Case ID: la-ann_20/html/0399-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "InsnEY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 1169.
    Jean M. Lapeyre v. E. E. Robertson et al.
    Where the mail service between two points is suspended or broken up. a notice of protest deposited in the post-office by the notary at one place, addressed to an endorser who resides at another, the service is not good.
    Where the mail service cannot be used as a means of conveying notice, the holder of commercial paper is not excused if he fails to use all other practicable means of bringing home notice to the • party whom he wishes to charge. 19 A. d3.
    APPEAL from the District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Gates, J.
    
      R. W. Ogden, for plaintiff and appellant.
    
      Bush & Goode, for Mrs. Dahks, appellee.
   InsnEY, J.

This case presents a state of facts similar to tho'se upon which this Court decided the case of the Citizens’ Bank v. Pugh, 19 A. 43.

The defendant, Mrs. Danks, is sued as the endorser of a promissory note, drawn by E. E. Robertson.

The note was protested at New Orleans, where it was made payable on the 10th March, 1863, and on that day a notice of protest addressed to the defendant, at Houma post-office, Louisiana, was deposited at tbo post-office, New Orleans, when there was no postal communication between Houma and New Orleans, which had ceased several months previously.

It is in proof, that there were other practicable means ' of bringing home notice to the endorser, which were not used. The judgment of the lower court in favor of the appellee must be affirmed.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the' District Court, in favor of the defendant and appellee, be affirmed at the costs of appellant.