
    Hodgson v. Turner.
    In an action against the indorser of a foreign bill of exchange, for non-payment, it is not necessary to produce a protest for non-acceptance.'
    A judgment and execution by the plaintiff, against the.drawer of a bill, is no bar to a ■ judgment against the indorser, although that execution be levied, on the drawer’s goods, which are not sold for want of buyers.
    The defendant was indorser of a foreign bill of exchange, protested for non-payment as well as for non-acceptance.
    
      Mr. Gantt, for the defendant,
    prayed the Court to instruct the jury that it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had reasonable notice of the protest for non-acceptance ; and cited Kyd, 109,117,118,119,137; Milford v. Mayor, Doug. 55; Buller’s N. P. 271; Rogers v. Stevens, 2 T. R. 713; Goodall 
      v. Dolley 1 T. R. 712; Burr. 2670; and the case of Oates Sf Co. v. McCurdy, in the General Court of Maryland.
    
      Mr. Mason, for the plaintiff,
    cited Brotan v. Barry, 3 Dal. 365; and Clarke v. Russel, 3 Dali. 420, 424.
    The Couet, on the authority of Brovm v. Barry, and Clarke v. Russel, refused to give the instruction as prayed.
    
      Mr. Gantt, for the defendant,
    then produced n fieri facias, issued last term and returnable to this, on'a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against Bowie, the drawer of this bill; on which execution he stated the marshal had seized the goods of Bowie, but that they were not sold for want of buyers; and prayed the Court to instruct the jury that this execution so levied, was a discharge of the indorser. ■ Selden’s Practice, 564.
   The Court

refused to give the instruction.  