
    Zebley v. Voisin.
    The drawer of a bill may maintain an action thereon against the acceptor, though it has not been endorsed by the payee.
    In error from the District Court of Philadelphia.
    
      April 24. The plaintiffs filed a copy of a bill of exchange, drawn by them in New York “to the order of T. Hunn, cashier of the National Bank,” on defendants, by whom it was accepted. The suggestion of defence was, that the bill had never been endorsed by Hunn. The court gave judgment notwithstanding, and this was the question argued here by
    
      
      Fallon, for plaintiff in error.
    The condition on which the bill is to be payable is not complied with: Chit. on Bills, 156.
    
      Gerard, contra.
    We have the possession of the bill and the ownership until negotiation. In point of fact, the payee’s name was inserted merely for the purposes of collecting through his bank. He cited 2 Pardessus, Dro. Com. s. 349; Mullen v. French, 9 Watts, 96; 2 Dall. 144; 2 Bro. P. C. 43; Story on Prom. Notes, s. 246, 452, n. 1; 2 Wheat. 76, n.; 3 Wheat. 172; 2 How. 711; 1 Sum. 478; 1 Paine, 156; 4 Metc. 343; 13 Conn. 412; 6 Cow. 449, 455; 1 Gill & Johns. 175; 1 Denio, 367.
    
      April 29.
   Coulter, J.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed. The suggestion and affidavit of defence disclosed no legal obstruction to the rendition of the judgment. It was a naked technicality as to the form of the suit, without any tinge of substance or justice. In any aspect of the case, the plaintiff below was the equitable plaintiff, and could have sustained the suit in the name of Hunn for his use. But, under the circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in ruling that Voisin & Co. could maintain the suit in their own name, and were, in fact and law, the legal plaintiffs.

Judgment affirmed.  