
    William Webber vs. Darius P. Matthews.
    The Indorser in blank of a promissory note, made payable to his order, for value, is not liable thereon without proof of notice of its nonpayment by the maker, or reason why such notice was not given.
    Contract on a promissory note dated January 8, 1863, made by Charles B. Lamb, payable, thirty days after date, to the defendant’s order, and indorsed in blank by the defendant. Writ dated November 15,1867.
    At the trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., the plaintiff introduced the note in evidence, and called the defendant as a witness, who testified that he took the note from Lamb in payment for a horse which he sold to Lamb on the day of its date; and that on the same day he indorsed the note to Henry Davis in part payment for another horse which Davis sold to him There was no evidence of any demand on Lamb for the payment of the note, or any notice to the defendant of the nonpayment. The judge ruled that the plaintiff could not recover “ for the reason that it did not appear that the defendant had received any notice of the nonpayment of the note by Lamb,” and directed a verdict for the defendant, which was returned. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.
    
      T. Davis, for the plaintiff, argued that the defendant was liable as a joint promisor.
    
      G. A. Somerby, for the defendant.
   By the Court.

The defendant was not liable as indorser, because it does not appear that any notice of nonpayment was given to him, he being payee and indorser for value.

Exceptions overruled.  