
    JULY TERM, 1840.
    A. L. Dabney, Administrator of the estate of Benjamin F. Dabney, deceased, vs. Harmon Stidger.
    Notice to one partner, of the non-payment of a note indorsed by the firm, is notice to all.
    Notice to a surviving partner, will entitle the holder of a note or bill of exchange to recover in an action against the legal representatives of the deceased partner.
    If tile surviving partner be legally notified of the non-payment of a note indorsed in the name of the firm, it is sufficient to bind the estate of the deceased partner, notwithstanding the holder knew of the death of the deceased partner before the maturity of the note.
    Joint payees of a note, who severally indorsed it, are each entitled to notice of non-payment.
    In error, to the circuit court of Hinds county.
    This was an action of assumpsit brought by Harmon Stidger against A. L. Dabney, as administrator of tl^e estate of Benjamin F. Dabney, deceased, founded on Thomas & Dabney’s indorsement of Thomas J. Harper’s promissory note for $11,100. The declaration averred the indorsement of the note by the partnership name of Thomas & Dabney, in the life-time of Dabney, the demand and non-payment of the note at its maturity, and notice to Pitt Thomas, the surviving partner of Benjamin F. Dabney, deceased. The defendant plead^nonassumpsit. Upon the trial the plaintiff read to the jury the note and indorsement sued on, and then proved a demand and non-payment of the note when it became due, and notice to Pitt Thomas, the surviving partner of the late firm of Thomas &, Dabney, and rested his case. The defendant then proved the plaintiff knew when the note matured, that Benjamin F. Dabney had previously departed this life in Hinds county, in this state, and that the copartnership of Thomas & Dabney was consequently dissolved. This was all the evidence offered. After argument the court at the request of the plaintiff’s counsel instructed the jury 11 that if they believed, from the evidence, payment of the note sued on was demanded at its maturity, and notice of non-payment duly served on Pitt Thomas, the surviving partner of the late firm of Thomas & Dabney, they must find for the plaintiff.” To which opinion of the court the defendant excepted. The jury found for the plaintiff, and the defendant now brings the case to this court by writ of error.
    
      A. L. Dabney, for plaintiff in error.
    
      T. A. Marshall, for defendant in error.
    
      C. /S'. Rannells, on the same side.
   Mr Justice Turner

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appeal from the circuit court of Hinds county.

The only question raised in this case is whether the executor or administrator of a deceased partner is entitled to notice of the non-payment of a note indorsed by the partners as such.

The authorities are clear, and are believed to be uniform, that notice to one is notice to all. Bayley on Bills, 285; 1 Con. R. 368; 4 Cow. 126; 6 Louisiana, 684; 3 Litt, 251. But it must appear that they are partners. In this case it so appears. Persons being joint payees of a note, who severally indorse it, are entitled each to notice of non-payment. They being joint, does not necessarily constitute them partners. The act of assembly relied on by the appellant, found in Statute Laws of Mississippi, H. & H. 595, merely affects the remedy and not the right, and was passed to facilitate creditors in obtaining judgment for their just demands against one or all of several partners.  