
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    DEC. 1811.
    Anderson v. Warnock.
    A bond not being assignable under the A. A. 1798, is no sufficient objection to its being a subject of discount, where a note was the consideration of the assignment of the bond.
    Motion for a new trial. Assumpsit, brought in Pendleton district. Tried before Bay, J.
    The evidence reported was to this effect: The plaintiff gave his bond to one R. A., conditioned to make titles to a certain tract of land, in a penal sum, which bond R. A. assigned to the defendant, with the plaintiff’s consent. The debt due the plaintiff by R. A. was discharged by a note of hand of the defendant to the plaintiff, for the sum agreed to be paid for the land by R. A. The plaintiff accepted the defendant’s note instead, of in satisfaction of, the debt or promise of R. A. This action was on the note given by the defendant on that occasion. The defendant gave notice of a discount on the score of a deficiency of quantity in the land ; and also, that the plaintiff had not made the defendant airy title according to the bond. This discount was objected to at the trial, and the judge held that it was inadmissible.
    
      Note. See 3 T. R. 106. 1 T. R. 507, 621. 1 Esp. R, 222. 1 Bay, 432. 2 H. B. R. 440. The court will take notice of trusts in set offs. See the case of Marsh and Dabney v. Muir and Boyd, in the Court of Appeals in Charleston, May, 1802. (1 vol. 134.)
   Curia.

The bond not being assignable under the A. A. 1798, so as to enable the assignee to bring an action in his own name, as assignee, subject to all the equity, &c., is no sufficient objection to its being a subject of discount, as the note was the consideration of the assignment of the bond. The contract was one relating to the assignment, and the promissory note, and between the same ■parties.

Motion granted.  