Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/270

 264 Casas ruled and adjudged in the t7g6. there were two ints of diferimination between Promillbry www Notes and Bills oi'xExchange :-10:. Promillbry Notes were ta- ken by the indorfee, fubjeét to all the equitable circumllances, to which they were l`ubjc& in the hands of the indorfor. 1 Dall. Ri•p.441. And ad. Protelted Bills of Exchange were entitled to a priori:y in payments by executors, or adminiltrators. The Legiflature meant, in the cafe of Bills and Notes, difcounted at the Bank of Pmq/ylvnnin, to alrolifh all diitinétion between thofe commercial inllruments; and the exprellion of the aB: is iitlliciently comprchenllve to elfeftuate that objeé}. But, it was anfwered, by Mar/uu, Tbemax, and AI. Levy, that the Ac]: of Affembly only applied to the remedy upon a Pro- milibry Note; and did not alter the nature and clnarader of the inllrument. The exifling mifchlef, intended to be removed, was the right of l`et·ollZ claimed by the drawer againlt the in- dorfec; and even upon the words of the two a£ls, it was re- markable, that the priority is given by the firll: to pmt:/kd Bills of Exchange; whereas the fecond places Promiilbry Notes on the fame footing as bhrcign Bills of Exchange. Br THE Comm'. Though the quellion is not regularly be- fore us, we have no objeétion to intimate our opinion, that Promillbry Notes are not entitled to the fame priority as Bills of Exchange. The Aft of Alfembly applies only to the cafe of defalcation. _ STILES, Plf. in Er. vzyiu Douaunson. . RIT of Error. To an a£tion of Debt on a Bond, da- 6-  U   ted in Augrj 1774, the defendant pleaded pqrmmt, and 2/  I 4 gave notice of a pz-gf The caufe was tried in the Common · 'Pleas of Pbiladeqzl-iu County on the rgth of Nwemlzer l794, when the Bond being proved, without any indorfemcnt of a payment, for principal, or intereft, the defendant, by way of fet-oft`, offered evidence to fhew, “ that alter the execution of the Bond, and before the commencement of the fuit, the Plain- til? had beéome indebted to him in a fum exceeding the amount of the Bond, upon accounts {lill remaining unliquidated and nnfertled between them, as merchants, concerning the titles of ancrchandize made by the Plaintit}, in parts beyond the fea, as agent and fadtor for the ¢lefenda,nt?’ To the adrnillion of this evitlence, the plaintiff objeéled, that there was a lapfe of more than 17 years, (ince the date of the lail item of the accounts, and no proof given of any fubfequent demand of the money vow propofed to be [ct-ofl`; and that the long acquiefcence of Ha- rlefcmlant, as well as the politive bar of the ilatute of limi- tatioms,

�