As to all parties to negotiable paper entitled to claim notice, except the drawer of a check, who can claim recompense only to the extent of injury, those who have not been given notice in the manner hereinbefore described are absolutely relieved from all obligation upon the paper,1 unless notice has been waived in the manner stated in the next section. The same rule applies to a failure to present for acceptance paper that requires acceptance, and to a failure to make a demand where a demand is required. And the rules stated herein may be applied to those cases also. If the negotiable paper has been given in payment of a claim,2 or indorsed in payment of a claim,3 the claim is extinguished to the amount of the paper. If the paper has been given or transferred as security for a debt, the maker or transferrer is entitled to a credit upon the debt to the amount of the paper, if it be lost through the pledgee's negligence.4 The matter of release will not be a question of injury suffered,5 whenever the debtor is an in-dorser, but will be a case of an obligation to arise upon the performance of a condition precedent, which condition was never performed. The analogy between the effect of a failure to make a demand for payment or for acceptance and a failure to give notice is complete.

4 United States v. Barker, Fed. Cas. No. 14,519. This judge did not seem to know that such a notice would be invalid.

5 See cases in note 2.

6Norris v. Despard, 88 Md. 487; Farmers' Bank v. Gunnell, 26 Grat. 131, and cases in note 1, supra.

7 Turner v. Patten, 49 Ala. 400; Harp v. Kenner, 19 La. Ann. 63; Morgan v. Bank of Louisville. 4 Bush, 82; Shaw v. Neal, 19 La. Ann. 150. See Apperson v. Union Bank, 4 Cold. 445. This decision purports to be a trea tise.

8 Duerson v. Alsop, 27 Gratt 229. In this case the court held the secession ordinance valid. See Farmers' Bank v. Gunnell, 26 Gratt. 131, which held it was governed by the Federal Constitution. It seems that the secession ordinance took Virginia out of the Union, and yet it remained in the Union. Such are the productions of Bourbonism.

9 Tunno v. Lague, 2 Johns. Cas. 1; Hanauer v. Anderson, 16 Lea, 340; Apperson v. Bynum, 4 Cold. 445 (dictum). Contra, Roosevelt v. Wood-hull, Anth. N. P. 250.

10 Hanauer v. Anderson, 16 Lea, 840.

11 Hanauer v. Anderson, 16 Lea, 340.