U.S. Superior Court for the Arkansas Territory; Benjamin Johnson

Summary

U.S. Superior Court for the Arkansas Territory; Benjamin Johnson Bradley v. Trammel (1832)

If the repeated adjudications of the king's bench, enlightened and adorned, as it then was, by the transcendent genius of Chief Justice Holt, were known to be erroneous, and contrary to former precedents, why did not the merchants, always a wealthy class of the community, make a different appeal, and before the lords in parliament, reverse and annul the erroneous judgment of the king's bench?
Source: Wikisource

U.S. Superior Court for the Arkansas Territory; Benjamin Johnson Bradley v. Trammel (1832)

Agriculture may be justly regarded as the great interest upon which the prosperity and happiness of this community mainly depends.
With the statute of Anne before them, our legislature have not thought proper to make promissory notes assignable in like manner with inland bills of exchange. It has thought it consistent with the principles of justice as well as with the dictates of enlightened policy, to permit the maker of a bond or note to set up the same defence against it in the hands of the assignee, that he could make against it in the hands of the obligee or person to whom he gave it.
Source: Wikisource

U.S. Superior Court for the Arkansas Territory; Benjamin Johnson Bradley v. Trammel (1832)

Taking the whole of the acts together, it is manifest, that to enable the assignee to sue in his own name, the bond, bill, or note must be assigned, made over, and indorsed. A bare assignment and making over by delivery, without an indorsement, is not sufficient, because the statute requires the bond or note to be indorsed to enable the assignee to sue in his own name.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature