(j) Morris v. Husson, 4 Sandf. 94; Bank of Louisiana v. Tournillon, 9 La. An. 132.

(A) Seneca Bank v. Neass, 5 Denio, 329; Morton v. Westcott, 8 Cush. 425; Manchester Bank v. White, 10 Foster (N. 1L), 456.

(kk) Young v. Durgin, 15 Gray, 264.

(/) Walker v. Bank of Augusta, 3 Ga. 486; Sherman v. Clark, 3 McLean, 91; Mont. Co. B. v. Marsh, 3 Seld. 481. Thompson, J., in Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet. 578.

1 If there are several post-offices in the same town, the notice may be sent to either, Saco Bank v. Sanborn, 63 Me. 340, unless the party usually receives his mail at one alone, when it should be sent there, Roberts v. Taft, 120 Mass. 169. Notice sent on the day of default to E., where the indorser had formerly resided, but whence he had removed to C. without the holder's knowledge, and thence forwarded to C. on the next day, where the indorser received it, is seasonable. North Bennington Bank v. Wood, 51 Vt. 471. - A notice left at the desk of a custom-house officer is prima facie sufficient. Commonwealth Hank v. Mudgett, 44 N. Y. 514; or if addressed to the director of a corporation who indorsed its bill as surety, at its place of business, it is sufficient, Berridge v.Fitzgerald, L. R. 4 Q. B. 639. - If an indorser's residence is unknown, information may be sought from the other parties to the note. Gilchrist v. Donwell, 53 Mo. 591. See Gawtry v. Doane, 51 N. Y. 84, 92. - K.

the indorser on the note. (n) * Where notice may be properly given through the post-office, it is sufficient if the notice be deposited in the office in season, although it is never received by the indorser. (o)1

Where an indorser receives notice, and is bound to give notice to other parties as the condition of making them liable to him, he comes under similar rules, and each successive indorser has until the next day to give such notice. (p) But no party bound to give notice can profit by the days to which other parties are entitled. Thus, if a note has six indorsers, and the holder notifies the last, and the last notifies the fifth, and so on until all are notified, the first indorser will not receive notice until six days have elapsed, and will still be held to all parties. But if the holder gives no notice until the fourth day, and then notifies the first and second indorsers, no indorser will be held.

If a bill is sent to an agent for collection, he is treated as a holder of the note for the purpose of giving notice, and his principal has the same time for notifying his indorsers after receiving notice from the agent, as if himself an indorser receiving notice from an indorsee. (q) It has however recently been held in England that the allowance of a day in each step in notice applies only as between the parties to a bill, and not as between a distant holder and his agent. (qq)

Whether joint indorsers, who are not partners, are entitled to separate notice, may not be certain; but we think that they have this right, on reason as well as authority. (r)

(m) Union Bank of T. v. Gowen, 10 Sm. & M. 3.33; Hunt v. Fish, 4 Barb. 324; Hunt v. Nugent, 4 Barb. 541.

(n) Burmester v. Barron, 9 E. L. & E. 402; s. C. 17 Q. B. 828; Morris v. Husson, 4 Sandf. 93. But the mere dating of the note does not dispense with proper inquiry as to residence. Carroll v. Upton, 3 Comst. 272; Pierce v. Struthers, 27 Penn. St. 249; Runyon v. Montfort, 1 Busb. L. 371.

(o) Bell v. Hagerstown Bank, 7 Gill, 216; Sasscer v. Farmers' Bank, 4 Md. 409. See also Stocken v. Collin, 7 M. & W. 515.

(p) Darbyshire v. Parker, 6 East, 3; Smith v. Mullett, 2 Camp. 208; Jameson v. Swinton, 2 Camp. 374; Brown v. Ferguson, 4 Leigh, 37. This rule is so well settled that, although the party receiving notice may easily have forwarded it the same day, yet he is not under obligation to send it until the next post after the day of its reception. Geill v. Jeremy, Mo. & M. 61. See Hilton v. Shepherd, 6 East, 14, n.; West River Bank v. Taylor, 34 N. Y. 128.

(q) Bank of U. S. v. Davis, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 451; Church v. Barlow, 9 Pick. 547; Lawson v. Farmers' Bank, 1 Ohio St. 206; Rosson v. Carroll, 90 Tenn. 90.

(77) In re Leeds Banking Co., L. R. 1 Eq. 1.

(r) It would seem that notice to one is enough, from Porthouse v. Parker, 1 Camp. 82, and Harris v. Clark, 10 Ohio, 5. That notice must be given to each, is held in Shepard v. Hawley, 1 Conn. 367; Willis v. Green, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 232;

1 The deposit of a notice in a post-office box from which a postman collects letters regularly has the same legal effect as deposit in the post-office. Skilbeck v. Gar-bett, 7 Q. B. 846; Johnson v. Brown, 154 Mass. 105; Pearce v. Langfit, 101 Pa. 507.

If Sunday or any other day intervene, which, by law, or by established usage, is not a day of business, then it is not counted, and the obligation as to notice is the same as if it fell on the succeeding day. (s) If a note or bill payable without * grace falls due on such a day, it is not payable until the next day. But if the last day of grace falls upon such a day, then it is payable on the day before; for the days of grace are regarded as matters of favor, and are abridged instead of being lengthened by the intervention of such a day. (t) An action brought on the last day of grace, has been held to have been brought too soon; (u) but this is not settled. (v) 1

The purpose of notice is, that the party receiving it may obtain security from the party liable to him, for the sum for which he is

Union Bank v. Willis, 8 Met. 504; State Bank v. Slaughter, 7 Blackf. 133.

(s) Eagle Bank v. Chapin, 3 Pick. 180; Agnew v. Bank of Gettysburg, 2 Har. & G. 479; Hawkes v. Salter, 4 Brag. 715; Wright v. Shawcross, 2 B. & Ald. 501, n.; Bray v. Hadwen, 5 M. & Sel. 68. So of public holidays. Cuyler v. Stevens, 4 Wend. 566; Lindo v. Unsworth, 2 Camp. 602.

(t) Where days of grace are allowed, and the last of them falls on Sunday, the fourth of July, or other public holiday, the bill or note is payable the day before. Ransom v. Mack, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 588; Cuyler v. Stevens, 4 Wend. 566; Sheldon v. Benham, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 129; Homes v. Smith, 20 Me. 264; Tassell v. Lewis, 1 Ld. Raym. 743; Haynes v. Birks, 3 B. & P. 599; Bussard v. Levering, 6 Wheat. 102; Adams v. Otterback, 15 How. 539;