
    Kean and another against Dufresne.
    Friday, May 30.
    If a note be taken by a creditor, who indorses the note, and gets itdiscountedat bank, for the benefit of the drawer, and afterwards has to take it up again after protest, this is not such a parting with the note as makes it an extinguishment of the precedent debt.
    In Error.
    ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county, in which a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the Court was returned with the record.
    The suit was brought by Dufresne, the plaintiff below, against Kean and Foster, to recover the balance due. on a note given by them to him. The "defence set up, was, that Kean and Foster were partners when the note was given, and after the dissolution of the partnership, Kean gave the plaintiff another note in satisfaction thereof. It was proved that the last mentioned note was given to the plaintiff, who indorsed it, had it discounted at bank, and applied the proceeds to the credit of Kean and Foster: but it was protested when due, and he paid the amount, and took back .the note.
    
      Montgomery for the plaintiff in error,
    now contended, that this was such a parting with the note, as to make it an extin-, guishment of the preceding debt. S Johns. 68.
    Hopkins, contra. .
   Per Curiam.

It appears in this case, that the note set up as an extinguishment of the debt of Kean and Foster, was in fact no more than a note put into the bank, for the purpose' of raising money for Kean and Foster. Therefore, it can be no extinguishment. The note, in fact, was not parted -with by Dufresne, but for the purpose of raising money for Kean and Foster.

Judgment affirmed.  