¶1I concur in the foregoing opinion generally, and for the reasons assigned. But I do not concur in the position, that if the holder held a double security, viz. : first, a deposit of goods, and second, the endorser, he would exonorate the endorser by giving up the deposit. If not given as a payment, he had a right to give it up, and look to the endorser.
10 S.C.L. 116
Haslett v. Ehrick
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided January 15, 1818
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1818-01-15
Tried before Mr. Justice G-rimke, at Charleston, January Term, 1817. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff as endorsee, against the defendant, as endorser of several promissory notes drawn by Philip Cohen. The plaintiff’s right to recover was resisted on the grounds : 1. That legal notice of non-payment by the drawer, had not been given to the defendant, the endorser, by which he was discharged.
Decided 1818-01-15