
    George E. King vs. Jerry Hurley.
    Hancock.
    Opinion July 25, 1893.
    
      Promissory Notes. Indorser. Notice.
    
    In the written notice of the dishonor of a promissory note, the omission to state the names of all the indorsers, and an error in stating the amount of the note, will not vitiate the notice, unless the indorser is misled thereby.
    On exceptions.
    The only question raised in this case is whether or not the note in suit was sufficiently protested to hold the defendant as an indorser.
    The court gave judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant took exceptions.
    The case sufficiently appears in the opinion.
    
      A. W. King, for plaintiff.
    
      G. B. Stuart, for defendant.
   Emery, J.

This was an action by an indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note. At the maturity of the note, payment was duly demanded of the maker, and was refused, and notice thereof was seasonably sent to the defendant indorser. The defendant makes but two objections to the notice. First, that it did not state who were the other indorsers of the note. Second, that it misstated the amount of the note.

The defendant, however, does not show that he was in the least misled or confused by the omission, or by the mistake. On the contrary it clearly appears that he understood the notice to refer to the note in suit. He was, therefore, fully informed of the dishonor of this note and that the holder looked to him for payment. This was sufficient to fix his liability. Cayuga Co. Bank v. Warren, 1 N. Y. 413. Exceptions overruled.

Libbey, Foster, Haskell and Whitehouse, JJ., concurred.

Peters, C. J., did not sit.  