
    COURT OF APPEALS, JUNE TERM.» 1820.
    Hudson vs. Goodwin.
    0íIfalhprómfeory ”ame^hisa¡ñdoneZrfwrfc'il íót ’ Vwimk ment must be filled up before veidiet, or the judgoa wiil
    Appeal from Harford county court. It was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellee, as indorsee of a proxnissory note, against the appellant, as maker. The declaration contained two counts, one upon the note, stating • ' _ *' it to have been made by the appellant on the 18th of March J 1813, and that he thereby, 9,0 days after date, promised to pay John E. Dorsey, or order, 8760, for value received; that Dorsey endorsed it -to William MiMechen, who endorsed it to the appellee. The other count was for money had and received. The general issue was pleaded; and at the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the following promissory note, to wit:
    “Baltimore, March 18, 18.13.
    “8760,
    Ninety days after date I promise to pay Mr. Jno.. E. Dorsey, or order, seven hundred and sixty dollars, for value received. (Signed,) Jno. Hudson.'” And thus endorsed, “Jno. E. Dorsey, W. M}Mechen, Caleb D. Goodwin.”
    
    And gave evidence of the hand writing of Hudson, the drawer, and Dorsey and MlMechen, the endorsors; and that John Edward Dorsey, one of the endorsors of the note, usually signs his name John E. Dorsey, and is usually so called; and that the said endorsement is according to the usage and custom of merchants in such cases used and approved of. The defendant objected, that the plaintiff had not set out the full and true name of John Edward Dorsey as an endorsor, and prayed the opinion of the conrt, and their direction to the jury, that the plaintiff was not eutitled to recover in this action. . The court, [Hanson and Ward, A. J.] refused the prayer. The defendant excepted, and the verdict and judgment being against him, he prosecuted this appeal.
    The case was argued in this court before Buchanan, Earle and Johnson, J. by
    
      JR. Johnson, for the appellant, and
    
      Scott, Winder and Pinlmey, for the appellee.
    The counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Ping-gold vs. Tyson, decided in this courtat:Decemberterm,1810. Chitty on Bills,. 148. Theed vs. Loped, 2 Sira. 1103. Lambert vs. Oakes, 1 Ld. Paym. 443. More vs. Manning. 1 Com. Rep. 3111; and Edievs. The East India Company, 2 Burr. 1227,
    
    The appellee’s counsel referred to Chitty on Bills 147, 8. Wilkinson vs. Nicklin, 2 Ball. 398. Peacock vs. Rhodes, % Doug. 636. Neivson vs. Thornton, 6 East, 21- (notej and Dugan vs. The United States, 3 Wheat. 182'. '
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Buchanan, J.

There is nothing in the objection, that the name of JohnEdwarcl Dorsey is not sufficiently set out. But the endorsement on the note, on which the suit was brought, appears to be in blank; and though the plaintiff might have "filled it up at any time before verdict, yet not having done so, he is not entitled to recover. There is nor distinction between this and the case of Ringgold vs. Tyson, decided by this court at December term, 1810, and we see nothing to shake the authority of that case.

JUDGMENT REVERSED,  