the case may be; but protest is not required, except in the case of foreign bills of exchange."

Under the law merchant protest was absolutely necessary to hold the drawer or indorser of a foreign bill of exchange or of a promissory note placed on the footing of a foreign bill of exchange. Dodge v. Bank of Kentucky, 2 A. K. Mar. 610; Read v. same, 1 T. B. Mon. 91; Chenowith v. Chamberlain, 6 B. Mon, 60; Piner v. Clary, 17 B. Mon. 645.

But protest of an inland bill of exchange was not only unnecessary, but the production of such protest in evidence proved nothing in favor of the holder. Taylor v. Bank of Illinois, 7 T. B. Mon. 580; Whiting v. Walker, 2 B. Mon. 262; Bank of the United States v. Leathers, 10 B. Mon. 64.

The same was true of an ordinary promissory note. Bank of the United States v. Leathers supra.

After these decisions several statutes were enacted relative to the duties of notaries public as to the protest of bills and notes. The first of these, which is Section 479 of the Kentucky Statutes, was adopted in the Revised Statutes of 1852. It is:

"Section 479. The protest of a notary public,

under his seal, of the non-acceptance or nonpayment of a bill, shall be prima facie evidence of its dishonor."

The second, the material parts of which are to be found in Sections 3723, 3724, 3725 and 3726 of the Kentucky Statutes, was passed in 1864 (Meyer's Supplement, page 354). They are:

"Section 3723. It shall be the duty of the notaries public of this Commonwealth to record in a well-bound and properly indexed book, kept by them for that purpose, all protests by them made for the non-acceptance or non-payment of all bills of exchange, checks or promissory notes, placed on the footings of the bills of exchange, and on which a protest is now required by law, or of the dishonor of which such protest is now evidence by law, and a copy of such protest, certified by the said notary public under his notarial seal, shall be prima facie evidence in all the courts of this Commonwealth.

"Section 3724. Upon the resignation of such notary public or the expiration of his term of office, and he is not reappointed, it shall be his duty to place such book in the office of the clerk of the County Court in and for the county in which said notary was appointed; and when the notary shall die, his representative shall deposit the said book with the clerk aforesaid, and thereafter

a copy of such record, certified by the clerk, shall be evidence in all the courts of this Commonwealth.

"Section 3725. It shall hereafter be the duty of notaries public, upon protesting any of the instruments mentioned in Section 3723, to give or send notice of the dishonor of such paper to such of the parties thereto as are required by law to be notified, to fix their liability on such paper; and when the residence of the parties is known to the notaries public and he shall send the notices to the holders 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 manner of giving the same, and such statement in such protest shall be prima facie evidence that such notices were sent or given as therein stated by such notary.

"Section 3726. When any bill of exchange or commercial paper has heretofore or shall hereafter be protested in any other State of these United States, in which the same is made payable, and by the laws of said State a notary public or other officer legally authorized to protest the same is required to give or send notice of the dishonor thereof to the parties, or when his certificate or a copy thereof that such notice or notices were sent is evidence thereof in the courts of such

State, the same shall be received as evidence in all the courts of this Commonwealth, in all actions of such bills of exchange and have the same effect as evidence as is given in such evidence in the courts of such State."

We are of the opinion that these statutes are not repealed by the Negotiable Instruments Act. (But see note 2 to Section 96). Under Section 118 of this Act and the authorities above cited it is clear that protest is still necessary on a foreign bill of exchange. But while it is not under this section necessary that a domestic bill or a negotiable note shall be protested, yet the question arises, where such a note or bill is protested, is the notary's certificate evidential under the above statutes of its dishonor and of the notice given as recited in the certificate? We think it is.

It will be noted that neither in Section 479 nor in Sections 3723 and 3725 is the word "foreign" used. In Section 479 the language is "a bill." And in Section 3723 the words are "all bills of exchange or promissory notes, placed on the footings of bills of exchange."

Section 3723 could have no reference to Section 483, Kentucky Statutes, placing on the footing of foreign bills of exchange notes which are discounted by any bank chartered in this State or any Federal bank located in this State, because

Section 483 was not passed until over one year after Section 3723 (Meyer's Supplement, page 60). Before that time certain banks had been granted charters which placed notes discounted by them on the footing of foreign bills. Whether any charter placed such notes on the footing of inland bills, we do not know. But it was possible that such a charter might be granted and if so, no doubt the above statute would have applied.

But all the decisions of the Court of Appeals since that time, with possibly one exception (Young v. Bennett, 7 Bush 474), that we have found, have applied these statutes to inland bills of exchange. Section 479 was applied to an inland bill in Trabue v. Sayre, 1 Bush 129. Sections 3723 and 3725 were applied to inland bills of exchange in Todd v. Edwards, 7 Bush 89; Neal v. Taylor, 9 Bush 380, and Moreland's Admr. v. Citizens' Savings Bank, 114 Ky. 577, 71 S. W. 520, 24 K. L. R. 1354; Monarch v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 105 Ky. 430, 49 S. W. 317, 20 K. L. R. 1351.

In these cases the Court did not deem it of sufficient importance to state in terms that the papers involved were inland bills and these facts can only be discovered by reading the facts stated in each opinion. Sections 3723 and 3725 are referred to and discussed at length in the cases of Mulholland v. Samuels, 8 Bush 63, and Lyddane