
    
      Joel Tucker vs. John English.
    
    1. If A make a single bond or bill, under seal, payable to B or order, on the back of which C writes his name, C does not thereby become liable to B, as maker of a note of hand.
    
      Before O’Neall, J. Richland, Spring Term, 1844.
    In this case, the plaintiff attempted to charge the de-fendant, as maker of a promissory note, under the following circumstances.
    A third person made a single bond, or bill, under seal, payable to the plaintiff, or order. The defendant wrote his name on the back of it. The presiding Judge was of opinion, that this did not make the defendant the maker of a note of hand. For the paper on which he wrote his name Was not a note. It was a bond without condition, and is therefore called a single bill — and if the defendant’s name'on the back of it had anv legal effect, it could only be as the drawer of a bill of exchange, by appointing the bond to be paid to another. But lie could not be considered as promising to pay the contents, according to the tenor and effect. For in law, the instrument was not regarded as a promise, but as an obligation to pay. The motion for non-suit was granted;
    The plaintiff appealed, on the following ground.
    Because his Honor, Judge O’Neall, erred in law, in deciding that the defendant, whose name was on the back of the note under seal, which was made payable to plaintiff or order, was not liable to pay the sum therein stated, in an action of assumpsit; as drawer or maker of said note.
    
      Tradewelt & Bryce, for the motion. Black, contra.
   Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

This court concurs in the judgment below, and is satisfied with the reasons given by the Circuit Judge. The motion is dismissed.

Richardson, Evans, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred;  