Opinion
May, 1928.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. The appellant's own testimony (fols. 131-134, 139) sufficiently established that his relation to the original notes was that of a primary obligor, to whom notice of protest of the renewal note immediately preceding the note in suit was not necessary. ( Witherow v. Slayback, 158 N.Y. 649.) His defense, therefore, of a conditional delivery was unavailing. Rich, Young, Kapper and Scudder, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P.J., concurs in result.