delivered the opinion of the court.
A summаry mode of proceeding, authorized by its charter, was instituted by thе Branch Bank of Alabama, in the Circuit Court of the State,-against thе'defendants, below, on a promissory note for three. thousand eight himdred and seventeen dollars fifty cents, dated 31st May, 1841, payаble to B. Gayle, cashier, or order, two hundred and fifteen days after date.
A jury being called and swoin, found a verdict for the plаin- • tiffs, on which judgment was entered. On the trial the defendant exceрted to the opinion of the court, admitting as evidence thе note, protest, &c. A writ of error being prosecuted *282 to the.Supreme Court of Alabama, the judgmеnt of the Circuit Court was affirmed.
In the Supreme . Court the following assignmеnt of errors was made: —
“ 1. That it appears from the recоrd and the mote upon which the suit is founded, and which is made a part of it by the bill of exceptions, that the said promissory note was made payable to B. Gayle, cashier, and that the said note has not been assigned to the said branch bank, nor was it allеged' or proved, as the judgment entry shows, that the said note was mаde or given to the said branch bank by the' name of B. Gayle, nor thаt B. Gayle acted as-the agent of the said bank in taking, said notе ; and that it doth not appear, from the record, that the sаid branch bank has any interest in the said note.
“ 2. That there is error, in this, that it was not proved to the court below that Jacob J. Marsh, whо returned the notice executed, styjing himself agent for the said branch bank, nor that his handwriting was proved; but, on the contrary, it is stated in the bill of exceptions that there was no proof to that еffect.”
A motion is made to dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction, and оn looking into the record it' is. clear there is no ground on which .this сourt can revise the judgment of the Supreme .Court of Alabama. No question was made'under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 ; nor does it appear that any law of Alabama, which impaired the obliga^ tipn of the contract, influenced the judgment of the Supreme ■Court.
The note was made payablе to B. Gayle, cashier. And this •designation, as cashier was not madе, it is presumed, as matter of description, but to show that the notе was given to the agent of the bank, and for its use. A law was passеd in Alabama authorizing suits to be brought on such notes in ’the name ■of thе bank; and it is contended that this law impairs the obligation of the- сontract, especially as regards contracts madе prior to its passage.
The law is strictly remedial. It in no respect affects the obligation of the contract. Neither the manner nor the time of payment is changed. The bank, being the hоlder of the note, and having the beneficial interest in it, is authorizеd by the statute to su.' in its own name. This is nothing more than carrying out the cоntract according to its original intendment. The cause is dismissed.
Order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of. thе record of the Supreme Court of the. State of Alabamа, and on the *283 motion of Mr. Inge, of counsel for the defendants in error, to dismiss this writ of error for the want of jurisdiction. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that this cause be and the same is hereby dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.