Majority
p. 9MANDEVILLE v. THE UNION BANK OF GEORGETOWN. ^&semt....LiviNÜsíí>Ñ, J. Todd, J,> and Story, J.
Syllabus
ERRfiR to the Circuit Court for the district" of Columbia, for the county, of Alexandria, in an action debt, by the Union Bank against Mandeville, upon bis proinissory note to C. I. Nourse, indorsed to the bank.By, making a ^'iteLT'banki the maker auvanee on his credit t0 tl,e note^he ‘expressed on fraud upon the bank tu set up ti,iSsetsnot|mDhí consequence of fjns the parties.
{ On the trial below a special verdict was found which states the following facts: .
On the 15th of January, 1811, Mandeville, then always an inhabitant of the town of Mexandia, (in -the county of Alexandria) for a valuable, consideration madehis promissory note at the said town, payable to C.I. Nourse (or order,) sixty days after date; negotiable at the Union Bank of Georgetown ; payable at the Bank of Totomac, in Alexandria, for 410 51.
The note was delivered to C. I. Nourse, and on the same day indorsed by him, and offered for discount at the Union Bank, where it was regularly discounted for his úse.
On the 30th of the same month, Mandeville being informed that his note had been discounted, made no objection, and said that he had funds to meet it.
The note was not paid when it became due, and was protested for non-payment.
p. 10
On the 16th of the.same month (the day- after the dáte of Mandevilles note) Corles I. Nourse, for a full and valuable consideration, ex cuted and delivered to Mandeville, his note of that date, payable in 60 days for g 400, negotiable at the Rank of Alexandria; payable at the Bank of Columbia, fin Georgetown.),.
On the 30th of the same month, C. I. Nourse became furl her indebted to Mandeville by the acceptance of his oi;der of that date, drawn at sight, and by acceptance made payable on Ike 16th of February following, in favor of C. Page for the use of Mandeville, for 64 dollars— neither of which has been paid. The Union Bánk transacts.its business in Georgetown, in the county of Washington.
On the 2d of February, 1811, Mandeville inserted an advertisement in the Alexandria Gazette, cautioning all pei'sons against receiving assignments of any notes given by him to Nourse,. as he had discounts against them'.
Mandeville, in the . Court below offered to sett-off the note and acceptances of Nojirse, against his own note npon which the suit was brought; but upon the special verdict, the Court below'rendered judgment against him for its whole amount j and he brought his writ of error.
By the laws, of Virginia, in force in the county of Alexandria, the Defendant is allowed to sett-off against the-assignee of a promissory note an> just claim which he had against the original payee before notice of the assignment of the note.
But by the law's of Maryland, in force in the county of Washing! on, a promissory note, payable to order, is subject to the same rules as in England under the statute of Anhe.
On behalf of the Plaintiff in error, it was contended that the note, being made at Alexandria and'to be paid there, vVas to be governed by the law's of Virginia, and that as he held Nourse’s nóte, before he had notice of
p. 11Feb. 9th.
the assignment of his own> he had a right to offset it in ihis suit.
On the other side it was said thaf it was immaterial by which law the note was to be governed ; fur if was made with a view, expressed on its face, to be ed by the Plaintiffs ; whereby the Defendant had w;uv -d any offset to which he might have a right. Besides which, upon being informed that the note was discounted by the Plaintiffs, he did not object, nor insist upon bis sett-off, hut sad he had funds, (meaning funds of Nourse’s) to meet it. By which conduct a so he waived his right to the sett-off.
delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
It is entirely immaterial whether this question be governed by the laws of Virginia or of Maryland' By neither of them can the discounts claimed by the Plaintiff in error be allowed.
By making a note negotiable in bank, the maker authorizes the hank to advance on his credit to the owner of the note the sum expressed on its face.
It would be a fraud on the bank to set up offsets against tins note in consequence of any transactions between the parties. These offsets arevaivd and cannot, after the note has been discounted, be again s t up.
The. judgment is to be affirmed with damages at the rate of 6 percent, per annum.