A protest may (87) also be made on the non-payment of coal notes, given pursuant to 3 Geo. 2. c. 26. § 7. (a)

A foreign bill should be noted for non-acceptance or non

damages, or interest thereupon, unless such protest be made for the nonacceptance thereof, and within 14 days after such protest the same be sent, or otherwise notice thereof be given to the party from whom such bill was received, or left in writing at the place of his or her usual abode and if such bill be accepted, and not paid before the expiration of three days after the said bili shall become due and payable, then no drawer of such bill shall be compellable to pay any costs, damages, or interest thereupon, unless a protest be made and sent, or notice thereof be given, in manner and form above-mentioned. Nevertheless every drawer of such bill shall be liable to make payment of costs, damages, and interest upon such inland bill, if any one protest be made of nonacceptance or non-payment thereof, and notice thereof be sent, given, or left as aforesaid.

(87) By 3 Geo. 2. c 26. § 7., be it enacted, That from and after the 24th day of June, 1730, all lightermen and other buyers of, or contractors for, coals on board of any ship or vessel in the port of London, shall, at the time of the delivery of such coals, either pay for the same in ready money, or for such part thereof as shall not be so paid, shall give their respective promissory note or notes of their hands for payment thereof, expressing therein the words value received in coals, payable at such day or days, time or times, as shall for that purpose be agreed upon between such lighterman or other buyer of or contractor for coals, and the master or owner of such ship or vessel, or his agent or factor on his behalf; and that all such notes, in case of non-payment at the respective days and times therein mentioned, shall and may be protested or noted in such manner as inland bills of exchange may now be; and in default of such protesting or noting by any endorsee, and notice thereof given by such endorsee to the respective endorser or endorsers, within twenty days after such failure of payment, such respective endorser or endorsers, to whom such notice shall not be given, shall not be chargeable with or liable to answer or pay such sum of money, as shall be mentioned to be payable in or by such note or notes, nor any part thereof; any law, usage, or custom to the contrary thereof notwithstanding.

[(a) It is usual in the United States to have bills drawn in one State, and payable in another, protested, when dishonored, though such bills are frequently called inland bills. Whether such bills are to be considered as strictly inland, in the sense in which that word is used in the English law-books, and whether a protest is necessary to entitle the holder to recover the amount of the bill from the prior parties, seem not to be settled; but in many States a protest is essential in order to entitle the holder to the statute damages. See ante, p. 15, note (a). It cannot be safe to neglect to protest such bills.

It is also a common practice in many of the States to protest promissory notes for non-payment; though it is not necessary. Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheat. 146; Union Bank v. Hyde, 6 Wheat, 572; Nicholls v. Webb, 8 Wheat. 326; Bank of North America v. M’Knight, 1 Yeates, 145; Payne v. Winn, 2 Bay, 374.

A protest is said to be necessary in Delaware on the non-payment of promissory notes. 4 Griff. Law. Reg. 1069.]

payment on the (88) day on which acceptance or payment is refused; but it would seem that the protest (89) may be formally drawn up at any future period, provided that, in the event of a suit, it be drawn up before the commencement of such suit. (a)

A protest for (90) non-acceptance of an inland bill may be made in like manner as for non-acceptance of a foreign bill; but a protest for (91) non-payment of an inland bill cannot be made until the day after such bill has become due.

(88) In Buller's Nisi Prius, 272. it is said, "The use of noting is, that it should be done the very day of refusal, and the protest may be drawn any day after by the notary, and be dated of the day the noting was made." See Chitty on Bills, 163—4.

In Leftley v. Mills, 4 Term Rep. 174., Buller J. says, "With regard to foreign bills of exchange, ail the books agree that the protest must be made on the last day of grace." This however is not said with reference to any distinction between the time of noting the bill, and that of formally drawing up the protest; but merely, as furnishing an argument, to shew within what time payment must be made; and the argument is equally conclusive, whether the party have the power of noting or of protesting the bill on the last day of grace. Indeed the noting is in effect an incipient protest.

(89) Chaters v. Bell, 4 Esp. N. P. C. 48. In an action by an endorsee against an endorser of a foreign bill, it appeared that the bill became due on the 24th of April, when payment was demanded and refused, and the bill noted for non-payment. Regular notice of the dishonor was given to the defendant, but he refused payment because there was no protest. On 14th of May, the protest was formally drawn up, and this action was afterwards brought. Lord Kenyon said, " He was of opinion, that if the bill was regularly presented and noted at the time, the protest might be made at any future period." A verdict was found for the plaintiff, but the point was reserved: and on the case coming on to be tried again on a venire facias de novo before Lord Ellenborough, his lordship expressed his concurrence with the opinion of Lord Kenyon. See the preceding note.

Mr. Selwyn, in his abridgment of the Law of Nisi Prius, 379. says, That a case was reserved in Chaters v. Bell, for the opinion of the court, and that the court, after argument, conceiving the question to be of great importance, directed it to be turned into a special verdict; but that the sum in dispute being small, and the parties unwilling to incur the expense of a special verdict, the recommendation of the court was not attended to, and the case was not mentioned again.

[(a) Though a protest must be produced at the trial of an action against the endorser of a foreign bill, it is not necessary that the notice to him should be accompanied by the protest. Lenox v. Leverett, 10 Mass. R. 1.

But in a previous case, Parsons C. J. says, "As to notice of the protest of a foreign bill, a copy of the protest should be given or offered to the drawer, or due diligence used to furnish him with this notice before he can be charged." Blakely v. Grant, 6 Mass. R. 386.]

(90) See 3 & 4 Ann. c. 9. § 4. ante, p. 165. n. (80).

(91) See 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 17. § 1. ante, p. 166. n. (81). which enables

A notice the day the bill or note becomes due, is not too soon; for though payment may still be made within the day, non-payment on presentment is a dishonor. (92)

To such of the parties as reside in the place where the presentment was made, the notice must be given at the farthest, by the expiration of the (93) day following the failure; to those who reside elsewhere, by (94) the post of that or the next post day.

persons to make such protests "after the expiration of three days" after the bill has become due.

(92) Burridge v. Manners, 3 Campb. 193. Endorsee of note against payee; the note was presented the forenoon of the day it became due, when payment was refused, and in the afternoon of that day plaintiff sent notice of its dishonor to defendant; it was urged that this notice was too soon, because the maker had the whole day to pay the note; but Lord Ellenborough thought it a sufficient notice, for as soon as the maker refused payment the note was dishonored. The plaintiff had a verdict.

[Many cases in the United States recognise the law as stated in the text. Shed v. Brett, 1 Pick. 401; Corp v. M'Comb, 1 Johns. Cas. 328; Bussard v. Levering, 6 Wheat. R. 102; and Lindenberger v. Beall, 6 Wheat. R. 104.]

(93) Tindal v. Brown, ante, p. 161, note (74). Muilman v. D'Eguino, ante, p. 138. note (31).

Smith v. Mullet, 2 Campb. N. P. C. 208. In an action against an endorser of a bill, the only question was, whether the plaintiff had given due notice of its dishonor to one Aylett, his immediate endorser. All the parties resided in London: the bill became due and was dishonored on the 19th of May, a Saturday. The holder (who had received it from the plaintiff) gave notice to the plaintiff on the Monday; and plaintiff sent notice to Aylett on Tuesday, by the twopenny post, but so late that it did not reach Aylett till Wednesday. Lord Ellenborough said, he thought there could be no rule more convenient than that where all the parties resided in London each should have a day to give notice; here a day had been lost. He therefore nonsuited the plaintiff.

(94) Malynes, B. 3. c. 6. § 1. 1st ed. p. 265. Mar. 2d ed. p. 24. [In a case where the evidence seemed to leave it doubtful, whether notice to an endorser was put into the post-office, on the day on which the note fell due, or on the next, C. J. Parker, in delivering the opinion of the Court, said, "It cannot be requisite, nor do we find that it has ever been required to give notice to an endorser, living in another town, by the very next mail after the dishonor of the note, or on the same day. The next day is early enough: and if there be two mails aday, whether the notice goes by the first or second of these mails, we think, is immaterial: provided it was put into the post-office early enough to go by a mail of that day." Whitwell v. Johnson, 17 Mass. R. 449.

See also Robinson v. Ames, 20 Johns. R. 146.

Where the evidence proved notice to an endorser given within three days after advice received of the dishonor of a bill, where the holder and endorser resided in the same city, it was held that it did not prove a reasonable notice. Bryden v. Bryden, 11 Johns. R. 187.

Each party has a day for giving notice. (95) And he will be entitled to the whole day, though the post by which he is to send it, goes out within the day. (95)

Therefore, where the notice is to be sent by the post, it will be sufficient if it is sent by the post of the following day. (95)

Where a party receives notice on a Sunday, he is in the same situation as if it did not reach him till the Monday; he is not bound to pay it any attention till the Monday; (95) And has the whole of Monday for the purpose. (95)

So if the day on which notice ought thus to be given be a (96) day of public rest, as Christmas-day or Good Friday,

Notice sent from Portland to an endorser of a note at Cape Elizabeth, a distance of four miles, eight days after the dishonor of the note, there being no mail between the two places, was held to be too late. Hussey v. Freeman, 10 Mass. R. 84.]

(95) Bray v. Hadwen, 5 Maule 68. Plaintiffs paid into their bankers at Launceston a bill on London. On Sunday morning, 17th July, about half after eight, the Launceston bankers received a letter from London announcing its dishonor; Monday evening they put into the post a letter to plaintiffs at Tavistock to give them notice; that post did not leave Launceston till twelve on Tuesday; a post left Launceston for Tavistock at twelve on Monday. Plaintiffs forwarded notice without delay to the person who endorsed the bill to them, and that person immediately forwarded notice to defendant, who was an earlier endorser. Two queries were made; one, whether the Launceston bankers were not bound to have sent notice to plaintiff by Monday's post; and, secondly, whether plaintiff should not have given notice immediately to defendant, and not have left it to the later endorser to give that notice: Graham B. overruled both objections, and verdict for plaintiff: and on motion for new trial, the court held it was now the settled rule that each party was entitled to an entire day for the purpose of giving notice, and that the Launceston bankers therefore were not bound to send their notice by the Monday's post, but had the whole of Monday to put in their letter; and that, as there was no delay in transmitting notice to defendant, he could not protect himself on the ground of want of notice, and rule refused.

Wright v. Shawcross, 2 Barnew. 501. Plaintiff received notice by a letter on a Sunday of the dishonor of a bill: he did not send notice to defendant till Tuesday's post, which set out in the evening; he might have sent it in the evening of Monday by the Monday's post. But on motion for new trial, after verdict for plaintiff, the court held plaintiff was not bound to open the letter till Monday, nor bound to send notice till the Tuesday, and therefore rule refused.

(96) See Smith v. Mullet, ante, p. 171., and Haynes v. Birks, and Scott v. Lifford, post. p. 174. note (98). See also Tassell v. Lewis, ante, p. 151. note (53), and 39 & 40 Geo. 3. c. 42. enacting, that with respect to noting and protesting bills and notes which become due on Good Friday, that day shall be considered like a Sunday or Christmas-day.

[It has been held in several cases in the United States, where a bill

or a day of (97) similar sanctity according to the religion of the party bound to give notice, the notice need not be given until the following day.

If the holder of a bill or note place it in the hands of his banker, the banker is only bound to give notice of its dishonor to his customer, in like manner as if he were himself the holder, and his customer were the party next entitled to notice. (98)

And the customer has the like time to communicate such hotice as if he had received it from a holder. (98)

And therefore by thus placing a bill or note in a banker's hands, the number of persons from whom notice must pass, is increased by one. (98)

Thus notice sent by a London banker to a London customer, the day after the dishonor, (98) is in time; and if the customer communicate that notice the day following, that (98) will be in time also.

or note was dishonored on Saturday, that notice on Monday was sufficiently early. Jackson v. Richards, 2 Cain. R. 343; James v. Badger, 1 Johns. Cas. 131; Williams v. Matthews, 3 Cowen, 252.]

(97) Lindo v. Unsworth, 2 Campb. N. P. C. 602. Notice of the dishonor of a bill was sent to the plaintiff in London, on the 8th of October; but he being a Jew, and the 8th of October being the day of the greatest Jewish festival throughout the year, on which all Jews are prohibited from attending to secular affairs, gave no notice by the post of that day to the defendant, who lived at Lancaster, but sent it to him by the post of the 9th. Lord Ellenborough held, that the plaintiff was excused by his religion from giving notice on the 8th; and that the notice sent by the post on the 9th was sufficient. The plaintiff had a verdict.

(98) Haynes v. Birks, 3 Bos. and Pull. 599. In an action against the endorser of a bill, it appeared that the bill, which had been endorsed in blank and deposited by the plaintiff in the hands of his bankers, became due on Saturday, October 1st. On that day, at two o'clock, it was presented for payment by the bankers, and payment being refused, it was again presented between nine and ten at night by a notary, and again dishonored; the bankers sent the bill, and notice of its dishonor, to the plaintiff on the Monday, and the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant on Tuesday, about noon: the plaintiff lived at Knightsbridge, and the defendant in Tottenham-court road. The only question was, whether this notice was sufficient. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, with liberty to defendant to move to enter a nonsuit. On motion accordingly, it was urged that the bankers were to be considered as the agents of the plaintiff, and that the defendant was entitled to the same notice as if the bill had remained in the plaintiff's hands: but the court thought that reasonable diligence had been used, and therefore