HODGES v. CLINTON

Taylor, for the defendant, argued that no decision upon the 3d 4th Anne, 9, to which our act of 1762 was in analogy, was to be found, that gave negotiability to notes, except they were for the payment of money alone. Besides the many cases establishing the doctrine, that even notes payable in money are not negotiable, if they are contingent, the case of the East India bond is in point with the present. Moore v. Venlute. And if anything else is promised besides the payment of money, the note is not negotiable. 1 Sharp., 629. The design of the act, which was to give to notes a circulation equally beneficial to commerce with bills of exchange, would be frustrated by a contrary decision. Judgment for the defendant. NOTE. — See Jamieson v. Farr, 2 N.C. 182, and the cases referred to in the note, and also the case of Alexander v. Oakes, 2 Dev. Bat. Rep., 513. (54)