Case Name: BANK OF THE UNITED STATES VS. ELLIS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1839-04
Citations: 13 La. 368
Docket Number: 
Parties: BANK OF THE UNITED STATES VS. ELLIS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES VS. ELLIS.
APPEAL. FROST THE COURT OF THE- FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, JUDGE WATTS -PRESIDING.
Where an endorser of a bill has not received notice of protest, but after-wards acknowledges he is bound, and promises to pay, with a full knowledge of the irregularity and want of notice, he will be held liable.
The defendant was sued as the last endorser on a bill of exchange, drawn at sight, and protested for non-acceptance. The draft was. drawn at New-York, by MfLaughlin, on Weaver, in Selma, Alabama, dated the 10th of November, 1836, payable at sight, on the first of January following. Oh the 28th of November, a notary in Mobile, declared he had made diligent seai'ch and strict inquiry for Weaver, to present the. bill for acceptance, but could neither find him or any one authorized to accept for him. The bill was protested, and notices of protest sent to New-York. The defendant had left Mobile fór New-Orleans, and no notice of protest was sent to him, or put in the post-office for him.
The agent of the bank at New-York inclosed the bill with the notices of protest, and wrote to the assistant cashier of the bank at New-Orleans, with directions to demand-payment of Ellis. This letter and the notices of protest, with the-bill, were, shown to Ellis, who declared to the assistant cashier, he was bound to pay the bill, and promised to pay it.
Under these circumstances, the district judge considered the defendant bound, and gave judgment for the amount of the bill.
The defendant appealed.
T. Slidell, for the plaintiff.
Clarke, for the appellant.

Opinion:
Eustis, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action against the endorser of a bill of exchange. The bill was protested for non-payment, and due notice of protest was not given to the defendant. The bill was payable in Mobile; the defendant resides in New-Orleans, and the notice of protest was sent to New-York, and was not given to the defendant in season to bind him ; however, he afterwards declared to the clerk of the Bank of the United Stales, in New-Orleans, that he was bound to pay the bill, and promised to pay it. We necessarily infer, from the circumstances disclosed in evidence, that he was apprised of the irregularity in the communication of the notice at the time of his acknowledgment of his obligation and subsequent promise to pay it.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.