
    Thompson v. Coquillard, in Error.
    DEBT by Alexis Coquillard, for the use of Isaac Marquiss, against Lewis G. Thompson, on a promissory note in the following words: — “Due Alexis Coquillard or order 212 dollars, for value received. — L. G. Thompson.” There was on the note the following assignment: — “Pay the within to Isaac Marquiss.— A. Coquillard.” The note was filed, under the statute, instead of a declaration.
    A plea in abatement, for a variance between the writ and note as the declaration, was filed'; the writ being against Lewis G. Thompson, and the note against L. G. Thompson. Demurrer to the plea and judgment of respondeos ouster. Demurrer to the note as a declaration, and judgment for the plaintiff below.
    
      Qucsre, whether the note in this case could be filed as a declaration, the Christian name of the defendant not being shown by it; or whether, if the note could be so filed, an explanation of the name should not appear in the writ. See Hays et al. v. Lanier et al., November term, 1833 .
    As the note in this case was assigned to Marquiss, and the assignment remained uncancelled, it was held that the suit on the note could not be sustained in Coquillard’s name, without showing that it was his property notwithstanding the assignment. Neyfong v. Wells, Harden’s Rep. 561.—Bowie, for the use of Ladd, v. Duvall, 1 Gill & Johns. 175.—See, also, Dugan v. The United States, 3 Wheat. 172.
    
      
      H. Cooper, for the plaintiff.
    
      D. H. Colerick, for the defendant.
    
      
       Ante, p. 322. Vide Hughes v. Walker, Carter & Co, May term, 1835, post.
    
   The judgment was reversed with costs.  