XXX CASES OVERRULED, DOUBTED OR DENIED. Fire Association v. Williamson (26 Penn. St. 196), doubted; Quarrier v. Pea body Ins. Co. (10 W. Va. 507), 587. Finneran v. Leonard (7 Allen, 54), denied; Mastin v. Gray (19 Kans. 458), 152. Fowler v. The Etna Ins. Co. (6 Cow. 673), denied; Dudley v. McCluer (65 Mo. 241), 276. Gibson v. Vaughn, Admr., etc. (61 Mo. 418), overruled; Johnson v. Beazley (65 Mo. 250), 281. Gottsman v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co. (56 Penn. St. 210), denied; Quarrier v. Peabody Ins. Co. (10 W. Va. 507), 587. Granger v. Clark (22 Me. 128), denied; Mastin v. Gray (19 Kans. 458), 152. Grignon's Lessee v. Astor (2 How. 319), denied; Mickel v. Hicks (19 Kans. 578), 165. Hahn v. Kelley (34 Cal. 391), denied; Mastin v Gray (19 Kans. 458), 152. Herrick v. Carman (12 Johns. 160), denied; Burton v. Hansford (10 W. Va. 470), 573. Howell v. Reynolds County (51 Mo. 154), overruled; International Bank of St. Louis v. Franklin County (65 Mo. 105), 264. Hubbell v. Canady (58 Ill. 425), denied; Ashton v. Ingle ( 20 Kans. 670), 201. Indiana Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Coquillard (2 Carter, 645), denied ; Quarrier v. Peabody Ins. Co. (10 W. Va. 507), 592. Jennings v. Thomas (13 Sm. & Marsh. 617), denied ; Burton v. Hansford (10 W. Va. 470), 573. Johnson v. Jones (2 Neb. 120), denied; Mastin v. Gray (19 Kans. 458), 152. Kelly v. Baker (10 Minn. 154), denied; Ashton v. Ingle (20 Kans. 670), 201. Kearnes v. Montgomery (4 W. Va. 29), doubted; Burton v. Hansford (10 W. Va. 470), 577. Lee v. Howard Fire Ins. Co. (3 Gray, 583), doubted; Quarrier v. Peabody Ins. Co. (10 W. Va. 507), 587. Lightsey v. Harris (20 Ala. 409), denied; Mastin v. Gray (19 Kaus. 458), 152. McCulloch v. Indiana Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (8 Blackf. 50), denied; Quarrier v. Peobody Ins. Co. (10 W. Va. 507), 592. McDonald v. Leewright (31 Mo. 29), denied; Mastin v. Gray (19 Kans. 458), 152. Mohr v. Manierre (9 Chicago Leg. News, 270), denied; Mickel v. Hicks (19 Kans. 578), 165. Morgan's Case (7 Gratt. 592), doubted; State v. Charlton (11 W. Va. 332), 606. Milford v. Worcester (7 Mass. 48), denied; Dyer v. Bransnock (66 Mo. 391), 368. Nolan v. Reed (38 Tex. 425), denied; Ashton v. Ingle (20 Kans. 670), 201. Ortman v. Dixon (13 Cal. 36), denied; Marling v. Marling (9 W. Va. 79), 548. People ex rel, Dorsey v. Smyth (28 Cal. 21), denied; Commissioners of Saline Cc. v. Anderson (20 Kans. 298), 172. CASES OVERRULED, DOUBTED OR DENIED. XXXI Phelps v. Visher (50 N. Y. 69; 10 Am. Rep. 433), denied; Burton v. Hamford (10 W. Va. 470), 576. Pickard v. Sears (6 Ad. & El. 469), doubted; Turner v. Baker (64 Mo. 218), 237. Queen v. Millis (10 Clark & Finn. 682), denied ; Dyer v. Brannock (66 Mo. 391), 265. Railroad Co. v. Lockwood (17 Wall. 357), denied; Maynard v. Syracuse, etc., R. R. Co. (71 N. Y. 180), 32. Richards v. Warring (1 Keyes, 576), denied; Burton v. Hansford (10 W. Va. 470), 576. Robinson v. Waddelow (8 Sim. 134), denied; Hall v. Stephens (65 Mo. 670), 304. Roderigas v. East River Saving Inst. (63 N. Y. 460; s. c., 20 Am. Rep. 555), denied; Johnson v. Beazley (65 Mo. 250), 285. Seixas v. Woods (2 Cai. 48), overruled; White v. Miller (71 N. Y. 118), 15. Sheldon v. Newton (3 Ohio St. 494), denied; Mickel v. Hicks (19 Kans. 578), 165. Smith v. Kenrick (7 C. B. 515), doubted; Sanderson v. The Pennsylvania Coal Company (86 Penn. St. 401), 713. State v. Dunlap (65 N. C. 491; s. c., 6 Am. Rep. 746), denied; State v. Strauder (11 W. Va. 745), 611. State v. Jenkins (5 Jones, 430), denied; Quinn v. People (71 N. Y. 561), 92. State v. Langford (1 Dev. 253), denied; Quinn v. People (71 N. Y. 561), 92. State v. Rockerfellow (1 Halst. 332), denied; State v. Easter (30 Ohio St. 542), 481. Strouse v. Drennan (41 Mo. 289), overruled; Johnson v. Beazley (65 Mo. 250), 281. Swanzey v. Moore (22 Ill. 63), denied; Towsley v. Moore (30 Ohio St. 185), 439. Swett v. Colgate (20 Johns. 196), overruled; White v. Miller (71 N. Y. 118), 15. Trenton Mut. Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Johnson (4 Zabr. 576), denied; Singleton v. St Louis Ins. Co. (66 Mo. 63), 323. United States v. Rhodes (1 Am. L. T. Rep. 23), denied; State v. Strauder (11 W. Va. 745), 612. Western Massachusetts Ins. Co. v. Riker (10 Mich. 279), denied; Quarrier v. Peabody Ins. Co. (10 W. Va. 507), 592. Wilcox v. Kassick (2 Mich. 165), denied; Maston v. Gray (19 Kans. 458), 152. Promissory note — waiver of protest after dishonor. Before the maturity of a promissory note the holder and the accommodation indorser had some conversation about extending the time of payment; but no arrangement was made. The note was not presented for payment at maturity. Afterward the holder and the maker went to the indorser to arrange for an extension, the maker then asked the holder if he desired a new note, and he replied that if it was agreed to, he would let the note stand as it was. The indorser said, "then I will waive protest," and the holder thereupon agreed to the extension. Held, in an action on the note against the indorser, that this would warrant a finding that the indorser understandingly agreed to continue to be liable, and a nonsuit was erroneous. A CTION on promissory note against the indorser. The plaintiff was nonsuited, and judgment on verdict was directed by the General Term, and the plaintiff appealed. The opinion states the facts. J. McGuire, for appellant. E. Countryman, for respondent. The liability of an indorser who has been discharged by want of presentment and notice, can Ross v. Hurd. only be revived by an express promise to the holder to pay the note, with full knowledge of the facts. Tebbets v. Dowd, 23 Wend. 379; Meyer v. Hibsher, 47 N. Y. 265; Story on Prom. Notes [5th ed.], 360-363, § 289; Borradile v. Lowe, 4 Taunt. 93; Thornton v. Wynn, 12 Wheat. 183; 3 Kent's Com. [10th ed.] 162, 163; Creamer v. Perry, 17 Pick. 332-335; Oswego Bank v. Knower, H. & D. 122. ANDREWS, J. There was no demand or notice of non-payment of the note when it became due, and the plaintiff was not relieved from the necessity of making a demand and giving notice, by what occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant, at the interview on the first or second day of November, 1872, before the maturity of the note. The evidence is that Kingsbury, the maker of the note, a few days before that time, has applied to the plaintiff to extend the time of payment ninety days, and the plaintiffs consented to do so, if the note was kept good and secure. The plaintiff afterward went to the bank and had the interview spoken of with defendant. He informed the defendant of what had occurred between him and Kingsbury, and stated that he had come to make some arrangement with regard to the note. The plaintiff testifies: "I stated to him (Hurd) that I could let him (Kingsbury) have the money longer, if he kept it well secured or kept the note good (I don't recollect the exact words I used to him); and he said he guessed that could be fixed, and he would get Kingsbury in, or I was to, and I went out to look for him." The plaintiff then left the bank to find Kingsbury, but did not find him, and later in the afternoon returned to the bank to see the defendant; but, not finding him there, went away and did not see him again until after the note fell due. It is inferable, from this evidence, that the defendant was willing to coutinue his liability as indorser, but it was left to be arranged at an interview to be had between all the parties. There was no request by Hurd that the plaintiff would extend the time of payment of the note, nor was any thing said by him which would justify the plaintiff in believing that he would dispense with demand and notice, or which was calculated to mislead the plaintiff. The conversation clearly contemplated a new and substituted arrangement to be made before the note matured for continuing the loan. The plaintiff, therefore, was not entitled to recover, on the theory that this transaction dispensed with the necessity of protest. It is quite |