Moore v. Hardcastle

Tuck, J., delivered the opinion of this court. The only question before us, on this appeal, is, whether reasonable diligence was used by the notary public, in protesting the note on which this suit was instituted, to charge the appellee as endorser? The law is settled, that demand and notice are conditions precedent to the holder’s right to recover on a promissory note, and that the endorser is entitled to strict notice; by which is meant, not that the party charged must actually receive such notice, but that reasonable diligence shall be employed, and reasonable efforts made, to give it. The general rule is, that where the endorser lives in another place, he may be notified, through the mail, at the nearest post-office.

Bell vs. Hagerstown Bank, 7 Gill, 216 . There are exceptions, as where the party has a known post-office, or is in the habit of receiving letters from more than one office, (Crowley vs. Barry, 4 Gill, 194 ,) and others, which need not be mentioned, as this case is not shown to be without the operation of the general principle: “If sufficient inquiries have been made, and information re ceived, upon which the holder has a right to rely, a mistake • as to the nearest post-office, or usual post-office, does not deprive him of his remedy.” Lambert vs. Ghiselin, 9 How., 552 Sasscer vs. Whitely, 10 Md. Rep., 98 . Applying this test, it is very clear that the court below decided correctly as to the legal insufficiency of the evidence set .out in the bill of exceptions, to show notice to the appellee. The note was protested at Easton, of which the notarial protest was the only evidence offered, and the notary was examined to prove that notice of protest was sent to the endorser.

This witness says, “That he sent the notice by mail, addressed to the appellee at Denton, Caroline county, because