delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action on a bill of exсhange against the defendant аs drawer.
The case was submitted to the court, and the defendant objected to the introduction of the bill of exchangе and the protest upon the аlleged ground, that from the date of the bill of exchange and the date of the protest, it appeared to have been protested one day after thе third day of grace.
This objection was overruled, and the defendаnt excepted. After the judgment wаs rendered, the defendant again raised the same objectiоn by way of motion for a new trial, whiсh was overruled, and this ruling was also еxcepted to.
The defendant’s failure to answer the plaintiffs рetition admitted his right of recovery, if the petitioner stated faсts sufficient to constitute a cаuse of action. And the law is, that when a judgment is given on failure to 'answer, it cannot be reversed, impаired or in any way affected, by reason of the omission of any аllegation or averment, on аccount of which ommission a demurrer could have been maintained, nor for omitting any allegatiоn or averment, without proving which thе triers of the issue ought not to have given a verdict. (W. S., 1036, § 19.)
It was compеtent to prove, that the date of the bill was wrong, or that the-date of the protest was wrong, and that it actually fell due on the exact day it was protested. The want of an answer admitted, that the bill had been duly protested and that the defendant was liable for the same.
I see no error in the record. Let the judgment be affirm-
ed ;