Goodloe v. Godley

Citations

• 21 Miss. 233

Syllabus

<p>The principle established in 6 g. & M. 255, that “if the holder of a note be ignorant of the place where the indorser resided at the time of protest, and cannot ascertain it after diligent inquiry, notice, sent to the place where the note bears date, will be sufficient,” affirmed.</p> <p>Banks of necessity carry on their business through the medium of agents, who bind the bank to the extent of their authority ; where, therefore, a bank has several agents, to whom separate and distinct duties are intrusted, notice to one of them in regard to a matter not pertaining to his duties cannot affect the bank.</p> <p>Knowledge, therefore, on the part of a clerk in a bank, of the residence of a party to negotiable paper protested by the bank, will not prevent the holder of the paper, in a suit against this party to it, from availing himself of the ignorance of the proper officer of the bank of the residence of the party.</p> <p>The holder of negotiable paper, on failure of the proper party to pay it, need not, in order to ascertain the residence of the other parties to the paper, for the purpose of giving them notice, make inquiry at any other point than where the paper is payable; inquiries at that point will constitute due diligence.</p> <p>Where the declaration upon a protested bill of exchange alleges demand and notice, proof of any matter in excuse of notice is admissible and sufficient.</p> <p>It is proof of sufficient demand of payment of a note payable at a bank, that the notary, after banking hours, and after the note had been handed to him as notary, made the demand, and was answered by the proper officer that no money had been deposited for its payment.</p> <p>Where a note is payable at a particular time at a bank, and indorsed to such • bank for collection, no specific demand is necessary. It is enough if the note be in bank on the day appointed for its payment.</p>