McKay, the maker of the bond, certainly has no right to complain, if he is required to stand by his. obligation, as interpreted by the ordinance of October 18th 1865, and the acts of 1866, chapters 38 and 39. He put *556 his negotiable paper upon the market, and it is a novel idea that hé can afterward discharge it by paying the price which a third party may have paid for it. Tet this is the argument, and it is contended that as the payee Shepherd, assigned this bond to the plaintiff in consideration of,, and inpayment for, a tract of land, the obligation of the maker is thereby changed from what it was ■ when made- in May 1862* and whát it continued tobe up to the assighment in October 1863; and that he is only liable for the value of the land.

Instead of reducing, or in any way changing the original liability of the maker, the payee, by his endorsement, identified himself with the prior contract, and became a surety for the same. The’effect .of his endorsement was .not to drag the maker down to his level, but to raise'himself up to that of the maker. ’

. It was said upon the argument, that ’ it would be á hard case, to hold 'the endorser liable for more than, the value of the laúd; if that be conceded, still it is not so hard a casé as thousands of others, where sureties have to pay the debts of their principals, and never rec’eivé a cent for their own benefit.

It is evident that the endorser took the risk of assigning this bond for the land, upon the idea that the maker was good, and stood, between him and all danger. ,In this calculation he, like many others who have become, sureties, • was mistaken.

All that the plaintiff asked, was the scale of the bondr and interest from the time it fell due.

To this he was,clearly entitled, and there was error, in.the instruction of his Honor to the contrary.

Per Curiam. Venwe: de novo.