The certificate to be sufficient as proof of demand and notice should state in some way that a demand was made, that payment was refused, and that notice of non-payment was given.1 The fact of demand should be stated, but the certificate need not state the hour.2 If it states that demand was made at a place of busi-

8Carruth v. Walker. 8 Wis. 252; Lawson v. Pinckney, 40 N. Y. Super. Ct 187. See Teconic Bank v. Stack-pole, 41 Me. 302; Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H. 558. Both these cases treat a promissory note indorsed in another state as a foreign bill. Dunn v. Adams, 1 Ala. 527, semble.

9 Corbin v. Planters' Bank, 87 Va. 661; Etting v. Schuylkill Bank, 2 Pa. 355; Schoneman v. Fegley, 7 Pa. 433. See Union Bank v. Hyde, 6 Wheat 572; McAllister v. Smith, 17 I11. 328; Sumner v. Bowen, 2 Wis. 524 The certificate can be used as a memorandum by the notary as a witness. Bernard v. Barry, 1 G. Greene, 388.

10 Harrison v. Brown, 16 La. 282; Dickens v. Beal, 10 Pet 572; Shank-lin v. Cooper, 8 Blackf. 41.

11Austin v. Wilson, 24 Vt 630; Nichols v. Webb, 8 Wheat 326; Bank of Wilmington v. Cooper, 1 Har. 10.

12Portas v. Painboeuf, 1 Mart. (O. S.) 267; Halliday v. Martinet, 20 Johns. 168 (sworn copy); Homes v. Smith, 16 Ma 181; Bodley v. Scarborough, 5 How. (Miss.) 729. Contra, Williamson v. Patterson, 2 Mc-Cord, 132.

13 Wilber v. Selden, 6 Cow. 162.

14 McKnight v, Lewis, 5 Barb. 681.

1 Crowley v. Barry, 4 Gill, 194; Gardner v. Bank of West Tennessee, 1 Swan, 419; Langley v. Palmer, 30 Ma 467.

2 The certificate should show presentment to the proper person (Duckert v. Von Lilienthal, 11 Wis. 56), or presentment at his residence ness it will be presumed to have been during business hours.3 If it states that a demand was made at a bank, lor example, it need not state upon what officer'it was made.4 But a demand upon a partnership made upon one partner must show the names of the partners, and the name of the particular partner upon whom the demand was made.5 If the person upon whom demand is made has more than one place of business, the certificate should state at which place the demand was made, if the paper was payable at a particular one of the two places.6 If the demand is stated to be made upon some one for the maker or drawee, the place of making the demand ought to be stated, in order to show the demand was at a proper place.7 If the certificate states a presentment, it will be presumed that the demand was in accordance with the tenor of the paper.8 The certificate may state along with the usual statements all that transpired at the demand,9 and it has been held that if payment was refused the reason given for refusal should be stated.10 It must apor place of business. See notes 4 and 12, infra. It is said that the certificate should show a presentment of the paper (Musson v. Lake, 4 How. 262); but the better rule is that the fact stated as to the paper being in his possession is sufficient (Warren v. Briscoe, 12 La. 472; Union Bank v. Fowlkes, 2 Sneed, 555; Nailor v. Bowie, 3 Md.251); and even this is not required. Ross v. Bedell, pear that the demand was made on the right day 11 and at the proper place,12 but misnomers as to a name or a place of business will not vitiate the certificate. The certificate as proof of notice should recite the fact of giving notice.13 In stating the giving of notice the certificate should state the day of giving personal notice and the place.14 It is enough to state that the notice was left at the place of business of the person to be charged,15 and it need not state with whom it was left.16 In case of notice by mail, the place of address of the notice sent,17 and that it was the postoffice of the person to be charged.18 The burden is then upon the other party to show that the place was not his postoffice,19 and in rebuttal thereto the notary should show due diligence. The day of giving of notice but not the date of the letter need be given.20 The postoffice at which the notice was mailed should be stated,21 and the notice should show that the mailing or the giving of notice was in proper time.22 The certificate need not state that postage was prepaid upon a letter,23 and if it states a mailing the prepayment of postage will be presumed.24 But if the certificate states without giving any particulars that the person was notified or duly notified, it will be sufficient as stating a fact,25 unless a statute requires a more particular statement.26 If due diligence is relied upon as an excuse for a failure to demand or notify, the facts constituting the diligence should be set forth.27 Whatever would be evidence of proper notification if stated by a witness upon the stand would be evidence of notice when stated in a certificate; 28 therefore the rules stated in the previous sections upon notice 29 and upon demand would hold good here.30

5 Duer, 462; Bank of La. v. Satter-field, 14 La. Ann. 80. In case of paper payable at a bank, it is enough to say that the paper was at the bank. Seneca Co. Bank v. Neass, 5 Denio, 329; Barbaroux v. Waters, 3 Met. (Ky.) 304 (not necessary); Cayuga Co. Bank v. Hunt, 2 Hill, 635; Adams v. Wright, 14 Wis. 408, as to the hour.

3 Bank of Louisiana v. Satterfield, 14 La. Ann. 80; Fleming v. Fulton,

6 How. (Miss.) 473; De Wolf v. Murray, 2 Sandf. 166.

4 Hildeburn v. Turner, 5 How. 69. See Stix v. Matthews, 75 Mo. 96. The certificate need not state the name of the bookkeeper to whom presented at the maker's counting room. Austin v. Latham, 19 La. 88. And see McFarland v. Pico, 8 Cal. 626.

5 Otsego Co. Bank v. Warren, 18 Barb. 291.

6 Brooks v. Higby, 11 Hun, 235.

7 Saul v. Brand, 1 La. Ann. 95.

8 Dakin v. Graves, 48 N. H. 45.

9 Reapers' Bank v. Willard, 24 III 439.

10Dupre v. Richard, 11 Rob. (La.) 495. This is certainly not the law. A mere statement of payment refused is sufficient See note 1, supra.

11 Walmsley v. Acton, 44 Barb. 312; Nailor v. Bowie, 3 Md. 251.

12 At residence is sufficient Man-due v. Kitchin, 3 Rob. (La.) 261; Louisiana State Bank v. Dumar-trait, 4 La. Ann. 483. At office. Curry v. Bank of Mobile, 8 Port. 360. See Coster v. Thomason, 19 Ala. 717. Misnomers as to name of bank. Worley v. Waldron, 3 Sneed, 548; Whittington v. Farmers'Bank, 5 Har. & J. 489; Stix v. Matthews, 75 Mo. 96. Other misnomers see Reid v. Reid, 11 Tex. 585; Branch Bank v. Rhodes, 11 Ala. 283. The location of the bank need not be stated. Thatcher v. Goff, 13 La. 360.

13 If it is silent upon the point of notice it proves simply the demand.

14Palmer v. Lee, 7 Rob. (La.)587; Knox v. Buhler, 6 La. Ann. 104, as to the day both for personal and mail notice.

15 Gardner v. Bank of Tennessee, 1 Swan, 420; and see note 3, supra.

16 See note 4, supra, as to demand.

17 Curry v. Bank of Mobile, 8 Port. 360.

18 Peabody Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 29 W. Va. 528. But see Legg v. Vinal, 165 Mass. 555.

19 Wamsley v. Rivers, 34 Iowa, 463. It need not be stated that it was the nearest postoffice. Gas Bank v. Desha, 19 La. 459. But contra, Rogers v. Jackson, 19 Wend. 383. See Barber v. Ketchum, 7 Hill, 444.

20 Palmer v. Lee, 7 Rob. (La.) 537; Knox v. Buhler, 6 La. Ann. 104.

21 Pritchard v. Hamilton, 6 Mart. (N. S.) 457.

22 Menard v. Winthrop, 2 La. Ann. 333 (wrong).