
    DOANE vs. DUNLAP.
    It is not necessary to aver in a declaration on a note, that, the note was delivered to the payee,
    Assumpsit. The plaintiff declared, “ for that, whereas, the said Andrew, on the 12th day of August, 1816, at &c. made his certain promissory note in writing, bearing date the day and year aforesaid, and thereby then and there promised to pay said H. D. or order, sixty days after date of said nore, at the Farmer’s and Mechanic’s Bank, 117 dollars without defalcation, value received; by means whereof the said Andrew then and there became liable,” &c.
    General Demurrer and joinder.
    Goodenow, for the, plaintiff,
    cited 7th D. and E. 596 — 5th East 476 — and Chitty on bills, Boston edition of 1809, page 345, appendix.
    'Wright, contra, for defendant.
   President.

The objection to this declaration is, that it does not aver that the note was delivered to the payee. The cases cited shew that such averment is unnecessary. In cases of this kind, the plaintiff is never put to prove how he came into possession of the note: why then should he be held to aver it ? Judgment for the plaintiff.  