Actual knowledge of dishonor is not the equivalent of notice.1 The fact that an indorser was present when payment was demanded and refused does not excuse notice as to him,2 unless, of course, he had taken the note into his own hands to collect and to give notices.3 But this rule of notice by estoppel was not applied to an attorney who was himself the indorser upon a note which he was collecting.4 The reasoning of the court is somewhat strained, but the decision may be justified on the ground that it was no part of the attorney's duty to give the notices; yet an attorney with any sense of honor would hesitate to make such a defense. So knowledge of the dishonor obtained from the maker does not amount to notice to the indorser.5 The fact that the indorser was director of a bank where the note was dishonored, or that he had personal knowledge of the dishonor, is not notice;6 or the fact that one of the drawers was an acceptor does not excuse notice as to him;7 but notice is excused to a drawer who draws upon the firm of which he is a member.8 But, as we have seen, if notice is received from a proper source, it is immaterial that it came through an irregular channel or in an improper way,9 provided it was received in due time.10

1 Pearson v. Bank of Metropolis,

1 Pet 89.

2 Jones v. Fales, 4 Mass. 245; North Bank v. Abbott, 13 Pick. 465; Central Bank v. Davis, 19 Pick. 373. See Farmers' Bank v. Duvall, 7 Gill & J. 78; Thorn v. Rice, 15 Me. 263.

3 See the preceding Dote for the cases.

4 Patriotic Bank v. Farmers'Bank,

2 Cranch, C. C. 560. See Adams v. Otterback, 15 How. 539. This case holds that a single bank cannot have a custom. The dictum is wrong. It is by McLean, J.

5 Chicopee Bank v. Eager, 9 Met 583; Gindrat v. Mechanics' Bank, 7 Ala. 324; Carolina Nat Bank v.

Wallace, 13 S. C. 347. See Lime Rock Bank v. Hewitt, 52 Me. 51.

6 Boston Bank v. Hodges, 9 Pick. 420. See Munroe v. Maudeville, 2 Cranch, C. C. 187.

7 See Sec. 250, ante.

1 Lane v. Bank of West Tennessee, 9 Heisk. 419: Phipps v. Harding, 70 Fed. R, 498; In re Grant, Fed. Cas. No. 5691; First Nat. Bank v. Zahm, 1 Atl. R 190 (Pa.); Bank of Columbia v. Mackall, 2 Cranch, C. C. 631. But the case of Citizens' Nat Bank v. Cade, 73 Mich. 449, is absolutely wrong, because there was an oral notice given which was good. The vice-president of the bank was acting for the bank.

2 Grant v. Spencer, 1 Mont 136.