
    Cooke & Company v. Weightman.
    If a promissory note, payable to A, or order, be indorsed in blank by B and by A, (B’s name being mitten oyer that of A,) the plaintiff has not a right at the trial to fill the blanks by an indorsement from A to B and from B to the plaintiff, there being no evidence that such was the intention of the parties, but the note and blank indorse-ments. Qucere.
    
    Assumpsit by the holder against the indorser of Pancost’s note to Cohagan, or order, indorsed Richard Weightman, John Coha-gan, in blank.
    On the trial, the plaintiffs’ counsel filled up the blank indorse-ments with an assignment from Cohagan, the payee, to Weight-man, and from Weightman to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also offered in evidence, (to show the insolvency of Pancost,) the pro-, ceedings in a suit by the plaintiffs against him, admitted to be on the same note — the declaration in which proceedings stated it to be a note made by Pancost payable to Cohagan, and indorsed by Weightman to Cohagan, and by him to the plaintiffs.
    
      Mr. Swann, for the 'defendant,
    prayed, and the CouRT instructed the jury, that if they should be satisfied by the evidence that the note was indorsed by Cohagan to the plaintiffs, they could not recover against Weightman.
    Cranch, C. J., contra,
    
    because there was no evidence before the jury upon which the prayer could be predicated ; the declaration in suit against Pancost was admitted to be upon the same note; and the note, being produced, does not appear to have been' assigned by Weightman to Cohagan, but by Cohagan to Weight-man, and not by Cohagan to the plaintiffs, but by Weightman to the plaintiffs. The proceedings, therefore, contained no evidence to contradict that arising from the assignments written on the back of the note.
    
      Mr. Taylor, for the plaintiffs,
    then prayed the Court to instruct the jury .that if they should be satisfied, by the evidence, that the indorsements of Cohagan and Weightman were in blank, and intended by the parties to give the plaintiffs the security of both indorsers, and that it was delivered to the plaintiffs, for value received, so indorsed, the plaintiffs had a right to fill up the in-dorsements as they have;' but he offered no other evidence of such intention than the said note and indorsements, the name of Cohagan being written on the back of the note below that of Weightman.
   But the Court

(Cranch, C. J., contra)

refused.

Verdict for the plaintiff.  