Ctacurr Coun, Pmsyylwub DiRri&. *39] dorfed in blank, to Arthur Crammarul, E9` Co. who, liltewife, in- typ!. . `dorfed and difeounted them with their bankers, the ' refent plain- tillia, under the following eireumliances. The delgndants, hav- . ing opened a commercial correfpondence with Arthur (Jrmnmaml U Co. of London, remitted the bill of exchange in quelli0n,to be ‘palii:d to their credit, in their general account with thafe gentle- men. 'I`he bill was noted on the face of it for non-acceptance. It was afterwards, on the 4th of Auguli,1 796, paid in {hott, on ae- couut of Arthur Crammmd E9' Co. with their blank indorfement, ‘to the banking houfe of the plaintiffs; but, on the tgth of the fame month, the amount was carried out to the credit of Arthur! Crammoml U Co. as if it had been then difcounted by the plain- riffs; and it was faid by a witnefs examined under a commillion, that, after this difcount, the money had been duly paid upon the drafts of Arthur Cruvmmnrl U C0. The Counfel jbr the d¢_;‘Pndzmt: {lated, that they propofed to Ihew by evidence, that the bill of exchange was remitted on ac- count of the defendants; and that Arthur Crammmd E9" Co. were in ver great pecuniary embarralfments, at the time of the alled ged difhouut of the bill of exchange, and had foon afterwards ` become bankrupt. From thefe premifes, from the nature of the previous depolit, and, above all, from the dihzonored {late of the?. `bill, when it was depolited and difcounted, (which was enough °" to have prompted an enquiry into the real circutnltances of the cafe) it was intended to argue, that the plaintilfs knew that the bill was, in fait, the property of the defendants; and that the eventual difcount was colourable and eolluiive, for the mere purpofe of recovering the damages, or of fecuring a pre-exifting balance due to the plaintilfs from Arthur Crummaud U Co. who were on the eve of a public failure. 3. T Rep. 80. If the ‘ ‘ plaintiffs did know the fails, they cannot be entitled to any more benefit from the poilbilion of the bills than Arthur Crammmd U Ca. themfelves. ‘ The Counfelfcr tlwplaintyfx (who had, indeed, anticipated the defence in their opening) inlilled, that the general, unrell;ri6ted, nature of the indorfement, had empowered Arthur Cramm zl if Ca. to pafs the bill to whomfoever the pleafed; and that ' whatever might be the imputation on them hbr a breach of truft, i it could not affeél: the plaintiffs, who had paid a valuable conli- deration for the bill ; and who ought not to be charged with col- lulion and fraud upon llrained inferences, and {light prefump- tions. Their knowledge of the tranlinétions between the de- fendants and Arthur Crammarul CS" Ca. has not been proved; and it would be a violation of the molt important commercial principles, of the molt authoritative adjudicarilms, to permit fuch a defence to be made, againlt the claim of an indorfee. '1`he dif- tin€tion between tellriélcd iudorfements, and indorfements . 'which
�
