
    
      No. 3.
    
    WETMORE against BLUSH.
    
      Chittenden,
    
    1820.
    PURCHASER of a note not negotiable will not be protected against a payment to the original payee, or discharge by such payee.
    THIS was an action on a promissory note for $125, payable in cattle, to J. P. Wetmore or order. Previous to the time - of payment, Wetmore endorsed the note to Farrar and Coot idge, to whom he was indebted, and authorised them to make use of his name to demand and collect the money, of which the defendant was duly notified : After the note became due, defendant took a release from Wetmore on account of the note,, and contends he is thereby discharged.
   By the Court.

, The Court do not consider themselves at liberty to depart from the numerous precedents in this State ; the law has been long settled by judicial decisions of this Court, that the purchaser of a note not negotiable will not be protected against a payment to the original payee, or a discharge by such payee. A contrary decision would extend the contract beyond the intention of the parties and bind the promis-sor to a fulfilment different from the terms of the contract;

Judgment for defendant.  