Case ID: nys_28/html/0763-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "EHRLICH, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(8 Misc. Rep. 503.)
    WEBBER v. GOTTHOLD.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    May 18, 1894.)
    Negotiable Instruments—Notice of Protest.
    Where an indorser does not indicate under the indorsement any place to which notice of protest should be sent, it is sufficient to direct the notice to the city in which the indorser resides.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Edward Webber against Eugene S. Gotthold. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and VAN WYCK and McCARTHY, JJ.
    Henry Cooper, for appellant.
    H. F. Lawrence, for respondent.
   EHRLICH, C. J.

The making and indorsing of the note having been clearly established, the only question to be considered is as to the service of notice of protest on Mrs. Cotes, the appellant. The notice was addressed to Mrs. Cotes at Hew York City, duly mailed by depositing the same in the general post office and prepaying the postage. The note was drawn at Hew York City, dated there, and made payable there, and the appellant resided at that place at 1he time. The defendant, as indorser, not having indicated under her indorsement any specific place to which the notice should be sent, the law was sufficiently complied with by directing it to the city in which she resided. As the proof of service of the notice answers all legal requirements, there being no error in the rulings, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.