission. Whether in this case, be acted
for himself, or another, is not stated.

I am of opinion that C is responsible for
the genuineness of the signatures of the note he sells whe-
ther he acts for himself or for another, with or without a li-
cense, unless he disclosed his principal, & professed to be
acting [?] for him.

The leading case is Jones [?] Ryde & 5 [?]/
487 (C 13. 1814).

The defendants were bill-brokers, [?]-
sessed of a Navy [bill?] purporting to be for [?]1884 ,, 16 ,, 10, which
they sold to the plaintiffs without [?]. The bill turned out to have been
altered, (of which, however, the defendants were ignorant) [?]
the amount of [?]844 ,, 16 ,, 10, and government repudiated
it for all but that sum. The action was brought to [?]
the difference.