Curtis

1. The statement made by Huse, the guarantor, to Dennis, the payee, after the maturity of the note, that “I am responsible for that note,” is, in substance, a promise to pay it. It is clear from the evidence that he then had full knowledge of the laches of the holder, in failing to demand payment of the maker, on the day the note matured; and it is well settled that a promise by an indorser of guarantor, after maturity, to pay the note, with notice of the laches, dispenses with the necessity of proving demand and notice. *241 (Keyes v. Fenstermaker, 24 Cal. 333 ; Sigerson v. Matthews, 20 How. 496 .) The court below, therefore, properly held that Huse was not released by a failure of the plaintiff to prove demand and notice.

2. There was no error in the refusal of the court below to nonsuit the plaintiff on the motion of the defendants. When the note was delivered to Curtis, it had on the back the blank indorsement of Dennis, the payee; and “the first effect of an indorsement in blank, is to make the paper payable, not to the transferee as indorsee, but as bearer.” (2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 19.) Curtis, therefore, acquired the legal title to the note, with a corresponding…