
    Holmes against Hooper.
    negotiability-but if after a subsequent indorser mates order, he shall tbe lmlsubse° ser?"* mdor’ The payee of a negotiable note may re-
    CASE on an indorsed note by indorsee, against indorser.
    Ford, for this plaintiff,
    produced, in evidence, a negotiable note band from Patrick Carnes, deceased, dated the 18th December, 1785, payable to Fohn Walker, for/-, . on 1st January, 1787. On the back of this note, Walker made a transfer' of' his right, and gave the defendant, HooPeri a power to sue in his name, and to appropriate the money to his own use, when recovered; but did not make it payable to order. After Hooper got this note, he negotiated it to plaintiff, and made \tpayable to order.
    
    
      Hunt, for defendant,
    produced a receipt in full from Holmes to him, up to 18th August, 1788, and then took two grounds of defence: First, that the negotiability of this note was restrained by the original payee; and secondly, that supposing it was not, the receipt in full was a bar to the action.
   Bay, J.

Although the original payee of a negotiable note may restrain its negotiability, yet a subsequent indorser may give it currency and negotiability from him, and then the negotiable quality of it recommences; for every in-dorsement is in nature of a new bill, and the indorser may make it negotiable or not, as he pleases. Bay v. Fraser, in this court; and also Salk. 133.

With regard to the second point, it does not appear at what time this note was negotiated to the plaintiff, whether before or after the isth August, 1788 ; besides, it may have been in full for other transactions, of which this note formed no part. It would be dangerous, indeed, were the ¿ourt to suffer a loose receipt of this kind, in which the note was not mentioned, to affect its credit or negotiability.

1/erdict for plaintiff.

Sunt gave notice of a motion he intended to make for a new trial, but afterwards acquiesced in the opinion of the raurt, and never brought it forward»  