Case ID: la-ann_2/html/0333-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Slidell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Menard v. Winthrop et al.
    Where the certificate of a notary, offered to prove notice of protest to the endorsers of a note, written at the foot of a notice of protest dated 26th of June, 1841, the day of the maturity of the note, states that “ a copy of the above notice was, on the 26th inst., put in the post office,” &.C., directed to the endorsers, it is not sufficient. The omission to state in the certificate the month and year, cannot be cured by any inference from the date of the notice.
    APPEAL from the District Court of East Baton Rouge, Burk, J. The plaintiff appealed from a judgment of nonsuit, in an action against the endorsers of a promissory note. Plaintiffs offered as evidence of notice of protest, a notarial certificate, in the following words :
    “Baton Rouge, June 26th, 1841. Messrs. F. D. Conrad, A. Winthrop Sf Adams. Please to take notice that a promissoi'y note, drawn by Manuel Moreno, for $300, dated 24th December, 1840, and due this day, has been duly protested for non-payment, and the holder looks to you forpayment, as endorsers thereof.
    Your obedient servant, Wm. H. Wikoff, Not. Pub.
    
      “ I certify lliat a copy of the above notice was, on the 26th inst., put in the Posfc °®ce at place, directed to F. D. Conrad, Esq., East Baton Rouge; and also copies were served in person, on the same day, on Messrs. A. Winthrop and Amos Adams. Wm. H. Wikoff, Not. Pub.
    Enos Hebert,
    J. Larguier.
    “ I certify the foregoing to be a true copy of the original, on record in my office. Witness my hand and seal of office, this 13th day of October, 1846.
    Wm. H. Wikoff,,Not- Pub.”
    
      G. S. Lacey, for the appellant. No counsel appeared for the defendants.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

Winthrop, Conrad Sf Adams, are sued as endorsers on a promissory note. There was judgment of non-suit as to the endorsers, and the plaintiff has appealed.

We are of opinion that notice of protest has not been sufficiently proved. The plaintiff offered in evidence a certified copy of the notarial certificate of protest, in which the notary certifies that, on the 26th inst., he put (he notice for Conrad into the post office, and served the notices upon Adams Sf Winthrop, personally. This certificate coutains no date of month or year, and it is impossible for us to say to what month and year the expression 26th inst. is referable, unless we deduce it, by conjecture, from the circumstance that the copy of notice contained in the certificate bears date, June 26, 1841. But this is too loose to justify a judgment against the endorsers. The notice might have been dated in June, and yet not have been mailed or served in that month.

Judgment affirmed.