After demand of the maker of a note, on the third day of grace,
notice to the endorser on the same day is sufficient by the general
law merchant.
Evidence of a letter containing notice having been put into the
post office directed to the endorser at his place of residence is
sufficient proof of the notice to be left to the jury, and it is
unnecessary to give notice to the defendant to produce the letter
before such evidence can be admitted. �19 U.S. U.S. 105�
Assumpsit against the defendant (Beall), as endorser of a
promissory note, drawn by one Tunis Craven, dated at Baltimore,
October 22, 1811, in favor of the defendant and by him endorsed to
the plaintiffs, for $191.17, negotiable at the Bank of Washington,
payable six months after date. At the trial the note was given in
evidence and the handwriting of the drawer and endorser admitted.
The plaintiffs further proved by a notary that the note was by him
demanded of the drawer on Saturday, 25 April, 1812, being the day
on which it became payable -- that is, the last day of grace. And
not being paid, notice of the nonpayment thereof was enclosed in a
letter addressed to the defendant at the City of Washington and put
into the post office at Georgetown. The notary testified that he
had no recollection of these facts, district court and only knew
them from his notarial book, and the protest made out at the time,
by which it appeared that a demand was then made of the drawer and
the protest made and notice sent, and from its being his invariable
practice to give notice either personally or by letter to the
endorsers on the same day. Nor did he then recollect that he
addressed the letter to the defendant in Washington, but he
presumed from his book and protest and his uniform practice that if
he did not know where the defendant lived (which was probably the
case when he received the note), he inquired and ascertained his
residence and addressed it properly. Upon which evidence the
defendant's counsel prayed the court to instruct the jury that the
above proof of notice was insufficient to charge the defendant as
endorser of said note and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to
recover. Which opinion the court gave. The plaintiffs' counsel
excepted to the opinion. A verdict and judgment thereon was
rendered for the defendant by the court below, and the cause was
brought by writ of error to this Court.
The Court was unanimously of opinion that after demand of the
maker on the third day of grace, notice to the endorser on the same
day was sufficient by the general law merchant, and that evidence
of the letter containing notice having been put into the post
office directed to the defendant at his place of residence was
sufficient proof of the notice to be left to the jury, and that it
was unnecessary to give notice to the defendant to produce the
letter before such evidence could be admitted.
Judgment reversed.