Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

to perform the duty, and thus exonerate itself from any liability.1

§ 124. The proper person to receive notice is the party who is looked to for payment when the party primarily liable fails to pay, as the maker in case of a note, the acceptor in case of a bill. Notice given to a general agent of the party is sufficient as if given to the principal in person.2 So, notice of protest to charge a corporation in whose name the indorsement is made, is properly served on the general agent of the corporation.3 But notice to a party's attorney or solicitor, unless he is specially authorized to receive it, is insufficient. If a paper be signed by a duly authorized agent in the principal's name, notice should be given to the principal, who is the party liable. But when an agent draws a bill in his own name, but for account of his principal, notice must be given to the agent, who is the drawer. A notice given to the principal, who is not a party to the bill, is not sufficient."

In cases of partnership, notice to any one partner is notice to the firm. If an indorser be a member of a firm, notice to the firm is sufficient. If the drawer of a bill be in fact the partner of the acceptor, either generally or in the single adventure in which the bill made a part, in that event notice of dishonor by the holder to the drawer need not be given; for the knowledge of one partner is the knowledge of the other, and notice to one is notice to the other. And if one of the firm be dead, notice to the survivor is sufficient.10

In case of death of the party to be notified, notice should be sent to his executor or administrator, if there be any, and they can be ascertained, but if not, a notice addressed to the deceased

1 Fabens v. Mercantile Bank, 23 Pick. 382; Dorchester Bank v. New England Bank, 1 Cush. 177. See further on this point Sec. 135.

2 Cross v. Smith, 1 M. & Sél. 545: Fassin v. Hubbard, 55 N. Y. 471.

8 Bank of Auburn v. Putnam, 1 Abb. App. Dec. 80.

4 Louisiana State Bank v. Ellery, 16 Mart. 87.

5 Clay v. Oakley, 17 Mart. 137.

Grosvenor v. Stone, 8 Pick. 79.

7Gowan v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 176; People's Bank v. Keech, 26 Md. 521; Story on Bills, Sec. 308.

Rhett v. Poe, 2 How. U. S. 457.

Id.

10 Hubbard v. Matthews, 54 N. Y. 50.

by name would be sufficient.1 Notice to one of several executors or administrators would be sufficient.2 It has been decided that notice addressed to "the estate" would not suffice, as that term applies as well to the heir at law as to the executor or administrator.3

In case of bankruptcy, it is best to give notice to the bankrupt as well as to his assignee; but if no assignee has been appointed, notice to the bankrupt is sufficient. It has, however, been thought sufficient to notify the bankrupt alone.5

Notice left with a clerk at the party's place of business, without proof as to the person with whom it was left, is sufficient, and proof that such person was not the party's agent has been held irrelevant, notice being left at the right place."

§ 125. Notice, when the parties reside in the same place, is in general personal, unless otherwise provided by statute. Where both parties live in the same town, the sender of the notice is bound to show that it was actually received by the indorser in due season. If notice is sent by mail, it will not be sufficient, unless it be shown it was actually received in due time. But now, in large cities and towns, since the mails are delivered several times during the day, it is allowed generally by statute to deposit a notice in the post-office when the parties reside in the same city, and the mere deposit, without it being shown that it was actually received, will be sufficient." "In large com

1 Maspers v. Pedesclaux, 22 La. An. 227; Oriental Bank v. Blake, 22 Pick. 206; Cayuga Bank v. Bennett, 5 Hill, 236; 1 Pars. N. & B. 501; Cal. Civil Code, Sec. 3146.

2 Beales v. Peck, 12 Barb. 245; Lewis v. Bakewell, 6 La. An. 359.

8 Massachusetts Bank v. Oliver, 10 Cush. 557.

4 Ex parte Moline, 19 Ves. 216.

51 Pars. N. & B. 500.

Edson v. Jacobs, 14 La. An. 494; Bank of Louisiana v. Mansaker, 15 La. An. 115; Mechanics' Bank Assn. v. Place, 4 Duer, 212.

7 Cabot Bank v. Warner, 10 Allen 522.

8 Bowling v. Harrison, 6 How. U. S. 248; Shelbourne Falls Nat. Bank v. Townsley, 102 Mass. 177; Boyd v. City Savings Bank, 15 Gratt. 501; Barnes v. Caldwell, 3 Pittsb. 336.

By Laws of New York of 1857, Chap. 416, such notices may be served by depositing them-with the postage thereon prepaid-in the post-office of the city or town where such promissory note, check, draft, or bill of exchange was payable, or legally presented for payınent or acceptance, directed to the indorser or drawer at such city or town. And in Requa v. Collins, 51 N. Y. 144, it was held that the degree of diligence required under this statute, to ascertain the

mercial towns, the uniform practice," says the Court in Bell v. Hagerstown Bank,1 "now is to reach the party to be affected with notice, through the post-office, when both reside within the limits of the penny-postman; but it must be shown to have been put in in time to be delivered before the expiration of the day following the refusal." Thus, it has been held, that where a bill was dishonored in Philadelphia, and notice sent to an indorser in Providence, the latter might give notice to a previous party, residing in Providence, through the post-office.2 Sometimes the custom or usage of banks in certain places, in the absence of any statutory provision, will permit notice being sent through the mail.3

§ 126. Who may be regarded as living in the same place is an important question to determine, when notice may be sent through the mail. The best authorities hold that even if a person lives a short distance from a town or city, but is in the habit of receiving his letters at a particular office there, a notice deposited in that office will be sufficient. This is the view of the United States Supreme Court, and is generally followed;4 though it has sometimes been held the notice should be sent to the post-office nearest him.5

residence of the party, is no greater than that required by the common law in a case where payment differs from the place of residence. By Civil Code of California, Sec. 3144, notice may be given under these circumstances through the mail. In Georgia, a deposit in the post-office, under Sec. 2781 of the Code, is sufficient. McNatt v. Jones, 52 Ga. 473. In Minnesota, notice may be given through the post-office, under these circumstances. 1 Bissell's Stat. 205. Also in Iowa. Code, Sec. 2005. In Illinois, it is provided that the notice must be personal if the parties reside in the town, precinct, or village where the protest was made, or within a mile thereof; but if more than a mile, notice may be given by mail or other safe conveyance. If the city where the protest is made contains 10,000 or more inhabitants, the notice may be forwarded by mail. Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 721. 17 Gill. 216.

2 Ray v. Porter, 42 Ala. 327; Eagle Bank v. Hathaway, 5 Met. 213. See, to the same point, Manchester Bank v. Fellows, 8 Fost. 313; Hartford Bank v. Stedman, 3 Conn. 489.

3 Bowling v. Harrison, 6 How. U. S. 248; Gindrat v. Mechanics' Bank, 7 Ala. 324; Chicopee Eank v. Eager, 9 Met. 583.

4 Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet. 578; and see, to the same effect, Gist v. Lybrand, 3 Ohio, 307: Bell v. State Bank, 7 Blackf. 457; Jones v. Lewis, 8 Watts & S. 14; Barrett v. Evans, 28 Mo. 323; Bondurant v. Everett, 1 Met. Ky. 658.

Ireland v. Kip, 11 Johns. 231; Edwards on Bills, 602.

§ 127. When notice is personally served, it should be at his residence or established place of business; and when no one is found at the place of business, it is held that one is not bound to proceed to his private residence and give notice.1 And when a party has two or more places of business in the same town, notice may be sent to either. When notice is sought to be given at the private dwelling of a party, it is sufficient to leave it with the wife, private secretary, or any other person on his premises.2

A certificate of a notary-"left at his house at”—would be sufficient to answer the requirement of the law. But it was held in the same 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.

It will not do merely to leave notice in a building where a party transacts his business-it must be at his very place of business. If the dwelling or apartments occupied by the indorser be closed, and he had left the place, it would be of no use to proceed further.5 When a party lives at a private boardinghouse, it is to all intents and purposes his residence, and notice given there to a person belonging to the house, in his absence, is sufficient. If a party live at a public house, and if after inquiry the notary is informed that he is not in, it would be sufficient to leave a notice at his room, or at the door of his room.7

But in all cases it should be the duty of the notary to inquire for him first; for when it does not appear that he was really at the hotel, or that the notary inquired for him, or that notice was left with some competent person for him, the omission would be fatal.8

1 Goldsmith v. Blane, 1 Maule & S. 554; Bayley on Bills, 176; Lord v. Appleton, 15 Me. 179; Williams v. Bank of U. S. 2 Pet. 96; Grinman v. Walker, 9 Iowa, 426; Nevins v. Bank, 10 Mich. 547; Van Vechten v. Pruyn, 3 Kern. 549.

2 Blakely v. Grant, 6 Mass. 386; Fisher v. Evans, 5 Binn. 542; Cromwell v. Hynson, 2 Esp. 511; Merz v. Kaiser, 20 La. An. 377.

3 Adams v. Wright, 15 Wis. 408.

4 Kleinman v. Boernstein, 32 Mo. 311.

5 Howe v. Bradley, 19 Me. 35.

• Bank of U. S. v. Hatch, 6 Pet. 250.

7 Howe v. Bradley, 19 Me. 31.

Ashley v. Gunton, 15 Ark. 415.

If no one be found at the party's place of residence, a notice put in the keyhole is sufficient. Stewart v. Eden, 2 Cal, 121.

§ 128. Notice, parties residing in different places.-The mail is the usual mode of giving notice when the parties reside in different places. A party, under these circumstances, fully discharges his duty if, at the proper time, he deposits a notice, postage prepaid, in the mail, and he is not bound then to show that such notice was actually received, because he is not held responsible for any miscarriage of the mail. This notice should be directed to the post-office nearest where the party resides, unless he is in the habit of receiving his letters at another office, and then notice should be directed there.1

a

When a party, by a memorandum on the paper, indicates place of residence or business, notice should be sent there.2 When there are two post-offices in the town where the party resides, notice may be directed to the town generally, unless the holder knows, or has reason to know, that he receives his letters. at one of them, in which case notice should be directed there.3

If a party has a place of residence at a place where a bill or note is protested, and a place of business somewhere else, it is wrong to send notice by mail to his place of business. Thus, in New York, an indorser was held to be discharged, who had a known residence in the village where the note was protested, and was generally at home three days in the week, when the notice was sent by mail to another city where his place of business was, where he spent four days of the week and received his letters and papers, because there was no evidence that the notice actually reached him in due time, so as to render it equivalent to personal notice.1

§ 129. When parties reside temporarily in a place, as in the case of members of a legislature or of Congress, while the bodies they attend are in session, it will be sufficient if notice be sent to them there, or left at their place of residence. Thus, in the case of Chouteau v. Webster,5 a notice sent to Mr.

1 Bank of Geneva v. Howlett, 4 Wend. 328; Mercer v. Lancaster, 5 Barb. 160.

2 Peters v. Hobbs, 25 Ark. 67; Morris v. Husson, 4 Sandf. 93; Baker v. Morris, 25 Barb. 138; Farmers' Bank v. Battle, 4 Humph. 86.

8 Morton v. Westcott, 8 Cush. 425; Downer v. Remer, 21 Wend. 10; Cabot Bank v. Russell, 4 Gray, 167.

4 Van Vechten v. Pruyn, 3 Kern. 549.

56 Met. 1.

NOTARIES-9.

« AnteriorContinuar »