
    Mounier against Meyrey.
    
    IVliereaiiote is given for an aoveraWe by instalments, •n-M-ds negrti-ateil as a cash note, the par-in payment^ It^aiK^iiave against*5 tlie*1' person ncgo-tinting it, on his original easli contract.
    • . , ... UPON a motion to set aside a verdict, and to grant a new trial* It appeared that the plaintiff Mounier, had sold goods to the defendant, to the amount of about 28/. sterling; for which the defendant gave in payment to ~ _ 0 1 J him, Francis GuerirCs note to that amount, as and for a cash note, not subject to the 'instalment lata. After Ike note became due, an application was made to Guerin ^01’ ^ moneJb who produced affidavits and vouchers, shew that this was not a cash transaction between him and the defendant, but given for an old debt, due , - , . . . from his father s estate ; and or course, only recoverable by instalments, at one, two and three years. As soon as the plaintiff became acquainted with this, he tendered back the note to the defendant, and demanded payment for the amount of the goods sold him, which Meyrey refused to receive, alleging, that the note did not purport on the face of it, to have been given for an old debt, and that he ought to pursue his remedy against the drawer ; whereupon the plaintiff brought his action for goods sold and delivered, and had a verdict.
    Smith, for the motion,
    relied on the ground that this note, from the face of it, appeared to be a new note, and notone that was given for an old debt, before or during the war, and which came under the instalment law. It was in its nature negotiable, and being in the hands of an innocent indorsee for a valuable consideration, it could not be impeached on account of any prior transactions, which might have been between drawer and drawee. Though had it remained in the hands of the drawee, the consideration might have been gone into. It would, he said, be a great injury to trade and commerce, to call in question negotiable notes, in the hands of a fair indorsee; for which reason, the plaintiff ought to have gone on, and recovered against Guerin.
    
    
      
      Bay, in reply,
    conceded that negotiable notes given in the way of trade, or in common transactions between man and man, since the year 1784, ought not to be impeached in the hands of innocent indorsees. But the note in question, was not one of that class, as appeared by Mey fey’s receipts and vouchers, ready to be produced. From those, it was evident, that this note was given for an old debt due from Guerin’s father’s estate, before the war, upon a final settlement of account between the parties. And being such, it was no otherwise recoverable, than the old debt, for which it was given, would have been. The distresses occasioned by the ravages of the war, and the total inability of the citizens to pay their debts, immediately after the peace, had induced the legislature to pass the instalment law, making these old debts recoverable, in one, two, and three years. The fourth clause of that act, passed in 1784, expressly declares, “ That all bonds and other securities, given since “ February, 1782, (which included the time when this note “ was given,) for debts contracted previous to that day, except “ bonds and notes given for interest, shall be no otherwise re-w coverable, than the debts would have been for which such “ securities were given.” This of course altered the law, as it related to bonds and notes, given for old debts before 1782. It is very immaterial who is the holder, whether the payee or indorsee ; for by the clause cited, the bond or note itself, is no otherwise recoverable, than as an old debt. This, then, being the case, and the defendant’s contract being a cash contract, the court ought surely not to suffer such injustice to be done to the plaintiff, as to put him off with a note payable by instalments, for a cash payment.
   Per Curiam.

Wc are clearly of opinion, that tire act of 1784, has altered the law with i-espectto those kind of securities, given for old debts, previous to the year 1782, and made them only recoverable, as the old debts would have been. This law does not restrain their negotiability, but merely prevents their recovery, otherwise than by instal-ments. There is no doubt but that the plaintiff has been deceived, by the passing of the note to him by the defendant as a cash note. We do not say intentionally. But under these circumstances, it would be unjust to refuse him the benefit of his verdict. It would be permitting the defendant to take advantage of his own wrong. Therefore, Let the rule be discharged. All the judges present, at the adjourned court.

N. B.

Before the establishment of a court of appeals by the new constitution of South-Car olma, the judges were au-thorised, under an old act of assembly for the amendment of the law, after the jury trials were finished, to adjourn the courts not less than ten, nor more than twenty days, for the purpose of hearing and determining motions for new trials, and in arrest of judgment, &c. wherefore these sittings of the judges, for the purpose of hearing and determining law points, were called the adjourned courts.  