Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-03-27
GENERAL DOCKET,

No l2s. Frederick W. Walker v. Charles stetson.
Error to the District Court Of ouyahoga county.
Ranney, j. Held:
l. What constitutes due diligence In giving no tice to
the drawer indoIser Of commercial paper OF
honor Of the ame when the facts are asceraned or adj
mitted Is question Of law and 1t cannot properly be
submitted to the jury as question Of fact.
2. Where the parties reside In different places put
ting into the postoce, reasonably, notice properly
directed Is in itself, due diligence or constructive no.
tice to the party addressed, although II reaches
him,
3. notice sent through the postoaics should be d.
rected to the party at his residence or dcs Of 6sness
Il either is known to the holder, or, upon digent in
qyry, can be ascertaned and II neither are known or
can be found the law dipenses with any notice what
ever. Ne-sa
4 While this Is the general principle, the spirit Of the
rule 10, that the notice should be sent to such place
that It will be most likely promptly, to reach the person
for whom II Is intended and It is sufficient IL notice Is
sent To the postoce where the party usually receives
his letters although not that Of his residence, as we'll
that where he resides and, in all cases, the notice
may be sent to the place pointed out by the drawer
lndorser; and, in general, will be sufficient both in
reference to himself and parties who stand behind him
the paper.
S. The fact that drawer or indorser goes from hil
place OF residence or business TO distant city to dispose
Of property which occupies him there for three weeks
Of time does not IN the absence Of all explanation
bis mode OF doing the business OF his relations to h
postoce there, make such city his place Of business
within tho meaning OF the commercial rule upon the sub
ject Of directing notice.
We " iVk SVukAt upuu bIlht 70 july u
annex to charge properly asked, material qualihcs
ton not required authorized BY the evidence beor
them. Balm v. Wilson, 10 Ohio st. Rep. IL, followe
and approved.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for furthe
proceedings.
No. i4a. GsorgoF. Moore, Rxr., etc. v. Jefferson
Brumback, Bxr, etc. ct al Error to the District ooui
| Of Licking county.
Brinkerhof, J: N~i-
Where testator, by his will dsvlses house and IL
to his wife for life, In lieu Of dover, and also gives
her certain pecuniary egaoIes and specific articles
peonaltyi gives pecuniary legacy to Of his soni
gives nnfant daughter the Of fifteen hundred do
lars ITO be paid to her whom she arrives at the age
majority; the interest thereon to he paid annually after
his decease, for her support and education until st
arrives at the age Of maisrty aud there being 9th,
provhion In the will for tha daughters ana then devise
all the residue Of his estate both real and personal
his sons, and he personal sssets OF the estate havn
proved TO DO ppuissnt 10 pay both debts ana legacie
Held-That the payment OF the daughters legacy WI
properly shargAbIs upon the regiduary real estate.
Judgment reversed. Gholston, j., dissented.
Ne. n, William Kelsey v. Adm q. Hibbs, Error
the District COURT Of franklin county.
aholston, }:
January, lsD" held shat thera Nss no legal obecti'
Ito the evidence Of pankE any nslcAanb' Sa0vps y