Martin, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant resists the plaintiff’s action on a promissory note, by a denial of his right to sue, and on an allegation, that he had a claim on a commercial firm, of which the plaintiff was a member, for the amount of a note, which he had given for collection, and which was unaccounted for. He contends the amount of this note must be allowed, in compensation of the note sued on. The plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant appealed.

The holder of a promissory note, payable to order, and endorsed in blank by the payee, is entitled to recover on it; it being in the nature of a note payable to bearer. A claim on a commercial firm cannot be pleaded in compensation or setoff to a demand by one of the partners ag'ainst the defendant. In support of the first ground of defence relied on, the defendant refers to the blank endorsement, made by the plaintiff, as attorney in fact of Morgan, and to the record of a suit brought by Morgan, on the note now sued on. The note was endorsed in blank, by Armor the payee.

It is therefore clear, the plaintiff being the holder of the note thus endorsed, may sue for and claim its amount, as that of a note payable to bearer, and claim under the first endorser, who is the payee of the note. ■ His subsequent blank endorsement, could have no other effect, than to authorise the holder to fill it up as he pleased, or treat the note as one payable to bearer.

Banks require the blank endorsement of those who offer notes for discount, or which are deposited therein for collection; and it never was pretended, that such an endorsement was evidence of a transfer of property in the note, until it was delivered, or the endorsement filled up. The record of the suit brought by Morgan, shows that that suit was dismissed. There is, therefore, nothing in what is offered to prevent the present plaintiff from urging his possession of the note, with a blank endorsement, as evidence of his right of action thereon. The other means of defence, cannot avail the defendant.

He cannot urge a claim, on a firm of which the plaintiff was a member, in defence of the individual claim of the latter; because a claim on a firm, cannot be offered in compensation of that of one of its members. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.