
    Bank of Alexandra v. W. Wilson.
    After an indorsor is fixed by proper demand and notice, the neglect of a trustee to sell property conveyed to him as security, for the notes, until by depreciation it becomes inadequate security, -will not exonerate the indorser.
    A protest which does not state that the notary-public informed the indorser that payment had been demanded and refused by the'maker of the note, is not evidence of sufficient notice to charge the indorser.
    The day after the expiration of the three days of grace is soon enough to make the demand, and give notice; and it may be' made by the notary’s clerk who has posses- - sion of the note, with the plaintiff’s assent.
    The indorsement of the note is evidence of money had and received by the defendant for the plaintiff’s use, although theinote’was indorsed by the defendant for thé accommodation of the maker.
    ■Assumpsit against the indorser of,A. & W. Ramsay’s note.
    , Mr. E. J. Lee, for the defendant,
    contended that A. & W. Ramsay, having given a deed of trust to Lndwell Lee, with a power ,of sale in case of the note laying over for a year, and that the trustee not having sold the property until it depreciated, so as to become inadequate security, the defendant, the indorser, was discharged, although he had regular-notice of non-payment.
   But

the Court

(Fitzhugh, J., absent,)

was of opinion that this was no'defence.

The plaintiff then offered the protest, which stated that the notary-public had, on the 17th of October, 1805, (the three days grace expired with the 16th,) demanded payment from the maker, who did not pay, and from the indorser,' who did not pay; but did not state that he informed the indorser that a demand had been made upon the maker, and payment refused. 1

The Court

(Thruston, J., absent,)

decided that the protest was not evidence of a sufficient notice. That the day after the expiration of the three days of grace was soon enough to make the demand and give notice. That a demand made by Alexander Moore, (a clerk of Cleon Moore, the notary-public,) he having possession of the note with a blank indorsement, with the assent of the plaintiffs, was by a person sufficiently authorized to make the demand and give notice. That the indorsement of the note was evidence of money had and received by the defendant for the plaintiff’s use, although the note was indorsed by the defendant for the accommodation, of A. & W. Ramsay, who drew the money.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

Bills of exception were taken, but no writ of error prosecuted.  