
    Reed versus Ingraham.
    THIS was an aftion brought by the aifignee of a ftocfc contract, to recover the amount of the difference, due on the Contraft, which was expreffed in thefe words : “ On the i8tH “ of April 1792,1 promife to receive from Jofepb Beggs, or or- ■ ⅛ der, Ten thoufand dollars, fix per cents, and pay him for the “ fame; at the rate of 23 ihillings and 7 pence 3-4 per pound: (Signed) Francis Ingraham.”
    
    The aflignment was ipdorfed in thefe words:
    “ I do hereby authorife William Reed, or his Order, to tender “ or deliver the flock within mentioned, and the faid William “ Reed, or his order, to receive for the fame, the fums of money ⅛ due and payable therefor, at the rates within expreffed:
    
      April 7. 1792; (Signed) J°feP^ Boggs.”
    
    The Plaintiff gave notice of the. aflignment to the Defendant, a ihort time before the day fixed for executing the contraft; and, it was. admitted, that the flock was tendered in due form: But die defence,on the trial, turned upon the queftion,—whether the flock contraft was negotiable, fo as to enable the aifignee to bring an aftion in his own name ? For,-the Defendant in-fifted that Boggs was indebted to him; and that he ought not to be precluded from the befiefit of a fet-off, by the form of the prefent fuit. It appeared, however, that the debt referred to, árofe from a note, which the Defendant had endorfed to accom-inodate Boggs', biit which had not been paid;nor had it, indeed, become due for a long time after this aftion was commenced: And feveral experienced brokers proved, that flock contrafts, of the prefent defcription; had always been confidered as aflignable in Philadelphia, vefting the intereft completely in the af~ fignées; and authorizing them, in cafes of default, to proceed iri their own names againft the defaulters.
   By the Court

The action is well brought, as it is founded on a contraft, in which the Defendant exprefsly ftipu-fetes, that he will receive the flock from, and pav the price to, Jofepb Boggs, or bis order. On general principles of taw, nock contraéis cannot be regarded as negotiable; but a con-tralor may certainly make himfelf liable as if they werefo i and the maxim, modus et conventio vincunt leges, applies forcibly to the cafe;

With refpeft to the alledged inconvenience, that in the pre-fent form of a ¿lion the Defendant is debarred from the benefit of a fet-off, it would be enough to anfwer, that as this is the confequence of his own a<ft and agreement, he has no reafonable caufe of complaint; But it is alfo obvious, that when the contract was aifigned, and the prefent a£tion was inftituted,. there did not exift between him and Boggs any mutual debt, or demand, which could be the fubj e£t of defalcation, upon the principles of the a£i of Affembly.

VeRdict for the Plaintiff,  