BANK Ov SHERMAN v., APEBRSON. 29 �"$1,500. Memphis, Tenîî., June 7, 1875. �"On the fourteenth February, 1876, we promise tp pay to Col. E. P. Gregg, the administrator de bonis non of the estate of James L. Goree, deceased, the sum of $1,500, for value received, being for a part of the third payment on the Goree plantation purchased of said Gregg, as per agreement of the fourteenth February, 1&74, E. M. Appeeson & Co." �It will be observed that the note does not contain the worda "ororder," "or bearer," "orassigns," or any equivalent words of negotiability. It is now said that this omission / destroys the negotiability of this note, and that it cannot be sued upon in the name ot the indorsee. This latter objection, as to the fonn of the suit, should have been taken by demurrer or plea in abatement. But even if so taken it would be untenable under our statutes. Whether negotiable or not, the note is assignable, and may be sued on in the name of the assignee. T. & S. Code, § 1967, and notes; Wolfy. Tyler, 1 Heisk. 313. Nor is it a jurisdictional question in this court, for the plead- ings show that a suit might hare been prosecuted in this court if no assignment had been made, Gregg, the payee, being a citizen of another state. Wherefore, the jurisdiction does not depend upon the commercial character of the paper. Act March 3, 1875, (18 U. S. St. 470.) �If we consult the authorities immediately preceding and subsequent to the statute of 3 & 4 Anne, c, 9, citedin Muir V. Jenkins, 2 Cranch C. C. 18, and elsewhere, by the text writers and annotators, it will be discovered, I think, that there has been mueh confusion of opinion as to the precise effect of that statute on notes omitting the words "or order," usually inserted to give the note negotiability, with the gen- erai resuit that these or other special words were not essen- tial, if from the words aetually used an intention to issue negotiable paper were manifested. If, under that statute, and solely by force of it, a note not containing these or equiv- alent words could be declared upon in the same manner as a bill of exchange, according to the custom of merchants, was entitled to grace, and would support a contraet of indorsement, it does not seem satisfactory to hold that the note is not oth- erwise fuUy negotiable. And it will be seen that the judieial ����
