1 Bowling v. Harrison, 6 How. 248.
2 Peirce v. Pendar, 5 Met. 352, 356; Sheldon v. Benham, 4 Hill, 129, 133; Story on Promissory Notes, § 323.
3 Shaylor v. Mix, 4 Allen, 351.
4 Eagle Bank v. Hathaway, 5 Met. 212.
5 Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet. 578.
6 Van Vechten v. Pruyn, 13 N. Y. 549, 555; Bancroft v. Hall, Holt, N. P. 476; Beeching v. Gower, Ib. 315, note; Darbishire v. Parker, 6 East, 3.
7 Munn v. Baldwin, 6 Mass. 316; Redfield & Bigelow's L. C. 377, note.
§ 1188. Notice of dishonor may be sent by the holder or by any other party who, on payment of it, would be entitled to sue upon it. Notice by a stranger, or even by a party to the paper, if he could not use it for the purpose of indemnifying himself, will be unavailing unless such person were authorized to give the notice.1 And the reason is that a third person could not inform the drawer or indorser whether he might be called on for payment.2
§1189. The notice, if sent by mail, or perhaps by messenger, should be sent to the proper address of the party to be charged, unless, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, this cannot be ascertained. And the question always is, when the notice has been wrongly directed, Did the sender assume, of himself, to know the party's post-office, residence, or place of business, or did he make reasonable inquiry to ascertain the same ? If the former, the notice will be without effect; if the latter, it will be good.3 If there be several post-offices in the same town, notice in a letter directed to the town generally is sufficient, unless the party to be notified receives his mail at a particular one of the post-offices, and the fact be ascertainable on due inquiry.4 And if there be no post-office where the drawer or indorser resides, notice sent to the nearest office will be sufficient.5
§1190. The rule in respect of the time when notice of dishonor should be given is that it must be given either on the day of the dishonor of the paper or, if it be not a case for the use of the public mail, at a reasonable time on the following day.6 But if the notice is to be sent away by mail, then, as it has been recently decided, if not sent on the day of dishonor, it must be posted in time for the first seasonable mail of the following day, if there be such a mail on that day; and if there be not, then by the first mail after the day succeeding maturity.1 If, however, the day after dishonor be Sunday, then the notice may be deferred until Monday.2
1 Chanoine v. Fowler, 3 Wend. 173; Bayley on Bills, 254 (5th ed.); Redfield & Bigelow's L. C. 383-386.
2 Chapman v. Keane, 3 Ad. & El. 193.
3 Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet. 578; Marsh v. Barr, Meigs, 68; Redfield & Bigelow's L. C. 409.
4 Morton v. Westcott, 8 Cush. 425. But this would doubtless be subject to the qualification that the party sending notice knew that there was more than one post-office in the town.
5 Shed v. Brett, 1 Pick. 401, 411; Ireland v. Kip, 11 Johns. 232; Union Bank v. Stoker, 1 La. An. 269. See Redfield & Bigelow's L. C. 409, 410, note.
6 Bank of Alexandria v. Swann, 9 Pet. 33; Lenox v. Roberts, 2 Wheat. 373; 3 Kent's Comm. 106.
§1191. In the case of several successive indorsements, the rule is that each indorser has the same time within which to notify antecedent parties, after receipt of notice himself, that the holder has.3 But the party, whether holder or indorser, must in all cases send his notices to antecedent parties within the same time that he has to notify his immediate indorser; he will not be allowed as many days as there are intermediate parties.4
§ 1192. The holder will have the benefit of all notices duly given by a prior party whose liability he has himself fixed.5 So, too, notice duly given by the holder inures to the benefit of parties between the holder and the one notified; but if the notice be not given in time to fix the party's liability to the holder, it will be of no avail to an intermediate party, though the notice would have been early enough to fix the liability of the indorser or drawer sought to be charged if it had been sent by the intermediate party.6
§ 1193. The subject of bond fide holders for value remains to be considered, - a subject which presents perhaps the most remarkable doctrine of the common law. The principle, in general terms, is this, that a bond fide indorsee for value of a bill of exchange or promissory note acquires an independent and perfect title to the paper, and cannot be defeated in an action against the maker or acceptor by any of the various defences which might be available to the defendant in an action by the payee. Indeed, the rule is the same in an action by such indorsee against any party to the paper except his immediate indorser.1 It is therefore no defence to a bond fide holder for value that the person from whom he took the note or bill acquired it by fraud, theft, or robbery;2 or that the original consideration was illegal3 (if the paper be not thereby absolutely void by statute 4); or that payment in part or in full has been made.5 But in such cases the holder will be entitled to recover only the sum paid for the paper with interest.6
1 Lawson v. Farmers' Bank, 1 Ohio St. 206. The effect of this decision is this, that if there he two seasonahle departures of the mail on the day after dishonor, the notice must he posted in time to go by the first, otherwise it will he of no effect. Chancellor Kent's statement (3 Comm. 106), that one entire day should be allowed, is denied. See, also, Stephenson v. Dickson, 24 Penn. St. 148; Mitchell v. Cross, 2 R. I. 437; Manchester Bank v. Fellows, 28 N. H. 302; Haskell v. Boardman, 8 Allen, 38; 3 Kent's Comm. 105, note 1 (12th ed.).
2 3 Kent's Comm. 106.
3 Redfield & Bigelow's L. C. 390, note; Story on Promissory Notes, §§ 319 et seq.
5 Redfield & Bigelow's L. C. 385; Lysaght v. Bryant, 9 C. B. 46.