Hopkins v. Kent

Le Grand, C. J., delivered the opinion of this court. That part of the record which is designated as the first exception of the plaintiffs, is without the signature of the judge, having nothing attached to it but a seal. Did the decision of this appeal depend entirely on this part of the record, then there would be no difficulty, under the former decisions of this court, in determining that that portion of the record to which we have referred, does not, of itself, constitute an exception, but the facts therein recited are made part of what is designated as the second exception, and the latter is signed as well as sealed by the judge. We think the recognition by the judge of a first exception, by his signing one referring to the facts as therein stated, as part of the one signed, sufficiently authenticates the first to enable this court to notice the facts therein, mentioned; and this being so, then the question is, whether the declaration be sufficient to enable the plaintiffs to recover under it, it being conceded that one of the notes given in evidence is not accurately described in it?

Of this we have no doubt. Many cases might be cited to show that.. ¹²⁰ on proof of the making and endorsement of a promissory note, an endorsee can recover against the maker on the