
    [Sunbury,
    July 5, 1826.]
    WEAVER against M'CORKLE, for the use of BOYD.
    IN ERROR.
    M., being the holder of a bond against W., assigned it equitably to B., \Vho gave notice of the assignment to W., the obligor, who acknowledged that it was a just bond, and promised to pay it, deducting certain credits to which he was entitled. It was agreed, that these credits should be adjusted between B. and W., and W. was warned to pay no other person than B. At the time of the assignment, B. gave to M. a writing, stating that there appeared to be due to M. on the bond, two hundred and fifty-seven dollars, deducting one hundred and seventy-three dollars and fifty cents on W’s. account, B’s. account being also deducted. This writing M. assigned to C., and ordered two hundred and fifty-seven dollars of the principal of the bond to be paid to C. It turned out that there was an error in the calculation', on which the writing given by B. to W. was founded, W. having paid to M., before the assignment to B., seventy dollars more than the writing stated. W. paid to C. the full sum of two hundred and fifty-seven dollars, (seventy dollars more than M. had a right to assign to him;) and, in an action on the bond, brought by M. for the use of B., it was held that W. was responsible to B. for this sum of seventy dollars paid to C.
    On a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia county, the record presented the following case:
    An action of debt on a bond was brought by Samuel M‘Co7'7ele, for the use of William Boyd, against Jacob Weaver, the plaintiff in error. The bond was dated the 16th of December, 1822, conditioned for the payment of six hundred and six dollars and twenty-five cents, three days after dale, to Samuel M‘Corkle, who, on the 28th of February, 1823, transferred it to William Boyd in the words following: “ Pay the within to William Boyd, or order.” Boyd gave notice of this assignment to the defendant (the obligor) who acknowledged that it was a just bond, and promised to pay it, deducting certain credits to which he was entitled. It was agreed that these credits should be afterwards adjusted between Boyd and Weaver, and the defendant was warned to pay no more money to any person but Boyd, who held the bond. At the time of the assignment before mentioned, Boyd gave MWorkle a writing, as follows: “I hold a bond, in favour of Samuel M‘Corkle, on Jacob Weaver, and there appears to- be due the said M'CorMe, on the said bond, two hundred and fifty-seven dollars, deducting one hundred and seventy-three dollars and fifty cents on Weaver’s account, and Boyd and Montgomery’s account deducted also.” Signed, “ William Boyd, February 2Stb, 1823.” This writing was assigned by M‘Corkle to Peter Baldy, in the following terms: “ For value received, I hereby transfer to Peter Baldy, two hundred and fifty-seven dollars of the principal of the within mentioned bond, and order the same to be paid to him by J. Weaver, and by the person holding the bond, if money is or shall be paid to him.” Dated, February 28th, 1823; and signed, Samuel MlCorkle. The fact was, that there was a mistake in the calculation, on which the writing given by Boyd to M‘Corkle was founded. Weaver’s payments to MlCorJele before the assignment to Boyd, were about seventy dollars more than one hundred and seventy-three dollars and fifty cents, the sum mentioned in Boyd’s writing; so that MlCorkle’s interest in the bond was seventy dollars less than two hundred and fifty-seven dollars, the sum which was supposed to be due in M‘Corkle’s assignment to Baldy., Weaver paid Baldy the sum of two hundred and fifty-seven dollars, (about seventy dollars more than M(Córlele had a right to assign to him,) and the question on the trial was, whether, for this sum of seventy dollars, Weaver should be responsible in this action to Boyd? The President of the court charged the jury in favour of Boyd, and the counsel for the defendant excepted to his opinion.
    
      Grier and Friclee, for the. plaintiff in error,
    cited Clémson v. Davidson, 5 Binn. 398.
    
      Greenough and Marr, contra.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tilghmax, C. J.

The argument in favour of Weaver is, that Boyd having acknowledged by his writing of the 28th of February, 1823, that the sum of two hundred and fifty-seven dollars was due to M‘Corkle, and Baldy having paid value for an assignment of that sum, and Weaver having paid'.the same, on the faith of the writing, Boyd should not be permitted to gainsay it. " But, in my opinion, this is giving to Boyd’s writing more weight than it is entitled to. if it had been an indorsement of negotiable paper, the argument, would have held good. But that is hot the case. Weaver had received notice, that the whole .bond was assigned to Boyd, and that he should pay to no other person. It was incumbent on him, therefore, before he paid Baldy, to inquire of Boyd, , whether the sum of two hundred and fifty-seven dollars was really due to'him. It is very material, that no communication passed between Boyd and Baldy or Boyd and Weaver on the subject. Baldy, therefore, took the assignment at his peril, and Weaver paid it at his peril. I do not see hów Baldy could be in a better situation than M* Córlele, from whom he received this assignment. And I think there can be no doubt, that Boyd would have been permitted to correct any error in the settlement between him and M'Corkle, especially an error, that, in all probability, arose from the account which M> Córlele gave him of Weaver’s payments. Those payments were known to M‘Córlele, and could not have been known to Boyd, And it is a circumstance of some importance. that. Weaver, if he examined, as he ought, to have done, the writing signed by Boyd, must have known that there was a mistake in it, — he must have known that bis own payments amounted to more than one hundred and seventy-three dollars and fifty cents. The assignee of a bond takes it subject to all objections which the obligor may legally make. Suppose, now, that a bond is given for the balance of an account settled between the obligor and obli-gee, and that this- bond is assigned, — the obligor would be permitted to enter into the consideration of the bond, and show a plain error in the settled account. But if the assignee, previous to receiving the assignment, had applied to the obligor, and asked him if the whole money was due, and he had answered in the affirmative,, he would have been estopped from denying it afterwards. In. the present instance, Weaver, who knew that MiCorkle had assigned the -whole bond to Boyd, and had been warned to pay to no one but Boyd, should have inquired of him before he paid to Baldy, whether all was right, arid he should have informed Boyd that there appeared to be- an error in the payments stated to have been made by him ( Weaver) to MlCorkle. If he had done this, it would have led to an explanation. I cannot perceive how the caSe of Baldy, who accepted an assignment on the faith of Boyd’s writing, can be stronger than that of the assignee of a bond, who pays his money on the faith of the bond. And the same observation may be applied to -Weaver, who paid to the assignee of M‘Corlele, on the faith of a writing given by Boyd to M‘Corkle. Both Baldy and Weaver were deficient in making the proper inquiry. If either of them had applied to Boyd, they would have been safe; for Boyd must either have informed them of the error, or said that there was no error, which would have bound him to stand to the writing. On the evidence appearing on the record, I am of opinion, that the charge of the court in favour of the plaintiff was correct, and therefore the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  