¶1 The single question necessary to be decided, is, whether Lutterloh was entitled to recover of the defendants,, more than the value of what he paid, as endorser, for them? We are of the opinion that he was not.
¶2 It was the privilege of the defendants, under an act of the Assembly to that effect, to pay off the note in bank, with the bills-of the bank; and Lutterloh deprived them of that privilege, by officiously paying off the note, in the depreciated bills of the bank, worth some five or six cents in the dollar.
¶3 To allow Lutterloh, or his assignee, the plaintiff, to recover' the full amount of the note in par funds, would be to allow a" surety to speculate upon the principal; for which, we know no-authority.
¶4 There is error.
¶5 Per Curiam. Venire de novo.