
    Todd against Crookshanks.
    ALBANY,
    August, 1808.
    A. gave a promissory note to B. and C. who were . executors, and after-wards paid the note to B. and took a receipt in full, the note being in the custody of C. was demanded by A. and on C. ’s refusal to deliver it, A. brought an action of detinue for the note, audit was held that the action would not lie, as the note after it was paid, was of no value, and in the hands of the payee. Detinue or trover will lie for a promissory note, in the hands of a third person.
    ON certiorari. The plaintiff below brought an action of detinue against the defendant for a promissory note, dated the 12th of January, 1801, for 20 dollars. From the evidence produced at the trial, it appeared that the defendant had purchased of the plaintiff and one Mary Crookshanks, as executors, &c. some property, for which he gave to them the note in question. That the defendant afterwards paid the amount of the note to Mary Crook-shanks, and took her receipt in full; but the note being in the hands of Todd, the other payee, was not given up ; and on his refusal to deliver it, the defendant in error brought his action against him before the justice. It was objected on the part of the defendant below, that the plaintiff had no property in the note sufficient to support an action, it being of no value after it was paid ; but the justice overruled the objection, and gave judgment for 25 dollars damages.
    
      Crary, for the plaintiff in error.
    Skinner, contra.
   Per Curiam.

There was no foundation for the action below. After the note was paid, and a receipt in full given, by one of the payees, it was completely discharged, so as to be of no value. The note did not belong to the plaintiff, and it might be useful to Todd, the other payee, who was a co-executor, to show that he had not received the money. An action of trover will lie for a note in the hands of a third person ; but such an action as this was never before brought.

Judgment reversed.  