
    WHITALL against JOHNSON.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    Suit may not be on a sealed bill before it is due. ■
    The action below was brought by the assignee, against the assignor of two sealed bills. It was moved to reverse the judgment of the justice, on the ground that the action would not lie. The case of Garretsie v. Van Ness was cited; it appeared that one of the bills was not due when the action was commenced. It appeared by the record of the justice, that it was contended below, that there was a special undertaking of the defendant below, to be answerable for the debt.
   [*]

By the Court.

The action below could not be brought until the bills' were due; and for this cause the judgment must be reversed. As to the other matter alleged, Ave give no opinion, the fact not being sufficiently made out. As to the special undertaking, if properly before them, it Avas a question for the jury.  