
    Meech vs. Churchill.
    A plaintiff who guarantee of the same, isentitled to full suit? m each
    Qüestion as to costs. The defendant transferí ed to the plaintiff a promissory note he held against one Metzger, and an endorsement on the note, guaranteed the payment of J . . the same. The plaintiff commenced two suits; one against the maker of the note, and the other against the defendant on the guaranty. He recovered judgment in both suits, and obtained satisfaction of the damages and costs in the suit against Metzger, and issued an execution for the costs only in the suit against the defendant, who offered to pay the disbursements, hut objected to pay a full bill of costs.
    
      S. Matthews, for defendant.
    
      A. Samson, contra.
   By the Court, Savage, Ch. J.

This motion is made under the impression that this case comes within the purview of the act, (Statutes, 4th vol. 280, c.) which allows but one full hill of costs, where several suits are brought on the same instrument or note. The statute does not apply to this case; the suits were not on the same instrument or note. The guaranty is a separate, distinct contract from the note, and the plaintiff is entitled to his full costs. The motion is denied with costs.  