case tempt Hardwicke cooper versus Le blanc in order to charge the endorse of  a promissory note it be not necessary to prove a demand make upon the maker  yet quaer at the sit in term in London the question be whether the endorse of  a promissory note shall be charge though no demand can be prove to have be  make upon the drawer and Lord Hardwicke c j hold he shall and he say that my  Lord salk pl ld raym Mod holt be of a contrary opinion for he take the  endorsor to be only a warrantor and that therefore a demand be necessary and  that the late Lord chief justice stram Eyre be of the same opinion but he say  that my Lord chief justice stram Pratt and Lord kin and Lord Raymond be of  opinion he may be charge he atk Rep pl himself be of the same opinion the  defence be that the note in question and the endorsement be forge and this  they will prove by examine into the similitude of hand for though the  defendant have actual acknowledge this very endorsement to be his band yet it  be allege that arise from a mistake in the defendant because there be another  real note of the same date and content outstanding but Lord Hardwicke c j will  not suffer it and say that possible it may be do if there have be no actual  acknowledgement or even as there have be such you may possible be allow to  give proof of a actual forgery but it will be of most dangerous consequence  now after such a acknowledgement the endorsor shall have be cautious mich geo  two heylin Adamson by Lord Mansfield that a demand must be prove upon acceptor  of bill or drawer of note in convenient time and if not and be fail no action  against endorse bar Rep so contrary to Hardwicke see hamillon Mackrel post pa  the doctrine here and in Hamilton v Mackrel pa post lie down have be repeat  contradict a very elaborate judgement be give in heylin Adamson burr see Doug  east r bar bail city on bill in the principal case and in that report pa post  the distinction between the drawer of a bill and the maker of a note do not  seem to be sufficient recognize these liability under similar circumstance be  confound whereas the primary liability in all event of the acceptor of the  bill and that of the maker of the note be analogous not so that of the drawer  of the bill who be liable only in default of the acceptor and therefore it be  that in action against the endorsor of a bill proof of the drawer refusal to  pay be not require see the case last mention it be clear mark in heylin  Adamson burr mention above case tempt Hardwicke er p