until the 17th of October 1782,) elapfed between the time at which the Plaintiffs had notice of the proteft of the bill in queftion, and the time when they gave notice to the Defendant: And, as the former refided at Philadelphia, and the latter at Poughkepʃie,in the ftate of New-York, the diftance of thefe places, which is lefs than 150 miles, does not fufficiently account for fo extraordinary a delay, even though it happened during a war.
It is well underftood, that notice of a proteft ought to be given in a reafonable time; and, by not giving it, the indorfer takes the lofs upon himfelf: 1 Salk. 2 Black. Rep. 469. Cun. Law. oƒ B. oƒ E. 40. Sect. 6. Doug. 497. Term. Rep. 168. 5 Burr. 2671. And want of notice is tantamount to payment. Term Rep. 408.712.
Upon the whole, we think this caufe requires a re-examination ; that the verdict was againft the ʃtrength of evidence given on the trial, and the law refpecting reafonable notice: and that the Defendant, who has no remedy over but againft James Whitelaw, the drawer of the bill, will be improperly expofed to a great lofs by the neglect of the Plaintiffs, if thofe perfon fhould, in the meantime, have become infolvent.
A new trial awarded. [♦]
[♦]See paʃt. ʃame Cauʃe, and Robertʃon et al. verfus Vagle in the C.P.
