Domestic paper, which includes everything requiring a demand of payment, such as promissory notes, checks, orders or certificates of deposit, does not require a notarial demand unless a statute so provides.1 And this is true though a note be made in one state payable in another.2 Yet without a statute, if such paper is presented and protested by a notary, the fact may be proven as a demand by the holder through an agent.3 The demand must be made by the holder or his agent.4 The ownership of the paper is determined by the ordinary rules of law applicable. A bailee or pledgee of paper who holds the paper as collateral security or for the purposes of collection may be considered the owner, but the distinction is not important, because even if not holder he is agent. Where the wife's personal property passes by marriage to the husband he is the owner of paper owned by his wife upon marriage, and properly makes the demand in order to reduce the property to possession.5 The demand may be made by any one lawfully in possession and competent to testify.6 Possession is sufficient evidence of authority to demand payment.7 A person who receives or holds the paper for collection may make demand8 or authorize it.9 The authority of the clerk, or on principle any other employee, of the holder to make the demand need not be shown.10 The indorsement by the cashier of a bank of the bank's paper to a cashier of another bank is certainly within the scope of his authority, and is presumed to be authorized.11 The verbal request of the holder is sufficient authorization.12 But where the agent's authority is terminated by the death of his principal, a demand by the agent after the death is insufficient.19

24 Davy v. Jones, 42 N. J. Law, 28; Allen v. Merchants' Bank, 22 Wend. 215.

25 See Sec. 182, ante, showing a number of cases of this character. Ros-son v. Carroll, 90 Tenn. 90.

26 Phillips v. McCurdy, 1 Har. & J. 187. Lenox v. Leverett, 10 Mass. 1, holds that a foreign draft sued upon for non-payment must show both protest for non-acceptance and non-payment. The ride is different as to bills drawn in this country upon Europe. Brown v. Barry, 3 Dall. 365; Clarke v. Russell, 3 Dall. 415.

1 Inland bills need not be protested by notary. Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheat 146; McCord v. Curlee, 59 111. 221; Miller v. Hackley, 5 Johns. 375; Knott v. Venable, 42 Ala. 186. Promissory notes need not. Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheat 146; Burke v.

McKay, 2 How. 66. Though statute makes notary's certificate evidence, it does not make protest by a notary compulsory. Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn. 396. See Tevis v. Randall. 6 Cal. 632. Checks need no notarial protest. Griffin v. Kemp, 46 Ind. 172; Wittich v. First Nat. Bank, 20 Fla. 843; Pollard v. Bowen, 57 Ind. 232; Mutual -Nat Bank v. Rotge, 28 La. Ann. 933; Wood River Bank v. First Nat Bank, 36 Neb. 744 But if the statute permits, any paper may be protested. Moses v. Franklin Bank, 34 Md. 574

2 Smith v. Little, 10 N. H. 526. But a check drawn in New Orleans on London needs notarial protest New Orleans Bank v. Girard Bank, 10 La. 562.

3 He may testify to the fact as any other witness who made demand. See note 6.