mend themselves to approbation.17

It has been justly said that

the corporate limits of the city define the limits as to the requirement of personal notice.18

Where a prior indorser resided in Frankfort, Ky., and the bill was there protested and notice sent to the holder at Shelbyville, and then transmitted to the indorser at Frankfort, by mail, it was held insufficient under the Kentucky statute."

19

17. Walker v. Bank of Augusta, 3 Kel. 486; Bank of United States v. Norwood, 1 Harr. & J. 423; Gist v. Lybrand, 3 Ohio, 307; Carson v. Bank of Alabama, 4 Ala. 148; Jones v. Lewis, 8 Watts & S. 14; Timms v. Delisle, 5 Blackf. 447; Bell v. State Bank, 7 Blackf. 457; Foster v. Smeath, 2 Rich. 338; Walker v. Bank of Missouri, 8 Mo. 704; Barrett v. Evans, 28 Mo. 323; Bondurant v. Everett, 1 Metc. (Ky.) 658, decided in 1858 (overruling Farmers' Bank v. Butler, 3 Litt. 498, decided in 1823). In this case the bill was payable at Mount Sterling, Ky., and the drawer lived two or three miles from that place. It was protested and notices deposited in the post-office at Mount Sterling, addressed to the indorser at Cincinnati and to the drawer at Mount Sterling. The court held it sufficient, and, overruling the case above referred to, said: "A great change has occurred in the business and condition of the commercial world since 1823, when the case in Littel' was decided. Facilities for the transmission of intelligence from point to point have been increased; new and more convenient postal arrangements have been effected, and, in consequence thereof, conveyance of letters by private hand has been almost abandoned. Persons resident in the same town or city frequently communicate with each other through the post-office in such place, because it is now the legal duty of postmasters to deliver such letters, which was not the case in 1823. Almost every person residing near a post-office resorts there regularly for his letters, as is shown to have been the case with Bondurant here. And it is rendered reasonably certain that he must have received the notice deposited in the office by the notary at an earlier day than he could have obtained it if sent to Cincinnati and returned."

18. Barrett v. Evans, 28 Mo. 323.

"As to the manner

19. In Todd v. Edwards, 7 Bush, 93, Peters, J., said: of giving notice of the dishonor of a bill, that subject is in many States of the Union regulated by special statute; but where there is no statutory regulation the rule seems to be that where the party to be charged resides in the same city or town where the bill is to be presented and demand made, notice must be personal, or left at his dwelling-house or place of business. Edwards on Bills and Notes, 456. By an act of the legislature in this State, approved January 16, 1864 (Myer's Supplement, 354), it is made the duty of notaries public, upon protesting bills of exchange, etc., to give or send notice of the dishonor of such paper to such parties thereto as are required by law to be notified, to fix their liability on such paper; and when the residence of any such parties is unknown to the notary public, he shall send the notices to the holder of such paper, and he shall state in his protest the names of the parties to whom he sent or gave such notices, and the time and the manner of giving

21

§ 1016. In the second place, how and where notice must be personally served.—If the notice is to be given to a party to whom it is not necessary or allowable to transmit it by mail, it should be sent to or given at his place of domicile or place of business, and delivery of notice at either will be sufficient,20 even when they are in different towns.2 When the party keeps a countingroom or other business place, and has a private residence also, it is usual to send notice to the place of business rather than to the dwelling, and if notice is so sent to his place of business during hours when he or some of his people might be reasonably expected there, it is sufficient; and if no one be there in the usual hours, and in the ordinary course of business, it is not necessary to leave a written notice, or to send to the house where he lives, or to make farther search for him, or inquiries about him, it being considered that he has dispensed with notice.22 This has been doubted, and while the law is to this effect, in our judgment it might be safer to send the notice to the residence when no one is found at the place of business.23 In a recent Alabama case the views of the text have been approved, and the doubts expressed were regarded as unfounded.24 Where the notice was left posted in a conspicuous place in the office of the indorser, it was held sufficient.25

If the indorser holds out by his course of conduct in the transaction that a certain place is his place of business, it is sufficient if notice be sent there.20

the same, and such statement in such protest shall be prima facie evidence that such notices were given or sent as therein stated by such notary."

20. Story on Bills, § 297; 3 Kent Comm. 106; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 488, 489; Ireland v. Kip, 10 Johns. 491; Van Vechten v. Pruyn, 13 N. Y. 549; Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet. 578; Williams v. Bank of United States, 2 Pet. 96; Sanderson v. Reinstadler, 31 Mo. 483; Nevins v. Bank, 10 Mich. 547; Grinman v. Walker, 9 Iowa, 426; St. Louis Bank v. Altheimer, 91 Mo. 190.

21. Bank of Geneva v. Howlett, 4 Wend. 328; Donner v. Remer, 21 Wend. 10. 22. Bayley on Bills, p. 176; Crosse v. Smith, 1 Maule & S. 545; Goldsmith v. Blane, 1 Maule & S. 554; Bancroft v. Hale, Holt, 476; Allen v. Edmundson, Car. & K. 547; Story on Bills, § 300; Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) [*273], 423; Lord v. Appleton, 15 Me. 579; State Bank v. Hennen, 16 Mart. 226; Thompson on Bills, 337; post, § 1119.

23. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 488.

24. John v. City Nat. Bank, 62 Ala. 529. See also John v. Selma Bank, 57 Ala. 96.

25. Hobbs v. Straine, 149 Mass. 213.

26. Berridge v. Fitzgerald, L. R., 4 Q. B. 641 (1869).

When the party has two or more places of business in the same town, the holder may send notice to either.27

§ 1017. Notice left with a clerk, or person in charge,28 at the party's place of business in his absence, or at his place of business, without proof as to the person with whom it was left, is sufficient,29 and proof that such person was not the party's agent has been held irrelevant, notice being left at the right place.30 So leaving it with his private secretary at his public office is sufficient.31

32

If the party be not found at his dwelling, it is sufficient to leave notice with his wife, or with any other person on his premises.33 A verbal message left at the party's house with his wife has been held sufficient,34 and the certificate of the notary, "left at his house at "would answer the requirements

of the law. 35

§ 1018. What place is deemed residence or place of business. A room where a party is accustomed to resort, but where he carries on no trade or employment, is not his place of business ;36 and it has been held that the fact that the indorser occupied a room

27. Phillips v. Alderson, 5 Humphr. 403; Commercial Bank v. Strong, 28 Vt. 316.

28. Mercantile Bank v. McCarthy, 7 Mo. App. 318; Edson v. Jacobs, 14 La. 494; Commercial Bank v. Gove, 15 La. 113.

29. Bank of Louisiana v. Mansaker, 15 La. 115; Mechanics' Banking Association v. Place, 4 Duer, 212; Isbell v. Lewis & Co., 98 Ala. 550, 13 So. 335. In New York, held that the evidence of a cashier of a bank at which the note was payable that he duly deposited the notice of protest in the proper postoffice is not conclusive. See Kingsland Land Co. v. Newman, 1 App. Div. 1, 36 N. Y. Supp. 960; Weakly v. Bell, 9 Watts, 279; Cook v. Forker, 193 Pa. St. 461, 44 Atl. 560, 74 Am. St. Rep. 699, citing text.

30. Jacobs v. Town, 2 La. Ann. 964.

31. Merz v. Kaiser, 20 La. Ann. 377.

32. Blakely v. Grant, 6 Mass. 386; Fisher v. Evans, 5 Binn. 542.

33. Cromwell v. Hynson, 2 Esp. 511; Isbell v. Lewis & Co., 98 Ala. 550, 13 So. 335.

34. Housego v. Cowne, 2 M. & W. 348, in which Bollana, B., said: "A person not a merchant who draws a bill of exchange, undertakes to have some one at his house to answer any application that may be made respecting it when it becomes due."

35. Adams v. Wright, 15 Wis. 408, but it was held in this case that proof that notice was left with a boy in the yard, who said that he was the indorser's son, and who went toward the house, was insufficient.

36. Stephenson v. Primrose, 8 Port. 155.

in another's house for settling up his former business, and there kept his books of account, and received his correspondence, did not constitute it his place of business.37 It will not be suffi

cient merely to leave notice in the building in which the party transacts business it must be at his very place of business— not to leave it at the store of the son of the indorser the latter residing in the same building, but having his usual place of business elsewhere.39 If the dwelling or chamber occupied by the indorser were closed, and he had left the place, it would be useless and unnecessary to proceed further.

40

§ 1019. If the party lodge at a private boarding-house, it is to all intents and purposes his dwelling; and if notice be delivered there to the proprietor, or to a servant of the house, or to a fellowboarder in the absence of the party himself, it is sufficient." If the party lodge at a public house, and the notary, after inquiry, learns that he is not in, it will suffice to leave notice at his room, or at the door of his room;42 and it seems that it will suffice to leave notice for a guest at a hotel with the barkeeper or other attendant.43

37. Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet. 578. But see Lamkin v. Edgerly (Mass.), 24 N. E. 49, where it was held that a room, to which notice was sent, having the indorser's name on a glass panel of the door of the room, and on the doorpost of the building, and where he paid his rent, was the "place of business" of such person within the meaning of chap. 139, §§ 8-9, of the Laws of Massachusetts..

38. Kleinman v. Boernstein, 32 Mo. 311.

39. Bank of United States v. Corcoran, 2 Pet. 121, in which case the court said: "The store of the son was as distinct and separate from the father as if they had been under different roofs. The former was entered from the street, and the latter from an alley or passage; and it does not appear that there was any inside communication between the two. The service of the note was no more a compliance with the requisition of the law than if it had been delivered to the son in the street or elsewhere, or left at his dwelling-house."

40. Howe v. Bradley, 19 Me. 35.

41. Bank of United States v. Hatch, 6 Pet. 250, in which case the court said: "This is not like the case of a public inn, and a delivery to a mere stranger who happens to be there in transitu, and cannot be presumed to have any knowledge or intercourse with the party. Boarders at the same house may be presumed to meet daily, and to feel some interest in the concerns of each other, and to perform punctually such common duties of life as this." See also Stedman v. Gooch, 1 Esp. 4; McMurtrie v. Jones, 3 Wash. C. C. 206; Miles v. Hall, 12 Smedes & M. 332.

42. Howe v. Bradley, 19 Me. 31.

43. Bradley v. Davis, 26 Me. 45; Dana v. Kemble, 19 Pick. 112; Graham v. Sangston, 1 Md. 59.

But in all cases the guest should be inquired for first. If it do not appear that he was really at the hotel, or that the notary inquired for him, or left notice with some competent person for him, the defect would be fatal." It would not suffice to leave notice with another guest at a hotel.45

SECTION VI.

MODE OF SERVING NOTICE WHEN THE PARTY GIVING AND THE PARTY TO RECEIVE IT RESIDE IN DIFFERENT PLACES.

§ 1020. The usual mode of serving notice when the parties reside in different places is by mail. But in some cases a special messenger is employed. We shall consider the service by mail and by messenger consecutively: (1) How, when, and where notice may be transmitted by mail; and (2) When special messenger may be employed.

§ 1021. In the first place, how, when, and where notice may be transmitted by mail. When the parties reside in different places, or the party entitled to notice resides at a place other than the particular place at which the bill or note is payable, it will, in general, be sufficient for the holder to put notice of dishonor in the post-office, addressed to the party entitled thereto, within the proper time. This done, his duty is discharged, and it is not necessary that the notice should be received the holder not being responsible for any miscarriage of the mail.46 What constitutes due diligence in seeking the party entitled to demand and notice, or his postal address, is elsewhere considered; as is also the case where

44. Ashley v. Gunton, 15 Ark. 415.

45. Bank of United States v. Hatch, 6 Pet. 250.

46. Farmers' Bank v. Gurnell, 26 Gratt. 137; Bussard v. Levering, 6 Wheat. 102; Lindenberger v. Beall, 6 Wheat. 104; Munn v. Baldwin, 6 Mass. 316; Cabot Bank v. Warner, 10 Allen, 524; Shelburne Falls Nat. Bank v. Townsley, 102 Mass. 177; Miller v. Hackley, 5 Johns. 375; Ellis v. Commercial Bank, 7 How. (Miss.) 294; Friend v. Wilkinson, 9 Gratt. 31; Sanderson v. Judge, 2 H. Blackst. 509; Woodcock v. Houldsworth, 16 M. & W. 126; Phelps v. Stocking, 21 Nebr. 443; Wooly v. Lyon, 117 Ill. 244. As to what is a proper address and mailing of notice under the Wisconsin law, see Glicksman v. Earley (Wis.), 47 N. W. 272. Chitty on Bills, 658; Story on Promissory Notes, § 328; Story on Bills, § 300; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 478; Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) [*270], 418; Thompson on Bills, 338; Parker v. Gordon, 7 East, 385; Kuth v. Weston, 3 Esp. 54. See post, § 1068.

47. See §§ 1114, 1115 et seq.