6 Barton v. Baker, supra.
7 See Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheat. 581; Cookendorfer v. Preston, 4 How. 317; Redfield & Bigelow's L. C. 306-309; Staples v. Franklin Bank, 1 Met. 43.
8 Staples v. Franklin Bank, supra.
9 Osborn v. Moncure, 3 Wend. 170; Smith v. Aylesworth, 40 Barb. 104.
10 Smith v. Bank of Washington, 5 Serg. & R. 318. See Redfield v. Bigelow's L. C. 480-497.
§ 1182. If the paper be payable at a particular place named on its face, presentment, to charge the indorser or drawer, must of course be made at that place.4 But if the bill or note be payable generally, that is, at no place designated on its face, presentment should be made at his residence or place of business,5 unless, by agreement of the parties, some other place be named.6 If the maker or acceptor, at the time of executing the paper, live in a different State from that of the payee or drawer, the paper must be sent thither for presentment;7 but if the parties at such time reside in the same State, and the maker or acceptor subsequently remove into another State, the holder is not bound to send the paper to him for payment.8
1 Bank of Utica v. Smith, 18 Johns. 230; Chitty on Bills, 387; Story on Bills, § 349; Ib. notes, § 226.
2 Triggs v. Newnham, 10 Moore, 249; Wilkins v. Jadis, 2 B. & Ad. 188; Morgan v. Davison, 1 Stark. 114: Barclay v. Bailey, 2 Camp. 527.
3 Cayuga County Bank v. Hunt, 2 Hill, 635. See Farnsworth v. Allen, 4 Gray, 453; Lunt v. Adams, 17 Me. 230. But if the object of presentment is to obtain payment, quaere in the case of a demand upon a merchant after the close of regular business hours.
4 See Pearson p. Bank of Metropolis, 1 Pet. 89; Story on Promissory Notes, § 230.
5 King v. Holmes, 11 Penn. St. 456; Sussex Bank v. Baldwin, 2 Har. (N. J.) 487; West v. Brown, 6 Ohio St. 542. Qucere, if presentment would be good at the residence of a maker or acceptor, having a known place of business, with regular business hours? See Redfield & Bigelow's L. C. 327, 328.
6 Pearson v. Bank of Metropolis, 1 Pet. 89; State Bank v. Hurd, 12 Mass. 171; Sussex Bank v. Baldwin, 2 Har. (N. J.) 487. But see Pierce v. Whitney, 29 Me. 188; Story on Promissory Notes, § 49.
7 Taylor v. Snyder, 3 Denio, 145; Adams v. Leland, 30 N. Y. 309; Foster v. Julien, 24 N. Y. 28. 8 Ibid.
§1183. If a foreign bill of exchange be, on presentment for acceptance or payment, dishonored, it should be protested on the same or the next day.1 Protest, properly speaking, is a solemn declaration on behalf of the holder against any loss to be sustained by the non-acceptance or the non-payment of the bill;2 though the term is sometimes used to include all the steps necessary to charge the drawer and indorsers,3 as to whom alone it is necessary. Inland bills and promissory notes need not to be protested, and protest-fees thereon cannot be recovered.4
§ 1184. The protest should be made out and drawn up by a notary public, if there should be such an officer in or near the place where the bill is payable. If not, it is sufficient that the protest be made out and drawn up by a respectable inhabitant, in presence of two witnesses.5
§ 1185. The next step, in the case of foreign bills, and the first necessary step in the case of inland bills and promissory notes, after dishonor, is the notice to the drawer or indorsers. This notice should contain, either expressly or by implication, a sufficient description of the paper to clearly identify it,6 intelligence of the dishonor,7 and information that the holder looks to the person to whom the notice is sent for payment.8
1 Story on Bills of Exchange, § 278. And in case of non-acceptance, a right of action, after the proper steps, accrues at once against the drawer and indorsers, and is not postponed until the time of payment. Milford v. Mayor, 1 Doug. 55. But in Pennsylvania there is no protest for non-acceptance. See Read v. Adams, 6 S. & R. 356; Story on Bills of Exchange, § 273, note.
2 Story on Bills of Exchange, § 276.
3 Coddington v. Davis, 1 Comst. 186; Townsend v. Lorain Bank, 2 Ohio St. 345.
4 Union Bank v. Hyde, 6 Wheat. 572; City Bank v. Cutter, 3 Pick. 414.
5 Story on Bills of Exchange, § 276.
6 Mills v. Bank of United States, 11 Wheat. 431; Bank of Alexandria v. Swann, 9 Pet. 33.
7 Mere notice of non-payment as to paper payable generally is not sufficient, as this does necessarily imply dishonor; but it is otherwise of paper payable at a place designated. Gilbert v. Dennis, 3 Met. 495.
8 Story on Promissory Notes, §§ 348-353; Redfield & Bigelow's L. C. 358-376. But it is sufficient in this particular that the notice is given by one who may become entitled to sue on the paper; for, since the very
§ 1186. If the parties reside in the same town, the general rule is that notice of dishonor should be given to the drawer or indorser in person, or left at his residence or place of business;1 but this rule is subject to qualification. If the letter-carrier system prevail in the place, the public mail may be employed;2 and the same is true where the parties, though residing in a town, municipality, or district in which such system does not prevail, reside in different villages, parishes, or settlements, at a distance of several miles from each other, and the party entitled to notice is addressed at the office where he usually receives his mail.3 So where the parties reside in different places, the holder may send notice to an indorser at his (different) place of residence, and the latter may then use the mail to notify a prior party in the same place.4
§ 1187. But though the parties reside in different places, the holder may employ a private messenger to deliver the notice, instead of the public mail.5 There is, however, this difference between the cases: If he employ a messenger, his duty is not discharged until an actual delivery of the notice to the drawer or indorser in person, or at his residence or place of business; and this must not be later than the day on which notice by the post would reach the party.6 But if he use the mail, his duty terminates with depositing the letter in the post-office, or probably (in large cities) in boxes in the streets prepared for receiving letters; and it is immaterial to him whether the notice be received or not.7 object of giving notice is to fix the party's liability to pay, a formal statement that payment is desired of him, though proper, would be superfluous. See Chanoine v. Fowler, 3 Wend. 173; Chapman v. Keane, 3 Ad. & El. 193; Story on Promissory Notes, § 301.