case BARNESLY against baldwin a note make Payable to a or order on the day of  the drawer marriage be not negotiable within the whether c SC stram stram the  defendant in consideration of a gold watch promise to pay to the plaintiff or  order the sum of eleven pound on the day of his the defendant marriage the  modern er p defendant marry and the plaintiff bring his action on the case and  declare on the statute whether c as for a negotiable note Payable on the  defendant marriage with a averment that the defendant be marry there be a  verdict for the plaintiff and on a motion in arrest of judgement the question  be whether the above note be negotiable within the statute Clayton for the  defendant argue that it be not negotiable within the statute because it be  uncertain in its time of payment and depend upon such a contingency as the  money may never be pay he cite the case of Jocelyn v lacere ld ray fort a that  a bill of exchange require a person to pay seven pound out of a annuity be  hold not good because the fund may not answer it and Jenney modern v earl Mod  ld ray stram a where a bill of exchange to pay money out of a fund belong to  the governor and company of Devonshire miner be hold not good and Pearson v  Garrett Mod skin comb b and smith v boheme Mod pale yellow ray Ent c  Michaelmas term in the first year of George the first that a promissory note  to pay I S forty pound or to surrender the principal be not a good negotiable  note and Appleby v Biddle viner Abr pl d where a promissory note to pay a sum  of money if his brother do not pay it within a month after Michaelmas be hold  to be no good negotiable note so also in the case of morris v lee easter term  in the eleven year of George the first Mod Cas in law and equity Mr Dennison  for the plaintiff argue that the Act do not limit any time for the payment of  note and though this note do original depend upon a contingency yet now that  which is fixed To give back be for the time be actual come and the money  Payable and cite Andrews v franklin stram e which be a bill of exchange to pay  a sum of money when a certain ship or man of war shall be pay off and hold  good the like point in the case of Lewis v Ord Cunningham on bill of exchange  f Trinity term in the eight and nine year of George the second at the sit in  Middlesex by Lord chief justice Hardwicke and this last Mr Dennison cite from  a note of Mr filmer lee chief justice admit that by the statute promissory  note be make of the very same force have the same remedy and be under the same  construction as inland bill and that if a inland bill of exchange Payable on  the day of marriage be not good neither be a promissory note of the like form  make negotiable by this statute there can be no doubt add he but that the  plaintiff have another remedy upon a note of this sort than by declare upon  the statute but then he must prove a valuable consideration which he need not  do upon the statute the word of the Act of parliament in description of note  be in very general term for payment of sum of money and go no far but he be of  opinion that every promissory note must have two essential to bring it within  the statute the one that it must be for payment of money mere the other that  such money must be pay at all event the case cite turn all upon these two  principle the case of smith v boheme be hold not within the statute because it  be not a cash note absolute but be either to pay money or do another act  videlicet surrender the principal and the case of Jocelyn v lacere and Jenney  v earl be not good because be bill of exchange upon fund which may fail they  do not become Payable upon all event so the principal case be by no mean  Payable at all event be upon the day of the defendant marriage which be a Act  entire in his own power modern whether he will make the money Payable or not  and the chief justice say he do not know how to distinguish between this case  and that of Appleby v Biddle viner a where the same exception be take as here  by sergeant Pengelly and there be a rule to show cause but be do not find that  any thing far be do in it that be order Mr Mundy clerk of the rule to see  whether anything far be do who tell he there be not as to the case of Andrews  v franklin stram b I do not find there be any judge modern er p mean in that  and the case of Ord v Lewis be upon the same point but he own he be of a  different opinion to the determination of both those case page chapel and  wright justice be of the same opinion that the principal note be not within  the statute for that nobody will give credit to or accept such note for a cash  note and that it be not in its very nature negotiable for that very reason but  wright justice differ a little from the chief justice as to the essential to a  note within the statute and that there be some event that will not make a note  bad within the statute as a note Payable when a ship shall be pay off be good  for such event be certain enough it be a public thing and depend upon credit  and he say that my Lord chief justice Parker cite the same case and admit the  same thing in the case of Appleby v Biddle lee chief justice incline to be of  the same opinion and say he shall be glad to know whether the case of Andrews  v franklin be ever determine that he now think the pay off of ship be punctual  and very certain but that he do not know whether to pay money at the return of  a ship will be good or not the court however do not give this as their final  opinion but you the last day of the term the court affirm their former  sentiment and lee chief justice express himself again to this effect that the  judgement shall be arrest because it be not a note within the statute for that  the statute as appear by its preamble be make in order to render note  assignable for the encouragement of trade and therefore note respect trade  only be within it and that it be under this consideration that Lord chief  justice Parker in the case of smith v boheme say that the statute only extend  to cash note and to such cash note only by which a immediate benefit or  interest vest in the assignee the case in Mod be like the principal case which  be hold not to fall within the custom of merchant because it be to pay money  upon such a uncertain event can be call trade in the present case the party if  he be to assign will have no debt no benefit no interest in he at the time of  assign and therefore the note can be within the statute and we be now of  opinion that promissory note modern make Payable when a certain ship which be  return shall be pay off be good for the reason my Lord chief justice Parker  give in the case he cite in Appleby v Biddle the judgement be arrest see Evans  v Underwood will Dawkes v Deloraine will black Rep Banbury v Lissett stram  Haydock v Lynch ld ray Robert v peak bar Carlet v Fancourt term Rep a