to an action against the indorfer.
Clark v. Young,

-

181

2. If a promiffory note of a third
perfon be indorfed, by the pur-
chafer of goods, to the vender, as
a conditional payment for the
goods, Quere, whether the vender
is, in any cafe, obliged to fue the
maker of the note before he can re-
fort to the purchafer of the goods
on the original contract of fale?
Clark v. Young,
193
3. A fuit against the defendant as in-
dorfer of the note, and a fuit against
him for the goods fold, are upon dif.
tinct and different causes of action;
and the first can not be pleaded in
bar of the fecond. Ib.
193
4. It is not neceffary for the plaintiff
to offer to return the note, to enti-
tle him to an action for the goods
fold. ib.
194
5. In Virginia, an action will not
lie by the holder against a remote
indorfer of a promiffory note.
Mandeville v. Riddle,

-

290

6. Quere, whether the holder of a
promiffory note in Virginia, can
not maintain an action for money had
and received, against a remote in-
dorfer? Dunlop v. Silver, 367
7. Can he, for whofe benefit a promife
is made to a third perfon, main-
tain an action against the promi-
429

for?

Ib.

I

28

44

2. To fupport a demand for falvage,
the re-capture must be lawful, and
a meritorious fervice must be ren-
dered. Id.
3. Probable caufe is fufficient to ren-
der the re-capture lawful. Id. 31
4. Where the amount of falvage is
not regulated by pofitive law, it
must be determined by principles
of general law. Id.
5. Marine ordinances of foreign
countries, promulgated by the
executive by order of the legifla-
ture of the United States, may be
read in the courts of the United
States without further authentica-
tion or proof. Quere, whether they
may not be read without fuch pro-
mulgation? Id.

38

38

6. Municipal laws of foreign coun
tries are generally to be proved
as facts. Talbot v. Seeman,
7. To entitle to falvage, in cafes of
re-capture, it is not neceffary that
the means used should be with that
fole view. Id.
36,41
8. The rule that falvage is not due
for the re-capture of a neutral, is
founded on the fact, that no be.
nefit has been conferred. Id. 37
9. To entitle to falvage, it is not
neceffary that the deftruction of
the thing would have been inevi-
table, but for the means used to
fave it; but the danger muft be
real and imminent. Id. 42, 43
10. Salvage does not imply a contraf.
Id.
42, 43
11. France and the United States

2. If a promiffory note of a third
perfon be indorfed by the pur-
chafer of goods to the vender, as
a conditional payment for the
goods, Quere, whether the vend-
er is, in any cafe, obliged to fue
the maker of the note before he
can refort to the purchaser of the
goods on the original contract of
fale. Ib.
181
A fuit against the defendant as in-
dorfer of the note, and a fuit against
the defendant for the goods fold, are
upon diftinct and different causes
of action; and the first can not be
pleaded in bar of the fecond. ib.
4. It is not neceffary for the plaintiff

3.

to offer to return the note, to en-

title him to bring fuit for the goods
fold.
ib.

5. A declaration in debt, upon a fo-
reign protested bill of exchange,
for the principal, intereft, damages
and cifts of proteft, under the act of
affembly of Virginia, muft aver the
amount of those cofts of proteft.
Willon v. Lenox.
195
6. Quere, whether the indorfer is dif
charged. if, after due notice to
fuch indorfer of non-payment by
the drawee, the holder charge the
bill in account current against the
drawer, and upon the whole of that
account the balance due is less than
the amount of the bill?
7. Whether the indorfer, after due
notice, is difcharged by the hold-
er's receipt of part of the money
from the drawer?
8. Whether it is neceffary to aver a
protest for non-acceptance, in an ac-
tion on proteft for non payment?
ib.

ib.

ib.

9. Whether the drawer is a competent
witness for the indifer, in an action
against the latter.*
ib.
10. Whether proteft for non-payment
of a foreign bill of exchange muft
be made on the last day of grace.
Fenwick v. Sears,
11. Whether the reasonableness of no-
tice be matter of fact, or matter of
-lav.
id.
ib.

260

12. Whether, on the count for money
bad and received, notice of non-ac-
ceptance and of non payment, be
neceffary to charge an indorfer
who knew, at the time of indorf.
ing, that the drawer had no right
to draw. id.
ib.
13. In Virginia, an indorfee of a pro-
miffory note cannot maintain an
action against a remote indorfer, for

See Herton. Atkinson, 7. T. R. 421,
and Birt. Kershaw, 2 Eaft. 460.