
    Case No. 6,570.
    HODGSON v. TURNER.
    [1 Cranch, C. C. 74.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    March Term, 1802.
    Foreign Bill or Exchange — Action against In-dorser — Protest—Judgment against Drawer — Whether a Bar.
    1. In an action against the indorser of a foreign bill of exchange, for non-payment, it is not necessary to produce a protest for non-acceptance.
    2. A judgment and execution by the plaintiff, against the drawer of a bill, is no bar to a judgment against the indorser, although that execution be levied on the drawer's goods, which are not sold for want of buyers.
    The defendant was indorser of a foreign bill of exchange, protested for non-payment as well as for non-acceptance.
    Mr. Gantt, for defendant,
    prayed the court to instruct the jury that it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had reasonable notice of the protest for non-acceptance; and cited Kyd, Bills, 109, 117-119, 137; Milford v. Mayor, 1 Doug. 55; Bull. N. P. 271; Rogers v. Stephens, 2 Term R. 713; Goodall v. Dolley, 1 Term R. 712; Burrows, 2,070; and the case of Oates & Co. v. Mc-Curdy. in the general court of Maryland.
    Mr. Mason, for plaintiff,
    cited Brown v. Barry, 3 Dali. [3 U. S.] 305, and Clerk v. Russel,- Id. 420, 424.
   THE COURT,

on the authority of Brown v. Barry and Clarke v. Russel [supra], refused to give the instruction as prayed.

Mr. Gantt, for defendant, then produced a fieri- facias, issued last term and returnable to this, on a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against Bowie, the drawer of this bill; on which execution he stated the marshal had seized the goods of Bowie, but that they were not sold for want of buyers; and prayed the court to instruct the jury that this execution so levied, was a discharge of the in-dorser. Seld. Prac. 564.

THE COURT refused to give the instruction.  