reafons, that can have no effect or relation to the caufe. The notice of this proteft was received by Freeman's executor, William Sitpractus, on the 13th of April, 1780, and he gave notice to Meffrs. Steinmetz and Bell on the 28th of the fame month ; but thofe gentlemen did not until the 16th of October, 1782, giving any notice to Currie, the Defendant, who was arrefted the day following to anfwer in this action.
Thefe are the material facts ; and, on them, were are not to enquire, how it happened that the bill lay three years, from the time of drawing to the time of protefting it ; for, as between indorfor and indorfee, every indorfor is confidered as a new drawer. The defence, however, is on this fingle point, that the Plaintiffs had notice on the 28th of April, 1780, and yet gave none to the Defendant until the 17th of October, 1782, a period of two years and a half, except twelve days. Whether that was a reafonable time, will depend upon the circumftances of the cafe. It appears that the Plaintiff lived in Philadelphia, and the Defendant, when he fold the bill, lived at Fiʃhkill in the ftate of New-York, about 130 miles off. This, in point of diftance, is not fo great, but that he might have been found, or, at leaft, fome enquiry made after him, much fooner. We are, therefore, unanimoufly of opinion, that the delay has been unreafonable ; but if they have fatisfactorily account to the Jury for that delay ; their verdict will be in favor of the Plaintiffs. Were it, however, before us, on a fpecial verdict, we fhould certainly determine, that it is an unreafonable time.
It is alledged, that the difficulties of the war prevented the giving notice, and that the Plaintiffs could not bring their action, untill they were in poffeffion of the bill. But is that true? Could not notice be given, notwithftanding the war? They faw the bill and proteft in the hands of Sitgreaves, and they knew they became refponfible. It was, therefore, their duty to provide for their indemnification and to give immediate notice. Nor could there by any great difficulty in finding the Defendant, for he appears to have been a man of note, in extenfive bufinefs, and dealt, at that very time, with Pringle, another indorfor of the bill, who lived in Philadelphia, and from whom information might have been obtained. There is perhaps, and honeft and a reafonable ground for not giving notice untill after the 20th of May, 1780, left the money fhould be paid in depreciated paper. But two years more elapfed, when that danger was over, by the extingifhment of continental money.
It has been faid, likewife, that when the drawer has no effects in hands, no notice is neceffary ; but it has been determined otherwife, as between indorfor and indorfee, upon the cleareft principles. What is it to the indorfor and indorfee, upon the cleareft principles. What is it to the indorfee whether the drawer has effects or not? Every indorfor is in law a new drawer, and he may be compelled to pay a bill, even where the name of the drawer had been forged. Every day's experience fhews that bills are taken on the credit of the indorfor alone–fometimes when the drawer is totally unknown. Nor
