1778-03-30 (static/transcriptions/1778/03/051.jpg)

1778. Sittings. [Monday] March 30.

whose name is in the Note, though it should be proved he had no real interest in it. And this we had determined particularly on the case of a Bill of Exchange payable to A for the use of determined in Shower, about page 8, to be the property of A and not of B, which was a stronger case being determined against the claim of the King: And I said I thought we had so far complied with the very general Practice in this Country of using the names of other Persons in meer Personal Demands that in many cases the Plaintiff had recover’d on notes not in his own name, but in some other name, giving in Evidence that the transaction was really his, such for instance as that the money lent was his, and that he took the Bond in the name of the other. But, I said, that we could not allow it to be both ways in the case of a dispute of Land: without directly contradicting those former resolutions of the Court.

I directed a Non-Suit. Afterward Chambers came and I stated the case aloud to him and he agreed the Non-Suit was right. Several other small causes were tried.