Case ID: ny-st-rep_59/html/0416-02.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

Edward Webber, Resp’t, v. Eugene S. Gotthold, App’lt.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed May 18, 1894.)
    
    Bills and notes—Protest.
    Where an indorser has not indicated under his indorsement any specific place to which the notice of protest should be sent, it is sufficient to direct it to the city in which he resides.
    Appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
    
      Henry Cooper, for app’lt; H F. Lawrence, for resp’t.
   Ehrlich, C. J.

The making and endorsing 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 New York city, duly mailed by depositing the same in the General Post Office and prepaying the postage. The note was drawn at New York city, dated there, and made payable there, and the appellant resided at that place at the 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.

Van Wyck and McCarthy, J. J., concur.