
    Buck and another against Nicholas.
    Prim-to the Act otthe 28th -of March, 1820, it was unnecessary to file a decíaration orstatemerit, before submitting a cause to arbitration; but if ‘thought pll per to file one, and it set forth do cause of action, he could
    call himself, on the i coord, the indorsee a single bill, it is not error.
    In ERROR.
    ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster COUtlty.
    The pracipe, in pursuance of which this action was insti- , . tuted, ran thus :
    « Ann Nicholas, indorsee of Jacob Steigleman,
    
    V.
    
      pefer Puck and Christian Rhorer..
    Issue capias. — Debt on single bill, not exceeding one hundred and fifty-seven dollars.
    “ Said note is dated the 6th of November, 1815, payable three months after date, without defalcation.
    
      k 25th Nov. 1816. — Endorsed paid thereon 20 dollars,
    
      .. , _ A IS th Leh. 181/. Do. , /dollars,
    (No bail required.)”
    A rule of arbitration was taken out by the plaintiff, in whose favour the arbitrators made an award.
    The record was then removed by writ of error to this Court, when Frazer, for the plaintiffs in error, contended, that although, at the time this cause was arbitrated, no declaration or statement was required, yet, as the plaintiff below had thou ght proper to file one, he must abide by it; and if it set forth no cause of action, the judgment was erroneous. The statement on record, he argued, was insufficient. The instrument, on which the suit was brought, being a single bill, not negotiable by indorsement, the plaintiff ought not to have been described as indorsee; besides which it was not stated, to whom the single bill was payable.
    Norris, contra,
    denied that the instrument was a specialty. It was called in one place a single bill, and in another a note. It was too late, he said, to object now. The suit had been submitted to arbitrators, and as there was no necessity for a declaration or statement prior to the Act of the 28th of March, 1820, it was immaterial what the instrument was called, or whether or not it was correctly set forth.
   By the Court.

.There was no need, in this case, of statement or declaration. Nevertheless, if the plaintiff thought proper to make a statement, and did make one, by which it appeared that he had no cause of action, he cannot recover. But that is not the case. The objection is, that the plaintiff calls himself the indorsee of a single bill. But this is not an express averment that the action was founded on a specialty or sealed bill, especially as it is said, that the note was dated the 6th of November, 1815. The word note is not usually applied to sealed bills. But even if it had been a specialty, it is assignable by Act of Assembly, and the indorsee may be understood the assignee, and so we should certainly understand it, rather than reverse this judgment. It is the opinion of the Court, therefore, that the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  