
    Bank of the United States v. E. J. Lee.
    The indorser of a promissory note is discharged from his liability by the holder taking new security, and giving time to the maker without the consent of the indorser.
    The defendant was the indorser óf R. B. Lee’s note discounted by the plaintiffs.
    
      Mr. Taylor
    
    cited the following authorities: — 7 Bac. Ab. 507; Nesbit v. Smith, 2 Bro. C. C. 579 ; Baird v. Bice, 1 Call, 18; Rees v. Barrington, 2 Ves. Jr. 540 ; Ward v. Johnson,. 6 Munf. 6; Ellis v. Galindo, Doug. 250, note; Hill v. Bull, Gilmer, 149; English v. Earley, 2 B. & P. 61; The People v. Jansen, 7 Johns. 332; Bul. N. P. 275 ; Wilson v. Lenox and Maitland, 1 Cranch, 194; James v. Badger, 1 Johns. Cas. 131; Croughton v. Duvall, 3 Call, 69; Chitty on Bills, 300, (Amer. Ed. of 1817); Duval v. Trash, 13 Mass. Rep. 154; United States v. Nicholl, 12 Wheat. 510; McLemore v. Powell, 12 Wheat. 554, 557; Moore v. Bow-maker, 6 Taunt. 379.
    
      Mr. Lear for the plaintiffs.
   The Court, (nem. con.) on the motion of Mr. Taylor, the defendant’s counsel, instructed the jury, in effect, that if they should find from the evidence that the plaintiffs, in consideration of new security given by the maker of the note, agreed with him, without the defendant’s consent, to extend the time of payment of the debt for one year or more, the defendant was thereby discharged from his liability as indorser of the note.  