
    Rankin against Woodworth.
    An action may be maintained in the name of the holder of a note which is payable to bearer, although it be transferred after it become due.
    ERROR to Warren county.
    This action was by Joseph Woodworth against David Rankin, upon the following note and indorsements:
    “ For value received, I promise to pay to Robert Russel or bearer the sum of 547 dollars 52 cents.
    “ David Rankin.
    “ Connewango, November 14, 1820.”
    Indorsed. “ I assign the within to Jared Woodworth, for his use, for value received.
    “Robert Russel.
    “For the use of Joseph Woodworth. November 29, 1823.
    “Jared Woodworth.”
    The only point of any importance in the cause was, whether the action could be maintained in the name of Joseph Woodworth. The court (Shippen, president) was of opinion that it could, and the plaintiff did recover.
    
      Galbreath and Forward, for plaintiff in error,
    cited, Waters v. Millar, 1 Dall. 369, new ed. 394.
    
      Wallace, whom the court declined to hear, for the defendant in error,
    suggested these cases, 1. Lord Raym. 180; 1 Salk. 125; 1 Ves. 343.
   Per Curiam.

The point relied on is that an action can not be maintained by the holder of a negotiated note simply payable to bearer. We find the practice to be otherwise in Philadelphia; and it would be strange if it were not, as those parts of the statute of Anne which are applicable to the subject, are in as full force here as in England. We therefore see no error in any part of the record.

Judgment affirmed.  