
    Duke Goodman vs. George Parish.
    P. gave G. an order to permit B. to have goods on credit, and he P. would be accountable. E. got goods of G. and gave him his note for them; upon an action by G. against P. for the price of these goods, the court held that G. was bound to prove that the note given him by E. had neverbeen negotiated or paid.
    THIS was an action to recover the amount of an account for goods furnished by the plaintiff to Benjamin? Eobeins.
    
    An order or note addressed by the defendant to the plain* tiff in the following words was produced, viz :
    
    
      “Mr. Duke Goodman,
    
    Should Benjamin Eobeins want any goods, on a credit, you will please let him have them, and I will be accountable.
    Roger Parish.5*
    The plaintiff’s book of entries was produced, in which the following entries were made — “Benjamin Eobeins, dr. guaranteed by E. Parish — to goods, ” &e.
    
      Benjamin Eobeins was credited on the date of the eiy tries with a. note for the full amount of the goods.
    The note was not produced and not accounted for.
    A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff
    A motion was now made for a new trial.
   Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the court;

The goods were furnished on the credit of the defendant, who was to pay for them if Eobeins failed to do so : When the goods were delivered to Eobeins, his note was taken for the amount, no doubt to facilitate payment. It was negotiable and might be passed away by the plaintiff. It was a liquidation of the account, and might be more ea~sily recovered at law, in the district in which the defendant lived, than an open account; although the note cannot be regarded as satisfaction for the debt; yet in as much as it was negotiable, the plaintiff may have passed it away, and the nóte since been, in fact, paid by Robeins. If this note has been ¡>aid, ..he plain tiff ought not to recover, for his debt has been satisfied ; and whether it has, or has not been paid, must he best known to him.

Miller, for the motion.

Levy cj- licrVilllc, contra. ,

The motion for a new trial must prevail.

Justices Johnson, Colcock, Nott and Richardson, concurred.  