1788.
can it be alledged, that no injury has been fuftained, fince in the courfe of things, all the prior indorfors might have failed.
Upon the whole, we think the ftrength of the evidence is againft the Plaintiffs ; and if the Jury are of the fame opinion, they will find a verdict accordingly. But if, on the contrary, they are fatisfied with the reafons given for not making an earlier demand, they will find for them.
The opinion of the Court being fo unfavorable to the Plaintiffs, they voluntarily fuffered a nonfuit, when the Jury were at the bar ready to return their verdict.
In the courfe of the Trial, the Plaintiffs offered John Pringle, (their immediate preceeding indorfor) as a witnefs ; and, in order to do away his intereft in the action, they propofed ftriking his name off the firʃt and third bills of the fet ; which were the only bills in their poffeffion, the ʃecond, on which the proteft was made, being, as they alledged, loft in its paffage from England to America.
It was objected by the Defendant, that Pringle's nae would ftill remain upon the ʃecond bill (which, for any thing that appeared to the contrary, might be in the hands of a third perfon) and on the records of the notary, who made the proteft ; fo that he could not be effectually difcharged in the way propofed.
To this, the Plaintiffs counfel replied, that, where there are feveral fecurities for the fame thing, a difcharge of one is a difcharge of the whole; and they inftanced the cafe of a captain of a fhip, who ufually figns three bills of lading, of the fame tenor and date.
But, by the court : In that cafe, if the captain take a receipt, he would certainly be difcharged. In the inftance before us, however, the ʃecond bill may be in the poffeffion of a bona ƒide purchafer, who will be entitled to fue Pringle upon it, notwithftanding any act of the Plaintiffs on this occafion. We are of opinion, that Pringle is clearly interefted in the caufe, and, therefore, inadmiffible as a winefs.
It was fuggefted, that if the Plaintiffs executed releafe to Pringle, he might be made a witnefs ; but Ingerʃoll, doubting whether a releafe to one indorfor, would not be a releafe to all, did not chufe to adopt this meafure.
It was alfo ruled, in this caufe, that the cafe in Term Reports, being a determination upon general mercantile law, was of authority here ; and that it would have been fo, if it had been determined in France, Spain, or Holland, as well as in England.
MIFFLIN et al. verʃus BINGHAM.
T
HE Plaintiffs, being difappointed in their evidence, voluntarily fuffered a nonfuit. The following points, however, were refolved in the courfe of the trial, to illuftrate which, it is neceffary to relate the leading circumftances of the cafe.– The Plaintiffs were
