
    Joseph Hodges versus James Galt.
    Two notes dated in October and falling due in January and February following, were indorsed by the defendant, who was an Englishman, a master mariner and an unmarried man, having no home in this country, and, when in England, residing in Liverpool. On the 12th of December he wrote from Boston to the hold er at Providence, that he should leave Boston in a day or two for Liverpool, but in fact he remained in Boston till the middle of March. The holder did not know of this fact nor of his residing in Liverpool, and sent no notice to him of the dishonor of the bill; neither did it appear that the holder made any inquiries for his residence, lltld, that due diligence had not been used to give notice to tlie indorser.
    Assumpsit on two promissory notes dated October 7, 1826, made by Hugh Hill, payable, one in three months, the other in four months, to Hugh M‘Kibbin & Co. of New York, oi order. The notes were indorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff. They were lodged in the Eagle bank in Providence for collection, and were sent by that bank to the Franklin bank in New York for collection, and were returned to the Eagle bank, protested for non-payment, and were taken up by the plaintiff.
    No notice was given to the defendant, of the dishonor of the notes. He was a master mariner and a single man, hay ing no place of residence in this country known to the plaintiff, other than as hereinafter stated. He was in Boston from the time when the notes were indorsed by him, until March 17, 1827, boarding at a public house. On December 12, 1826, he wrote to the plaintiff that he had been unexpectedly detained in Boston, that he should leave that place in a day oi two, and should probably be in Liverpool in six or eight weeks The plaintiff had no h . -wledge of his remaining in Boston after the date of this letter, nor had he any communication with him by letter-or otherwise after that time. The defendant is an Englishman, and, when in England, resides in Liverpool, but of this fact the plaintiff had no knowledge.
    The question was whether the defendant, as indorser, was discharged by loches on the part of the holder.
    
      Sumner, for the plaintiff.
    
      Peabody, for the defendant,
    cited Chapman v. Lipscombe, 1 Johns. R. 294 ; Blakely v. Grant, 6 Mass. R. 386 ; Fish
      
      er v. Evans, 5 Binney, 543; Bank of Utica v. De Mutt, 13 Johns. R. 432; Merchant's Bank v. Birch, 17 Johns R. 25; Stewart v. Eden, 2 Caines’s R. 121.
    
      
      June 13th.
    
    
      
      June 27th
    
   The Cowri said that due diligence had not been used on the part of the plaintiff; that he should have put a letter into the post-office directed to Boston, or if he received the defendant’s letter and knew where he was going, he should have sent a notice to Liverpool; but he made no effort to give any notice.

Plaintiff nonsuit. 
      
       See Robinson v. Hamilton, 4 Stewart & Porter, 91; M'Murtrie v. Jones, 3 Wash. Circ. C. R. 206; Bank of Utica v. Phillips, 3 Wendell, 408; Bank of Utica v. Davidson, 5 Wendell, 587; Dunlap v. Thompson, 5 Yerger, 67; 7 Monroe, 579; 2 Stewart & Porter, 428.
     