
    Woods, et al. vs. Schroeder.
    to^eaw°kpShv íeire? aue on S as oían inland bill of exchange, and is etui-tied to recover in an and for money lent ,s>,nd advanced,
    Appeal from Baltimore County Court. Jlssumpsit on bill of exchange payable to bearer, and for money lent and advanced. The general issue was pleaded. ° r
    The following case was stated and submitted to the court, viz. It is admitted that the check mentioned mthe declaration, and herewith exhibid, to wit:
    
      “No. 283. Baltimore., 5th May, 1813. Cashier of the Mechanics’ Bank of Baltimore, pay to No. 283, or bearer, twenty three hundred sixty-four dpi-lars and eighty-two cents.
    
      Wm. Woods & Son.”
    2364 dolls. 82 cts.
    Was given by the defendants, (now appellants,) and which is under the partnership signature, to a certain Cas-per Otto Muller, who on the day of the delivery thereof passed the same to the plaintiff, (the appellee,) for a valuable consideration. That Mullet, in consideration of the delivery of the said check to him by the defendants, gave to them in exchange his own check for the sum of 82124 82 cents, and that he paid them the balance in the following manner, viz. $30 in cash, and the residue in a check of W'ightman Sf Schade, for the sum of $210, which was paid to the defendants at maturity. That the plaintiff on the 3th of May 1813, presented the said check of the defendants for the said sum of <j?2364 82 cents, to Dermis Jl. Smith, the cashier of the Mechanics’Bank for payment, which was refused, because the defendants had no funds it$ bank; and also because the defendants had given directions to the said cashier not to honour the said check, of which non-payment the plaintiff duly notified the defendants. That the check of Casper Otto Muller for $2124 82 cents, so given in exchange to the defendants as above stated, was not paid by Muller at maturity. The county court gave judgment upon thp statement of facts for the plaintiff; and the defendants appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Buchanan, Johnson, and Dorsey, J.
    Harper, for the Appellants,
    contended, 1. That there was no privity between them and the appellee on which an action could be founded.
    2. That this check was not a negotiable paper which could pass by endorsement, arid was not endorsed.
    3. That it cannot be likened to an inland bill of exchange, drawn by the appellants on the bank in favour of Muller; but is a paper of altogether a different character, peculiar to the intercourse between banks and their customers; and
    4. That if it could be assimilated to an inland bjll of exchange, it could not pass without endorsement, and is not endorsed.
    
      J}. H, Boyd, for the. Appellee.
    The check on which the suit ts founded, was pa} able to bearer, and was passed te the appellee for full consideration, and without any notice of an objection to the payment of it by the appellants. Jjf is contended by appellee, on what he believes to be the established principles of law,
    
      l. That a check payable to bearer passes by delivery.
    
      2. That the bearer may sue on it as on an inland bill of exchange, and is entitled to recover in this form of action.
    He cited Chiltyon Bills,S39, 340. Boehmevs. Sterling, 7 T. R. 423. Cruger vs. Armstrong, 3 Johns. Cas. 5. Grant vs. Vaughan, 3 Burr. ¡516. Bin toil's case, J Shower's Rep. 235.
   JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,  