
    C. James against Badger & Badger.
    Where the holder of a note, on the day it was payable received a part from the maker, and gave notice of non-payment generally to the endorser, it was held sufficient to charge the endorser with the payment of the residue.
    This was an action on a promissory note by the plaintiff, as endorsee, against the defendants who were the endorsers. -
    
      On the trial it appeared that the note was protested for non-payment on the 17th June, 1797, on which day it fell due; that afterwards, on the same day, the maker called on the plaintiff and paid him 300 dollars in part satisfaction of the' note. The residue being unpaid, due notice of non-payment generally was given to the defendant on Monday the 19th of June, following, but unaccompanied with any information that part of the note had been paid by the maker.
    *A verdict was found for the plaintiff for the [*132] balance due on the note with the interest.
    The defendants moved for a new trial, on the ground that the receipt of part from the maker after his default, and before notice to the endorsers, was a waiver of the default, and discharged the defendants; and if it did not discharge them the notice was improper, in not stating that a part had been paid by the maker.
    
      C. I. Bogert, for the plaintiff.
    
      Hamilton, for the defendants.
   Per Curiam.

An acceptance of a part from the maker, does not discharge the endorser, provided the holder gives notice in time, that he looks to him for the residue. Here notice was given, but it was general, and in the usual form, without specifying that any part had been paid. Although this was not strictly correct, according to the fact, yet we think it was sufficient for every beneficial purpose of notice to the endorsers.

Judgment for the plaintiff. 
      
      
        Kennedy v. Motte, 3 McCord, 13; Story on Promissory Notes, § 422, and references.
     