
    Richmond.
    Slagle v. Rust’s adm’r. Same v. Bank of the Valley.
    1848. January Term.
    A third endorser having endorsed a note on the faith of the solvency of a prior endorser; and on a renewal of the note, the order of the endorsements having been changed without the consent of this third endorser, who, for the convenience of renewing the note, had left his blank endorsement with the makers; a Court of Equity will relieve him as against the endorser who should have preceded him.
    In 1826, the Bank of the Valley at Winchester, discounted a note for 1000 dollars, which was made by 
      William M. Sperry & Co. and endorsed by Joseph Slagle, for the accommodation of the makers. This note was renewed from time to time, with Slagle as the only endorser thereon until June 1833. During this period, he had taken a deed of trust on a house and lot in Winchester, to indemnify him against loss on account of his endorsement. In 1833, Sperry & Co. becoming embarrassed, the bank made an order requiring another endorser on the note, or that the property conveyed to indemnify Slagle should be insured. Under this order, Jacob Cooper became the endorser of the note ; Slagle being first, and Cooper second endorser. The bank, however, was not satisfied with Cooper, and continued its order; and in May 1834, Peter Rust endorsed the note as last endorser.
    At the time Rust endorsed the note, he knew that Sperry & Co. were embarrassed, and he endorsed it on the faith of Slagle’s solvency, of which Sperry & Co. were fully aware; though it does not appear that either Rust or Sperry & Co. so informed Slagle.
    
    The note continued to be renewed and discounted at the bank until September 1835, with the same endorsers in the same order, Slagle being the first, Cooper the second, and Rust the third; and Rust, who lived some miles from Winchester, was accustomed to endorse blank notes, which were left with Sperry & Co. for the purpose of renewing the note, with his name written on the face of the note, under the words “credit the makers.” The note which was discounted in September 1835, had been thus endorsed by Rust and left with Sperry & Co.; and it was made payable, not to Slagle, as had been previously done, but to Cooper, and Cooper endorsed it, writing his name so close above Rust’s that there was not room between them for Slagle to write his name. It was then taken to Slagle by one of the makers, and Slagle wrote his name below Rust’s. When the note was handed by Sperry to the bank ofiicer, it was objected to on the ground that Must had, by writing his name under the words “credit the makers,” transferred the proceeds to Sperry & Co., and that therefore nothing passed to Slagle: and to obviate the objection, he suggested that Slagle’s name should be erased, the name of Sperry & Co. should be endorsed next under Rust’s, and then Slagle should endorse after them, and should also write his name under Rust’s on the face of the note. This was accordingly done, and the note so endorsed was discounted, and when it fell due, was protested for nonpayment.
    The bank afterwards brought separate actions against Slagle and Rust, as endorsers on the note, and obtained judgments, and having sued out execution on the judgment against Rust, it was levied on his property, but before a sale thereof, he died.
    After the death of Rust, his administrator Griffin Frost enjoined the sale under the execution, on the ground that Rust had endorsed the note of Sperry & Co. expressly on the faith of the prior endorsement of Slagle; and that the bank and Slagle had, without his consent, changed the order of the endorsements to his prejudice. He made the bank, Slagle and others, defendants.
    The bank having been enjoined from proceeding on their execution against Rust, issued an execution on their judgment against Slagle; whereupon he enjoined the proceeding upon that execution.
    The Court afterwards dissolved both injunctions, and the amount of the debt was paid to the bank by Slagle. And the causes coming on together to be finally heard, the Court held that, as between Rust’s adm’r and Slagle, the latter was bound to pay the debt; and it was decreed that the bill should be dismissed as against the bank without costs, and that Slagle should pay the plaintiff his costs; and the bill in the second suit was dismissed with costs. From this decree, Slagle applied to this Court for an appeal, which was allowed.
    
      Brooke and Cooke, for the appellant.
    
      Patton and Robinson, for the appellee.
   I3r the Court.

The decree is affirmed.  