
    WILLIAM R. HAVILAND, Appellant, v. HENRY M. HAVILAND, DAVID L. VAN NOSTRAND and ALBERT VAN NOSTRAND, Respondents.
    
      Indorsement of note by third person befoi'e delivery— effect of.
    
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, Albert Van Nostrand, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes of the justice before rvhom the action was tried.
    The action was brought upon a promissory note, drawn by the defendants Haviland to the order of the plaintiff, and in pursuance of a prior agreement, indorsed by defendant, Albert Van Nostrand, prior to its delivery to plaintiff.
    The court, at General Term, said: “ After some confusion, il was finally held by the Court of Appeals, that a person who, for the accommodation of the maker, indorses his note to the order of a third person, is liable to such third person as indorser. (Moore v. Cross, 19 N. Y., 227.)
    In a recent case, the Supremo Court of the United States have decided that the person so making such indorsement is not liable as indorsor, but is as joint maker. We feel bound to follow the rules laid down by the Court of Appeals. The only remaining question arising upon this appeal is one of fact.”
    
      Wm. II Onderdonk, for the appellant. Downing <& Stanbrough, for the respondent, Albert Van Nostrand.
   Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.

Gilbert, J., concurred; Dykman, J., not sitting.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.  