2. The notice may be verbal or written, and consists in the communication of the fact of dishonor by the person whose duty it is to give it. (Thompson v. Williams, 14 Cal. 160.) When verbal it is not necessary to be as formal as when written, for the party may inquire if he is not fully informed. "In order that the notice may be complete, it should contain, (1) a sufficient description of the bill or note; (2) a statement that it had been presented for acceptance or payment, and had been dishonored; (3) the statement that the paper had been protested, and (4) an announcement of the intention of the holder to look to the party addressed for payment." (Tiedeman, Com. Pap., Sec. 344.)

The notice of dishonor should as a general rule indicate on its face, either by express statement or by necessary or reasonable implication, that the paper had been presented and dishonored. This is the earlier English rule, and prevails in America. (Solarte v. Palmer, 1 Bing., N. C. 194; Gilbert v. Dennis, 3 Metcalf 495.) A statement of non-payment is not sufficient without a statement that presentment and demand had been made, but if the word "dishonored" is used it is held to be sufficient without further statement of presentment and demand. (Page v. Gilbert, 60 Me. 488; Rowland v. Sprinjett, 14 M. & W. 7.) So if an allegation of pro

fixed by having himself received the required notice of dishonor." (Tiedeman, Com. Paper, Sec. 335.) If he has not received this notice he is discharged from liability, and may properly be treated as a stranger to the paper. (Id. Turner v. Leach, 4 B. and Ald. 451.)

test or words from which it may be inferred is used, as "your bill is unpaid, noting 5 s.," in connection with a statement of non-payment it will be sufficient. (Armstrong v. Christiana, 6 C. B. 687.) And in general the notice need not expressly state that the bill has been presented and dishonored, or protested, if protest be necessary, or that the party to whom notice is sent is called on to pay the bill. It is sufficient if these facts can reasonably be inferred from the terms of the notice. (Benj.'s Chalmers, B. N. & C., Art. 199.) And a misdescription of a bill will not vitiate notice unless the party to whom notice is given is in fact misled thereby.* (Gill v. Palmer, 29 Conn. 54; Mills v. Bank, 11 Wheat. 431.)

3. The proper time to give notice of dishonor is as

*"A notice to the drawer which describes the bill as payable at the 'S Bank,' when in fact it was payable at the "T Bank,' or which describes a bill of exchange as a note, or which transfers the names of drawer and acceptor, or which describes the acceptor by a wrong name, or which misstates the sum payable, may be sufficient." (Benj.'s Chalmers B. N. and Checks, Art. 199 Ill.)

"A full description properly made, should give the date of the paper, by whom executed, payable to whom, for what amount, when due, by whom indorsed, and in the case of bills of exchange, on whom it is drawn. If payable at a particular place the place should be stated." (Tiedeman, Com. Paper, Sec. 345.) But all of this particularity is not absolutely necessary to the sufficiency of the notice, and as stated by Benjamin, Art. 199, notice is sufficient which so identifies the bill that the recipient is not misled, and informs him that the bill has been dishonored by non-acceptance or non-payment, and that he is held liable.

soon as the bill has been dishonored, and it must be given within a reasonable time after dishonor, and cannot be given prior to dishonor. (Story on Bills, Sec. 285; Chitty on Bills, 366-544.) Reasonable time within which to give notice may be a mixed question of law and fact, and in determining reasonable time non-business days are excluded. By the present rule of the law merchant the holder is given until the expiration of the next day after dishonor, in which to give notice; in case the holder lives in a different place from the parties notified he has until the last mail on the day after dishonor, and in case this mail leaves at an unreasonable hour, he has until the next mail to send the notices. (Lenox v. Roberts, 2 Wheat. 373; Bank v. Stedman, 3 Conn. 489.)

When the person giving notice and the party to whom notice is to be given live in the same place, the notice must, in the absence of special circumstances, be received by such party at a reasonable hour on the day after the sender became entitled to give notice, and if such notice is to be left at a place of business it should be received during business hours. (Adams v. Wright, 14 Wis. 408.) If the notice is sent by mail it should be so sent that it will reach the party on the day after the sender became entitled to give notice; and if sent by other means than the mail it should reach the party to be notified at a reasonable hour on the same day it would have been received by due course of mail. It was formerly a general rule that when the parties to be notified and the holder lived at the same place that personal notice should be given in all cases, and a notice

by mail would not be sufficient unless actually received. (Busard v. Levering, 6 Wheat. 104.) But now in case of cities in which there is postal delivery the holder is protected in case he has duly mailed a properly addressed letter containing the notice, though by the delay or default of the mail it is never received. (Bank v. Warner, 10 Allen 522; Forbes v. Natl. Bank, 10 Nebr. 338.) And in some States statutes provide for the mailing of notices of protest where parties reside in same place. (Shoemaker v. Bank, 59 Pa. St. 83.) In cases where the parties and the holder live in different post-office deliveries, and due notice is sent by mail, the notice is sufficient though not received. (Munn v. Baldwin, 6 Mass. 316; Walters v. Brown, 15 Md. 285.) *

4. In general, now notices of dishonor may be sent by mail, but in case personal notice should be or is sent, it must be sent to the residence or place of business of the party to be notified, delivery at either place will be sufficient, and in his absence it may be left with a person in charge, or put into the keyhole or under the door. (Stewart v. Eden, 2 Caines 121; Tiedeman, Com. Pap., Sec. 340.)

5. The proper party or parties to be given notice are

*The holder or other party person entitled to give notice of dishonor must give notice to a remote party within the same limits of time that is required in the case of an immediate party. (Benj.'s Chalmers B. N. and Checks, Art. 197.) That is, the holder must give notice to all prior parties whom he desires to hold liable at the same time, and if he does not he cannot look to them unless an indorser has given the required notice in time and such notice enures to his benefit.

the drawer, indorser, or indorsers, or their authorized agent or other person entitled to receive notice for them. That is, the notice must be given to all persons secondarily liable whom the holder wishes to charge. And notice should be given to indorsers who have indorsed for the purpose of collection, and indorsers of overdue paper. (Tiedeman, Com. Pap., Sec. 336.) Where there are two or more joint drawers or indorsers who are not partners, notice of dishonor must be given to them all in order to bind either. (People's Bank v. Keech, 26 Md. 521.) If the drawer or indorser is a bankrupt, notice should be given to the assignee; and if the party sought to be notified is known to be dead the notice should be addressed to the personal representative by name if he can be ascertained, otherwise to the family residence of the deceased. (Goodnow v. Warren, 122 Mass. 79; Bank v. Birch, 17 Johns. 25.)

It is the duty of the drawer or indorsers, if absent from their place of business or residence, to see that there is some one there to receive notice on their behalf. (N. Y. Bank v. Selma Bank, 51 Ala. 305.)

Sec. 825. NOTICE GIVEN BY OTHERS THAN THE HOLDER.-A party who receives due notice of the dishonor of a bill, as an indorser, after the receipt of such notice, has the same time in which to give notice to antecedent parties whom he desires to hold liable, as the original holder has after the dishonor of the bill. (Lawson v. State, 1 Ohio St. 206.) So when a bill is in the hands of an agent, he will have the same time in which to give notice to his principal, as he would if he