
    Dana Fay versus Ephraim Goulding Junior et al.
    
    The payee of a note declared on it as payable to himself, but it appeared to be payable to himself or his order. Held, that this was not a material variance.
    Assumpsit on a promissory note, alleged to be payable to the plaintiff. The note produced in evidence at the trial of the action was payable to the plaintiff or his order. The question reserved was, whether the allegation in the declaration was supported by the evidence.
    
      Oct. 8th.
    
    
      Newton and Lincoln, for the plaintiff,
    cited 1 Chitty on Pl. 299 ; Frederick v. Cotton, 2 Shower, 8 ; Bayley on Bills, (Phil. & Sewall’s ed.) 274 ; Ferguson v. Harwood, 7 Cranch, 408; 3 Starkie on Ev. 1563, 1579; Alvord v. Smith, 5 Pick. 232 ; Baptiste v. Cobbold, 1 Bos. & Pul. 7 ; Roberts v. Harnage, 2 Salk. 659 ; Moore v. Paine, Cases Temp. Hardw. by Annaly, 288 ; Mountstephen v. Brooke, 1 Barn. & Ald. 224 ; Richards v. Heather, ibid. 29 ; Ankerstein v. Clarke, 4 T. R. 616.
    
      Davis and Allen, for the defendant,
    cited Barriere v. Nairac, 2 Dallas, 249 ; Sebree v. Dorr, 9 Wheaton, 558 ; Jones v. Fales, 4 Mass. R. 245.
    
      Oct. 11th.
    
   Per Curiam.

As the action is brought by the payee, this is not a material variance. If the plaintiff were an indorsee it would have been necessary to allege that the note was payable to the payee or his order.  