
    No. 4665.
    Union National Bank v. William H. Cooley and D. C. Labatt.
    The defense that the indorser of a promissory note was released "by the fact that the hank, without his knowledge or consent, gave up a warrant which had been pledged as collateral security, must be sustained. The indorser contends very properly that he could have made the warrant available, had it been retained and he required to pay the debt.
    from the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans. Saueier, J.
    
      Oarleton Hunt, for plaintiff and appellee. JD. O. Labatt and T. J. Semmes, for defendant and appellant.
   Ludeling, C. J.

This is a suit against the indorser of a promissory note, who alleges that he was released by the fact that the bank gave up a warrant, which had been pledged as collateral security, without his knowledge or consent. It appears the warrant had no validity, and, consequently, that the indorser was not in any manner affected by the giving up of the warrant, which had no value.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment be affirmed with costs.

On Rehearing.

Howell, J.

We held in our former opinion that the warrant which had been given as collateral was of no validity, and, consequently, the indorser was not in any manner affected by the giving of it up. It seems, however, that the warrant was valid and had value, and hence the return of it by the plaintiff to the principal debtor without the knowledge or .consent of the indorser or surety was an injury to the latter. He contends, very properly, that he could have made the warrant available had it been retained and he required to pay the debt.

It is therefore ordered that our former decree be set aside; that the judgment against- the appellant, D. C. Labatt, be reversed, and that there be judgment in his favor with his costs.  