
    Durham vs. Price.
    A full indemnity given by the maker to an accommodation endorser of a note, to secure said endorser against his liability, or a_pr:ou)iseJ3y_the endorser to pay, with a knowledge that no demand had been made of the maker, and no notice given to the endorser, will excuse the holder from making due demand, and giving notice to-such endorser.
    Price was the holder of a note endorsed by Durham for the accommodation of the maker. Price failed to make demand of the maker in due time and give Durham, the endorser, notice. Upon the trial proof was submitted to the jury to show that the maker had placed in the hands of Durham, property fully sufficient to indemnify him against the endorsement, and that Durham had promised to pay the note. .The court charged the jury, that if Durham, the endorser, had a full indemnity from the maker of the note, or had promised to pay the note, with a knowledge that no demand had been made of the maker," and no notice given to the endorser, they should find for the plaintiff; but if not, and due demand and notice had not been made and given, they should find for the defendant. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a new trial, and it being refused, he appealed in error to this' court.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the authority of the case of Hopkins vs. Liswell, (12 Mass. Rep. 52,) and the cases cited in Chitty on Bills, 504, we affirm the judgment. The indemnity taken being an ample' security to the whole amount, or the ■ express promise to pay, is sufficient to dispense with proof of notice. The facts whether the indemnity was sufficient, or the promise made, were for the jury; with these facts we have nothing to do further than to see if they were properly submitted by the court and found by the jury. It would seem by the record, that the defendant below has been permitted to demur and plead to the whole declaration. On argument of the demurrer, he was met by the facts well laid in the declaration. On trial of the issue, the jury found against him. The charge of the court is supported by the authorities. The case cited in 1 Yerger, 199, is not in the way; this case is consistent with it.

Judgment affirmed.  