
    
      Eleanor Lee, administratrix of John W. Lee, vs. Thompson Ware.
    In an action by the bearer on a note payable to A. B. or bearer, the defendant, that he may be let into his defence against the payee, may shew that the plaintiff is not the owner of the note, or has no interest in it, or that he gave no consideration for it.
    
      Before Gantt, J. at Richland, Spring Term, 1832.
    This was an action upon a note of hand drawn on the 6th June, 1826, and payable on the 1st January, 1827, to Joseph Ware or bearer. The note was admitted. In the defence, Joseph Lee was. sworn. The counsel for the defendant asked him, whether the plaintiff was the owner of the note, or had any interest therein. The question was objected to by the plaintiff, ánd the court supported the objection, holding that if the plaintiff came lawfully into the possession of the note, she might sue and recover upon it, whether she had an interest in the note or not. The defendant’s counsel then asked, whether the plaintiff or her intestate had given any consideration for the note. The court thought the question an immaterial one, and overruled it. The defendant then offered in evidence two receipts given by Joseph Ware, the payee of the note, bearing date the 10th Dec. 1828, and the 15th January, 1829. Two other receipts were indorsed on the note by the payee, one dated the 23d March, 1827, and the other the 24th April, 1828. The jury found for the plaintiff, allowing the defendant as payments the two receipts indorsed on the note, and disallowing the other two.
    The defendant appealed, on the ground that his Honor, the presiding judge, erred in excluding the testimony offered by the defendant.
    Gregg, for the motion.
    Prestpn, contra.
   Curia, per

Johnson, J.

We are very clearly of opinion that the evidence offered ought to have been admitted. The objection to the evidence concedes, of course, every inference that may be drawn from it. For example, that the defendant or her intestate became possessed of the note fraudulently, and that the money was due to the payee; or that she had no interest in it, and sued only for the benefit of the payee; and thus enable the defendant to avail himself of any defence he might have had against the payee; or that the payee had lost the note ; and that would have been a good defence, unless the plaintiff had shewn that she came by it bona fide. Grant vs. Vaughan, 3 Bur. 1523. Motion granted.

O’Neall and Harper, JJ. concurred.

Note. In O’Brien vs. Sauls, 2 Rich. 332, it was held that the payee of a note payable to hearer, may sue in the name of a person having no interest in the note. R.  