
    Joseph Hurd, Junior, versus Jacob Little.
    Where the holder of a foreign bill of exchange, protested for non-acceptance, demanded and received collateral security of the drawer, and afterwards, upon learning that it was probable that a large part of the money would be paid by the drawee, gave up the security he had so taken, but without giving further time to the drawer ; it was holden, that the indorser was still liable for the balance remaining due on the bill.
    Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of a foreign bill ot exchange. The action was submitted to the decision of the Court, upon an agreed statement of facts to the following effect. The plaintiff, being the holder of the bill, upon receiving intelligence of the protest for non-acceptance, gave due notice thereof to the defendant and also to the drawer. Afterwards, and before it was known whether the bill would be paid at maturity, the plaintiff demanded, and received from the drawer, a bill of sale of a vessel, as collateral security for the bill of exchange. The plaintiff, being afterwards informed that a large part of the money would be paid by the drawee, and that it was probable the whole would be so paid, gave up the security which he had so taken. The greater part of the bill was so paid at maturity ; and it was regularly protested for the non-payment of the residue. The plaintiff gave immediate notice of the protest, to the drawer and indorser, and afterwards brought this action against the defendant, as indorser, for the balance.
    Stearns, for the plaintiff.
    
      Bigelow and Stuart, for the defendant.
   * It was contended for the defendant, that he was not [*503] liable, under these circumstances, to pay the balance.

But the Court said, that, as the holder had not given time to the drawer, but had only taken further security, without giving new credit, the indorser was not discharged ; that it was no more than if the holder of a bill or note had received a partial payment from one of the parties to it; or had commenced an action and attached the goods and estate of one of them, in which case, the other party would not be discharged, even though the creditor should discontinue that suit, or release the attachment.

Defendant defaulted. 
      
       Vide Pring vs. Clarkson, 1 B. & C. 14. — Featherstone vs Hunt, 1 B. & C. 113. — Twopenny vs. Young, 3 B. & C. 208.— Bellows et al. vs. Lovell, 5 Pick. 307. —4 Pick. 152. — King vs. Baldwin, 17 Johns. 384. — 2 Johns. Ch. 554. — Loop vs Summers, 3 Rand. 511. — Paine vs. Packard, 13 Johns. 174. — Hye vs. Barker et al., 4 Pick. 382.
      Quære, whether giving up a security obtained from a party personally liable, will not operate a discharge of those subsequently liable? 4 Ves. 824.— Fell, Guar. 153.--13 Johns. 174.— 17 Johns. 384. — 3 Rand, 511.
     