1780-07-03 (static/transcriptions/1780/07/004.jpg)

1780. 3 Term. [Monday] July 3.

Mr. Brix, Advocate for the Defendants, did not attempt to refute Mr. Tilghman’s legal argument, but said, that the house construction of the Note, as a matter of Fact, was that was meerly a Receipt for money, with a promise that Mr. Middleton should repay in Four Months.
Impey. It is now reduced to a matter of Fact, Mr. Brix, does not contest the Law. I think it is very clear that this is, an Agreement binding on Santiram Sing to pay. And that the Credit was given not to Mr. Middleton alone on his Bond: but to Santiram Sing also on this Note, as Security for Mr. Middleton.
I think, taking the whole Transaction togather, Santiram’s engagement is co-extensive with Mr. Middleton’s, and that Santiram is bound for the Interest, as well as for the Principal. I am of opinion that judgment shall be for the Plaintiff.
Chambers. I am of the same opinion.
/ Hyde