OWEN V. ARRINGTON. VOL. 17 2d. The legal interest in the cause of action is not in the plaintiff's. 3d. The legal title to the promissory note, is not in the plaintiffs. 4th. The legal interest in the cause of action is in one B. C. Adams, and not in plaintiffs. 5th. Payment in full to plaintiff before the commencement of this suit. 530*] WEN 6th. Payment to Robins, Arrington & Co., while they were in possession, V. and the owners of the note sued on, ARRINGTON & CO. and before it came to the hands of the The court will not reverse a judgment, for the plaintiffs. failure of the record to state that a motion, in the At a subsequent term, it appears that court below, to set aside the judement, had been the court refused the motion of the de-disposed of; but will presume in favor of the reg-fendant below for a continuance, ularity of the proceedings of the circuit court, that the motion had been abandoned. and imMediately following the entry The blank endorsement and delivery 'of a prom.- thereof, the record proceeds: "And the issary note,' constitute such a transfer of the inter-said defendant, Ezra M. Owen, saying est in the paper as to vest in the transferee the nothing further in bar or preclusion of right of acti,n and recovery. (Worthington v. Curd & Co., 15 Ark. 503.) the said plaintiff's action; and it ap-Independent of the ordinary presumption, in fa-pearing to the court that said action is vor of the regularity of the proceedings of the circuit founded on a promissory note, execu-court, this court will presume that the cause was ted by the defendants, payable to the regula rly tried by the court on all the issues—being issues of fact—though not so stated of record, order of John Ford, at the office of where the judgment recites a finding by the court Robins, Arrington & Co., No. 19, Bank of all the facts necessary to sustain the judgment. Place, New Orleans, for the sum of Error to Union Circuit Court. seven hundred and six dollars and ninety cents, due on the first day of ON. THOMAS HUBBARD, Cir- H March, 1851, and dated November 6th, cuit Judge. 1850. And it appearing to the court, Carleton, for defendants. that said note is entitled to credits, Quillin and Watkins& Gallagher, amounting to the sum of two hundred for and two dollars and sixty-two cents, and one for the sum of forty dollars. SCOTT, J. This was an action of as-Which said note is endorsed by John sumpsit, in the Union circuit court Ford. And it appearing further to the upon a promissory note for $706 90, pay-court, that the said plaintiff's have sus-able the 1st March, 1851, to the order of tained damage by reason of the non-John Ford, at the office of Robins, Ar-performance of the said defendant's rington & Co., No. 19 Bank Place, New promises, in the sum of six hundred Orleans, which was endorsed in and sixty dollars and fifty-four cents, blank by Ford, and at maturity was at and the plaintiff§ discontinuing this the instance of B. C. Adams, the then suit, as to the said defendant, John V. holder, protested for non-payment. Arrington, who is not served with pro-The defendant filed . six pleas, on cess herein. Therefore, it is by the which the plaintiff took issue in short court considered that the said plaint-upon the record, by consent, to-wit: iffs, Nicholas 0. Arrington, and Robert 5311 *1st. Non assumpsit. Arrington, late partners in trade, and
JAN. TERM, 1856. doing business in the firm name of N. examination of the transcript, will be 0. Arrington & Co., do have, and re-found, upon a more thorough one, to cover of, and from the said de-be equally untenable. Because, inde-53241 ] "fendant, Ezra M. Owen, the pendent of the ordinary presumption aforesaid sum of six hundred and sixty in favor of the regularity of a judg-dollars and fifty-four cents, besides all ment, in the absence of matters in the their costs herein expended." record to the contrary, it is apparent Afterwards, during the term, the de-upon the face of this one, in what is fendant below filed a motion and an stated to have been made to appear affidavit in support of it, to set aside "to the court, that the cause was r533 the judgment already entered. It does regularly tried by the court, under the not appear, from the transcript, that provisions of our statute, neither party any action, whatever, was taken in the requiring a jury, although not so stated premises, nor is there any exceptions in terms. in the record in reference thereto. Finding no error in the record suf-It is insisted, that this latter is suffi-ficient to authorize its reversal, the cient for the reversal of this judgment. judgment will be affirmed, with costs. We do not think so. Because, it is incumbent upon the party complaining of error, to show that. it has been committed by the court. This has not been done as to this point. In the absence of something in the record to the contrary, we are authorized to presume in favor of the regularity of the proceedings, that the motion was abandoned. It is next insisted, that it ought to appear, in order that the judgment shall be sustained, that the blank en dorsement had been filled up previously to its rendition. That point was considered in the case of Worthington v. Curd & Co., 15 Ark. 508; and, upon the weight of authority held, that according to the commercial law (which we there applied to a writing obligatory, payable in property, as to its transfer): "The blank endorsement and delivery of the instrument, constitute such a transfer of the interests in the paper, as to vest, in the transferee, the right of action and recovery." The same rule had been several times before applied in this court to bonds and notes, payable in money absolutely, as will be seen from the cases there cited. The remaining position, that softie of the issues were not disposed of, although somewhat plausible on a slight
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.