Case Name: BANK OF THE UNITED STATES v. LEE
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1828-04
Citations: 2 F. Cas. 702
Docket Number: 
Parties: BANK OF THE UNITED STATES v. LEE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 702–702

Head Matter:
Case No. 921.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES v. LEE.
[3 Cranch, C. C. 288.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
April Term, 1828.
Negotiable Instruments—Discharge op In-dorser-Extension of Time.
The indorser of a promissory note is discharged from his liability by the holder taking new security, and giving time to the maker without the consent of the indorser.
[See White v. Burns, Case No. 17,539; Cope v. Huntt, Id. 3,206; Varnum v. Milford, Id. 16,890; Morgan v. Tipton, Id. 9,809.]
The defendant [E. J. Lee] was the indorser of R. B. Lee’s note discounted by the plaintiffs.
THE COURT, (nem. con.) on the motion of Mr. Taylor, the defendant’s counsel, instructed the jury, in effect, that if they should find from the evidence that the plaintiffs, in consideration of new security given by the maker of the note, agreed with him, without the defendant’s consent, to extend the time of payment of the debt for one year or more, the defendant was thereby discharged from his liability as indorser of the note.
Mr. Taylor cited the following authorities:
7 Bac. Abr. 507; Nisbit v. Smith, 2 Brown. Ch. 579; Baird v. Rice, 1 Call, 18; Rees v. Berrington, 2 Ves. Jr. 540; Ward v. Johnson, 6 Munf. 6; Ellis v. Galindo, 1 Doug. 250, note; Hill v. Bull, Gilmer, 149; English v. Darley, 2 Bos. & P. 61; People v. Jansen, 7 Johns. 332; Bull, N. P. 275; Wilson v. Lenox, 1 Cranch, [5 U. S.] 194; James v. Badger, 1 Johns. Cas. 131; Croughton v. Duval, 3 Call, 69; Chitty, Bills, (Amer. Ed. 1817,) 300; Du-val v. Trask, 12 Mass. 154; U. S. v. Nicholl, 12 Wheat. [25 U. S.] 510; McLemore v. Powell, Id. 554, 557; Moore v. Bowmaker, 6 Taunt. 379.

Opinion:
Mr. Lear, for plaintiffs.