¶1 As the parties in this case all resided in the same place, to wit: in the city of Wilmington, the indorser ought to have been personally noticed of the dishonor of the note, either verbally or in writing, or a written notice ought to have been left at his dwelling house or place of business. Either mode of notice is sufficient, but one or the other must be observed, unless it is prevented by the act of the party entitled to the- notice. In this case, the notice by a etter dropped in the post office at Wilmington, is not sufficient. The plaintiff, therefore, must be nonsuited. (2 Pet. Rep. 101, Williams vs. Bank U. States; 10 Johns. Rep. 490, Ireland vs. Kip, 11 Johns. Rep. 231.)
3 Del. 419
Brindley v. Barr
Decided July 5, 1842
Superior Court of Delaware · decided 1842-07-05
,Action- on a promissory note, dated the 29th of March, 1841, at six months for $200; drawn by Harris Wells, in favor of John H. Barr, or order, and by him indorsed to plaintiff. William M'Oaulley, Esq., a notary public, proved a demand on H. Wells the drawer, and protest for non-payment, and notice the same day put in the post-office in Wilmington, directed to the defendant the indorser, who resides also in Wilmington.
Decided 1842-07-05