
    William R. Harwin against James Lowell.
    promptly sued the makers, on ‘oeir payirefye^ nSuce™!hl‘en°redy¿laVnstwm
    This was an action on a note endorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
    , . . . The note was made by John Brown and John Tern to defendant, dated 9th March, 1811, payable 20th November following, the endorsement in blank. There was no notice given to the fendant, at the time the payment was demanded of the makers, off their refusal to pay; but the plaintiff sued Brown and Terry on the 12th February, 1812. Broion ran away on the 1st February, 1812, and copy was left at former place of abode; Terry proved insolvent. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant, and a motion is now made for a new trial, on the ground that the plaintiff had used due diligence.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Colcocic.

When a negotiable note is endorsed in the course of trade, it assumes the character of a bill of exchange, and the holder is bound to demand the payment when due; and in case of failure or neglect to pay, he is bound to give notice thereof to the endorser at as early a period as possible. Here the parties all lived in the same neighbourhood, and it appeared that the notice might have been given in a few days, hut the plaintiff failed to do so, and sued the makers, fr°m whom he could not recover the money 5 from which it is clear he has not used that dili- „ gence which the law requires, and is, therefore, not entitled to recover. The case of James Kilpatrick vs. Smith Heation, decided in this Court on 4th December, 1812, shows that notice is indispensably necessary. Motion dismissed.

Grimké, Bay, Nott, and Johnson, J. concurred.  