
    Watson and Others versus Loring and Curtis
    (FEBRUARY TERM, 1799,
    IN SUFFOLK.)
    If a bill of exchange is protested for non-acceptance, an action presently lies for the holder against the- drawer and endorsers, although the time of payment is not come.
    The case was—Stevenson, a merchant in Boston, drew a bill of exchange on Haginau, a merchant in Hamburg, payable in London thirty days after sight to Loring and Curtis. This bill was endorsed by Loring and Curtis, joint merchants in Boston, merely as guarantors, and not as purchasers for a valuable consideration. Being so endorsed, the bill was first purchased by Lambert, and by him was endorsed for a valuable consideration. The action is brought by the last endorsees, against the first endorsers. The bill had been protested for non-acceptance only; being presented to Haginau at Hamburg for acceptance, which he refused.
   * It was objected that no action lay upon the bill, [ * 558 ] until after a protest for non-payment; and that payment ought to have been demanded in London, upon the exchange, and if no person should appear to pay it, then the plaintiffs ought to have protested it for non-payment, as soon as the day of payment should have arrived, although the drawee had not accepted the bill, and had not designated any person in London for that purpose.

To which it was answered, that an action lies on the bill on a protest for non-acceptance only; the drawer having engaged that his bill should be duly accepted, as well as paid ; that it had been dishonored by the refusal of the drawee to accept it, and the plaintiff’s right of action accrued immediately thereupon. It was admitted that an action would lie upon the bill on a protest for non-accept-once only for the purpose of obtaining security against the drawer; but that judgment could not be given unless a protest for nonpayment was first had and produced in Court.

But by the whole Court then present, viz., Dana, Paine, Bradbury, and Dawes, “ This action well lies against the defendants upon a protest for non-acceptance only. There is no distinction between the drawer and endorser in this respect. And if there was, the defendants are not entitled to the benefit of it, but ought to stand on the same ground as the drawer of the bill. It was made payable to them without consideration, and with the view only to give credit to the drawer ” .

See Buller’s N.P. 269.—Doug. 55.—Mittford vs. Mayor,Kyd, 140. 
      
      
        [Lenox vs. Cook, 8 Mass. 460.—Ed.]
     