¶1The bill of exchange sued on was *324directed to the drawee at Mobile, Ala., and there protested for non-payment. Notice was given by the notary public, wbo protested the bill, by mail, to the plaintiff in error, who was the endorser, and wbo, with the bolder, resided in Montgomery. The only question is as to the sufficiency of this notice. In the cases of Stephenson v. Primrose, 8 Port. 155, and Foster v. McDonald, 3 Ala. 34, the party giving, and the party sought to be charged by the notice, both resided in the same place, and in the absence of any special custom, notice through the post-office under these circumstances was beld insufficient. In the case of Gindrat v. The Mechanics’ Bank of Augusta, 7 Ala. 332, Mr. Justice Goldthwaite, in delivering the opinion of the court, says: “We apprehend it is entirely competent for the bolder of a bill payable in Montgomery, and himself residing elsewhere, to direct an agent to whom it is transmitted for collection, to give notice of the dishonor to any of the parries by mail, and that it is immaterial where they reside, so the notice has the proper direction.” And it was beld by this court, in Crawford v. The Branch Bank of Mobile, 7 Ala. 205, that the notary public who protests a foreign bill of exchange, is authorized to give notice to all persons wbo are responsible to the holders. If a foreign notary is regarded as the bolder of the bill, so far as giving notice of' its non-payment, no reason can be perceived why a notary in this State might not perform the same act. Without adding other authorities to sustain these positions, it is clear, that under the influence of the decisions referred to, the charge requested was properly refused. The judgment is affirmed.
20 Ala. 322
Greene v. Farley
Decided January 15, 1852
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1852-01-15
Tried before the Hon. Geo. Goldthwaite. Where the holder of a bill and endorser both reside in the same place, the notice to charge the endorser must be personal, or notice must be left at his… Held: that as the Bank of Montgomery was the agent of the Bank of Augusta, the plaintiff, and had done that which it was the privilege or right of its principal to do, namely, to give notice through the post-office, such notice was sufficient.
Relies on Gindrat v. Mechanics' Bank of Augusta · Stephenson v. Primrose · Crawford v. Branch of the Bank of Alabama at Mobile
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1852-01-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1898
4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →