
    Witherell v. Ela.
    The indorser of a note in full, or in blank, when it is returned to him, after protest, may strike out his indorsement, and maintain an action on it in his own name.
    Assumpsit on a note, dated March 13, 1860, signed by J. K. & S. Merrill, payable to the order of the defendant, George W. Ela, for $319.75, in two months, at either bank in Boston, and indorsed in blank by the defendant. The plaintiff, Obadiah D. Witherell, being holder of the note, before its maturity, wrote over the defendant’s signature, on the back of the note, “ Pay to the order of O. D. Witherell,” and signed his name below the defendant’s, and placed it in a bank in Boston for collection. The note, not being paid at maturity, was protested, and the plaintiff took it from the bank, erased his indorsement, and commenced this suit against the indorser.
    
      It was objected that the defendant, being an indorser of the note, ought not to be held, because the note was mutilated by the erasure of the plaintiff’s name.
    
      Flint $ Bryant, for the plaintiff.
    
      S. Dana, for the defendant.
   By the Court.

The indorser of a note, when it is returned to bim, after protest, may strike out bis own indorsement, although .it is in full, and maintain an action on it in bis own name. Dugan v. U. S., 3 Wheat. 183; Piquet v. Curtis, 1 Sum. 480; Thompson v. Robinson, 4 Johns. 21; Emerson v. Cutts, 12 Mass. 78; Nevins v. De Grand, 15 Mass. 438; Bank of Utica v. Smith, 18 Johns. 230; Norris v. Badger, 6 Cow. 455; Chat. Co. Bank v. Davis, 21 Wend. 584; Chit, on Bills, 230, n. a; Edw. on Bills, 271.

Judgment for the plaintiff.  