
    Anderson vs. Crockett, assignee, &c.
    An action of debt may ba maintained by the endorsee of a promissory note against the maker.
    This was an action of debt brought by Crockett, as endorsee of a negotiable note executed by the defendant. The note was unsealed, and the only question for the court to determine was, whether an action of debt could be maintained by the endorsee of a promissory note against the maker. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff below.
    
      J. Marshall, for the plaintiff in error,
    cited Olive vs. Napier, (Cook’s Rep. 11,) in which case it was decided the action could not be maintained.
    
      R. C. Foster, for the defendant in error,
    cited Ra-borg vs. Peyton, 2 Wheaton’s Reports: Donoho vs. Kirkman, 6 Peter’s Reports, and the act of 1S20, ch. 25.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the authority of the cases of Raborg vs. Peyton, (2 Wheaton’s Reports,) and Donoho vs. Kirkman, (6 Peter’s Reports,) we would feel ourselves authorized to affirm the judgment. But we are aided in coming to this conclusion by our act of 1820, ch. 25, sec. 1. This being an action by an endorsee against the maker of a note, we are of opinion, brings the case so far within the provisions of the act as to authorize this form of action. That act having originated since the case referred to in Cook’s Reports was decided, leaves us untram-melled by the opinion therein expressed.

Judgment affirmed.  