
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1807.
    Samuel P. Jones v. James Westcott.
    To intitle the plaintiff to a verdict in an action on a promissory note, payable to bearer, it is not necessary the plaintiff, as bearer, should ]irove that he came by the note fairly, and for a valuable consideration, unless some evidence is given, on the part of. the defendant, to raise a suspicion, at least, that the plaintiff did not come fairly by the note.
    Assumpsit on a promissory note, payable to-Sabb, or bearer. The handwriting of the defendant, the maker, was proved; but no evidence was given, on the part of the plaintiff, to show that he had obtained the note bona fide; and at the trial a nonsuit was moved for on this ground, in Richland District, which the presiding judge, Trezevant, refused, and a. verdict was given for the plaintiff.
    Motion for a new trial in this court. Chappie, for the defend, ant,
    cited 3 Burr. 1516. The bearer of a promissory note, paya, ble to bearer, cannot recover thereon, as bearer, without proving that he came by it bona fide, and for a valuable consideration. Bank notes are an exception to this rule. Chitty 51.
    Clifton, on the other side,
    cited Kyd pn Bills. 1 Esp. Dig. 39. 2 Show. 235. Mere delivery transfers a right of action.
    Euan, in reply, for the defendant,
    cited 1 Bl. Rep. 478. Kyd. on Bills, 36, 38. 1 Burr. 452. Doug. 633. . 3 Burr. 1523.
    
      Curia advisare vult.
    
   8th Nov, 1807. All the judges present, except Trezevant, J. sick. Grisike, J., delivered the resolution of the whole court; the substance of which was, that, from a careful examination of all the doctrine to be found in the books on the subject, it appears that, unless some evidence is given on the part of the maker of a note payable to bearer, to raise a doubt, or a suspicion, that the bearer, who sues on it, has not obtained it fairly, by delivery, bona fide, for a valuable consideration, there will be no necessity to prove that he has come fairly by the note, but it shall be presumed ; and this presumption shall be sufficient to entitle him to a verdict, except some evidence is given to overthrow it, and to raise a contrary presumption, in which case tt will be incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that he came fairiy by the note.

Motion rejected.

Trezevant, J., ruled at the trial, that the plaintiff could not be required to prove how he came by the note, unless it were first proved, on the part of. the defendant, that he had been forbidden to pay the note to the plaintiff, by some person who laid claim to it.

Note. See 1 Bos. and P. 648. 1 Esp. Dig. 39. 2 Show.,235. Peake’s Evid. 220. It is only on suspicious circumstances, that the hearer of a promissory note is to account how he came by it. 2 Johns. 51.  