This case is ruled, by Marberger v. Pott, 4 Harris, 9, and Allen v. Hubert, 13 Wright, 259, and not by Gilbert v. Henck, 6 Casey, 205, in which the question of the character of the instrument did not arise, and the opinion expressed was clearly extrajudicial, *332as supposing it to be a guaranty, the Court held the plaintiff was entitled to judgment: Ashton v. Bayard, 21 P. F. Smith, 139.

Judgment affirmed-.