
    Smith against Thorne.
    In an action by the holder against the acceptor of a bill of exchange thedrawer is not a competent witness to. prove that the bill was drawn for his accommodation, because he is liable to reimburse the defendant the costs, should the verdict be against the latter.
    ERROR to the common pleas of Allegheny county.
    Richard Y. Thorne & Co. against Frederick R. Smith. This was an action founded upon a bill of exchange drawn by George R. Smith upon Frederick R. Smith, and by. him endorsed and held by the plaintiffs. The facts appeared to be that George R. Smith the drawer was indebted to the plaintiffs 2000 dollars on the 25th of August 1836: that on that day the plaintiffs received in payment of that debt two notes, one of John W: Wyman at sixty days for 1068 dollars 80 cents, protested when due, and another of C. F. Catlin, dated the 1st of August at six months for 1035 dollars, protested when due: that the Catlin note was not due and unpaid at the time George R. Smith’s draft upon the defendant passed into the hands of the plaintiffs; and that the Wyman and Catlin notes formed the consideration of the bill of exchange upon which the present action was brought. There was a payment'with the bill of exchange making up the amount of the Wyman and Catlin notes, and the plaintiffs still retain in their possession the Catlin note and the Wyman noté, which they offer to surrender at any time. On the 22d of November 1S36, Messrs. Thorne & Co. instituted a suit against George R. Smith to recover the amount of the Wyman note, upon which the said Smith was arrested in Philadelphia. The Catlin note was not then due. These proceedings were stayed. by order of the plaintiffs upon their receiving the bill of exchange, for 1870 dollars 69 cents, upon which this suit was brought.
    Upon the trial of the cause the defendant offered George R. Smith, the drawer of the bill, as a witness, to prove that the same was drawn for his accommodation, and to establish facts which would' amount to a defence. But the court below (Dallas, president) decided that, the witness was incompetent, and his testimony was rejected. This was the subject of a bill of exceptions, and the only one passed upon by this court.
    
      Shayler, for plaintiff ih error.
    
      JDarrah, for defendant in error.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Sergeant, J.

R. George Smith is interested in the event of this suit, and is not a competent witness for the defendant: he is called to prove that the bill was drawn for his accommodation. If so he does not stand indifferent; for though he might be liable on the bill either to the defendant if the plaintiff recovers, or to the plaintiff, yet he is liable to the defendant for the costs of this suit if the plaintiff recovers, which he would escape if the defendant succeeds. Bank of Montgomery v. Walker, 9 Serg. & Rawle 229; Hubbly v. Brown, 16 Johns. 69. Then, without his evidence, the defendant has no case. The admissions are that the plaintiff took the bill in payment of the two notes then held by him, and the questions discussed as to the plaintiff’s duties as guarantor, or as holder of a collateral security, do not arise.

Judgment affirmed.  