
    Pitts v. Keyser and Keyser.
    1. Plaintiff producing' a note payable to him, is presumed owner ofit; though it appears endorsed by him to another.
    2. This is but a presumption, and may be rebutted by proof.
    3. If the interest be really in such endorsee, the plaintiff cannot recover.
    Joseph C. and Charles C. Keyser, brought an action sf assumpsit, in the Circuit Court of Pike county; and declared on a promissory note made by Pitts, payable to them. The cause was tried before Judge Crenshaw, at the April term, 1826, and a bill of exceptions was tendered by the defendant and sealed by the Court, by which it appears, that the note described in the declaration, and produced to the jury, had on it an endorsement in these words: “ Pay Gen. Eldridge S. Greening, or order : Joseph C. and Charles C. Keyseri” That no other evidence was offered but the note, on either side. The defendant moved the Court to instruct the jury, that the endorsement on the note, transferring the entire interest in it to a third person, was sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s right of action. The Court refused the charge, and instructed the jury that they should not take the fact o£ the endorsement into consideration ; that if available, the objection should have been taken when the note was offered in evidence.
    Note. See Johnston use of Stone against English, decided at this term.
    Pitts now assigns for error, the matter shewn by the bill of exceptions.
    Goldthwaite, for the plaintiff,
    cited and relied on the case of Welch against Lindo, 7 Cranch 159 ; Gergeot against M‘Carty, 2 Dallas 144; 1 Harden’s Reports 562, and the cases there cited, Chitty on Bills, edit, of 1817, 148, 378.
    Greening, for the defendants.
   By JUDGE TAYLOR.

In a case similarly situated, reported in Wheaton, the Supreme Court of the United States determined they would presume the property in the paper sued on was in the holder, although there was an endorsement on it to a third person, until the contrary was proved; that they would presume the endorsement had been made to facilitate collection, or for some such purpose, and that the instrument had been returned to the owner without that object being effected. This presumption like all others, might be rebutted by proof, and if it should be made to appear by evidence, that the property was really iti the endorsee, the defendant would have a verdict. This case is conclusive on the point, and therefore, let the judgement be affirmed.

Judge Crenshaw not sitting. 
      
      swiieatoa14?.
     