VIOLETT v. PATTON, 5 Cranch 142

February 23. Marshall, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the eourt as foilo.ws: This case comes on upon two exceptions j one to the opinion of the circuit court given to the jury, and the other to the relusai of that court to give an opinion which Vvas prayedby the counsel for the defendant below. The declaration contains two counts. One upon the endorsement of a promissory note, and the other for money had and received to the plaintiff’s use.

The question , arising, on the first bill of exceptions is, whether the court erred in directing the jury respecting the liability of the defendant below, on the endorsement which was. the foundation of the action..

The endorsement was made before. tne note was written; andfit appeared that the body of the note was filled up by Patton., The opinion of the court was, that, if the jury should be satisfied, from the testimony, that Violett endorsed this . paper for the purpose of giving Brooke a credit with Patton, and that, upon the faith of the note so drawn and endorsed, Patton did credit Brooke' to the amount thereof, the circumstances, that the note was made subsequent to the endorsement, without any consideration from Brooke to Violett, and was filled up by the plaintiff, did not bar the actionand, further, that the said Brooke was to be considered as authorized by the said Violett to make the note to Patton.

This opinion is said to be erroneous; because, 1. The endorsement was made without consideration. . 2. It was made on a blank paper. 3. There was no memorandum of the agreement in writing. In support of the first point, the counsex ior the plaintiff in error have cited several cases, intending to prove that an endorsement made without consideration, though it transfers the paper to the endorsee, creates no liability in the endorser'; and that a promise in writing, made yrithout consideration, is void.

So far as respects the, immediate parties having knowledge of the fact, and so far as relates to an endorsement under the statute of Virginia, this is correct; but the real question in the cause is, does the testimony prove a sufficient consideration for the promise created by the endorsement ? This is not intended to comprehend any writing on-which an action of debt is given. To constitute a consideration it is not absolutely necessary that a benefit should accrue to the person making the promise.

It is sufficient that something valuable flows from the person to whom it is made; and that -the promise is the inducement to the transaction. In the common case Of a letter of credit given by A. to B., the person who, on the faith of that letter, trusts B., is admitted to have his remedy against A., although no benefit accrued to A. as the consideration of his promise; So in the present case, Patton trusted Brooke on the credit of Violett’s name, and Violett wrote his name for the purpose of giving. Brooke that credit with Patton. It was, :n effect, and in intention, a letter of credit.

The case shows that this was both the intention and .the effect of Violett’s giving his name to Brooke. In conscience, and in substance, then, it is a letter of credit, upon w,hich the money, it was intended to secure, was. advanced; and although in point of form the transaction takes the shape, and was in-: tended to take the shape, of an endorsement, yet, so far as respects consideration, the endorsement has the full operation of an undertaking in 'the form of ■ a' letter of credit. It-is common in Virginia for two persons to join in a promissory note, the one being the principal and the other the security.

Although the whole benefit is^received by the principal, this, contract has never been considered as a nudum pactum with regard to the security. So far as respects consideration, no difference is perceived in the cases. Violett has signed bis name upon this paper, for the purpose of giving Brooke a credit with Patton, and his signature has obtained that credit. The consideration is precisely the same, whether his name be on the back or the face of the paper. 2. The second objection is, that the endorsement preceded the making of the note.

This objection certainly comes with a very bad gVace from the mouth of Violett. . He endorsed the paper with the intent that the promissory note should be written on the other side; and that he should be . considered as the endorsor of that note. It was the shape he intended to give the transaction; and he is now concluded from saying or proving that it was not filled up when he endorsed it. It would be to-protect himself froihi the effect of his promise, by alleging a fraudulent combination between himself and another to obtain money for that other from a third person. The case' of.

Russel and Langstaffe, reported in Douglass, is conclusive on this point. 3. The third objection is, that there was no memorandum of the agreement in writing. The argument on this point is founded on the idea that the statute of frauds in Virginia is copied literally from the statute of Charles II. This is not the fact. The first

section of the act of Virginia differs from the 4th sec. of the stat. of Charles II. in one essential respect. ' The statute of England enacts that no action shall be brought, in the cases specified, “ unless the agreement on which such; action shall be brought, or some memorandum or-note. thereof shall be in writing,” &c. The Virginia act enacts that no action shall be brought in the specified cases, “ unless the promise or agreement on which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof shall be in writing,” &c.

The reasoning of the judges, in the cases in which .they have decided that the consideration ought to be in writing, turns upon the word agreement, of .which the consideration forms an integral part. This reasoning does not apply to. the act of Virginia, in which the word "■promise”-is introduced. It was thought proper to notice this difference between the act of parliament, and the act of Virginia, although the opinion of the court is not de» ter mined by it. In this 'case the assignment does express a consideration. It is made for value received.

It is unnecessary to decide in this case, whether the declaration ought to have alleged that the endorsement was made on consideration. With that question the jury had no concern, and the direction of the court was not affected by it. There being no demurrer, it could only’occur in arrest of judgment. But on a motion in arrest of judgment, the defendant below could not have ávailed himself of this error, if it be one, because there are two counts in the declaration, one of which is unquestionably good, and the court cannot perceive on which the verdict was rendered.

By tire act of. jeofails in Virginia, there is no error if any one. count will support the judgment. The second exception is to the refusal of the circuit court to give the opinion, prayed for, by the counsel for the defendant below. When the error alleged is, not that the court has misdirected the jury, but that the court has refused - to give a particular opinion, the opinion demanded must be so perfectly stated, that it becomes the duty ©f the court to give it as stated. . In this case; the opinion required by the counsel consists of two parts.

The first is-to instruct the jury “that if they shall be satisfied, from the evidence, that Richard Brooke,, the maker of. the note in this case, had, at the time the note became due, or at any time previous to the commencement of this suit against the defendant, property .sufficient to pay' the debt claimed,” &c. and the plaintiff brought no suit, then this action is not maintainable. This court conceives, that the circuit, court ought not to have given this opinion.

Had Richard Brooke possessed property before the making of the note, and not afterwards, the opinion, in the terms in which it was required, would have been a direction to find their verdict for the defendant. So if Richard Brooke had been in possession of property for a single day, and had the next, day become insolvent, the court was asked to say that, in such a case, the., endorsor could only be made liable by suit against the maker.

Such a direction, in the opinion of this court, would have been improper, The second branch of the opinion the circuit court was required to give, is in these words : “ Or if the jury shall be-satisfied that the said plamtiff and the said Brooke have, since the said note became due, both lived in the county of Fairfax, in Virginia, and have continued to reside in the county of Fair-fax until the beginning of the present, suit, and the plaintiff hath npt brought suit against the said Brooke in Virginia, then the defendant is not liable in this action.” If the plaintiff had. sued Jtlrooke elsewhere than in Virginia, or if Brooke had become insolvent previous to the making of the note, nnd had continued to be so, the opinion of,the court, if given as prayed, would have been, that, still, a suit against the maker Of the note was necessary to give a right of action against the endorsor This is not understood to be the law of Virginia.

It is understood to be the law, that the maker of the note must be sued, if he is solvent, but his insolvency uispenses with the necessity of suing him. It is not known that any decision of the state courts requires that this insolvency should be proved «by taking the oath of an insolvent debtor, nor is it believed that this is the only "admissible testimony of the fact of insolvency. Other testimony may be admitted.

It would therefore have been proper to leave it to the jury to determine whether it was, at any time, in the power of the plaintiff to have made the money due on this note, or any part of it, from the maker by suit; and their verdict ought to have been regulated by the testimony in this respect- Thisopihion was not required. This • coqrt is of opinion that there is no error, <6nd that the judgment is to be affirmed with costs.