Case Name: Charlotte Morton vs. William Cammack and James Ward, Administrators of John B. Ward
Court: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1879-02-24
Citations: 1 MacArth. & M. 22
Docket Number: Law. No. 14,353
Parties: Charlotte Morton vs. William Cammack and James Ward, Administrators of John B. Ward.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 11
Pages: 22–23

Head Matter:
Charlotte Morton vs. William Cammack and James Ward, Administrators of John B. Ward.
Law. No. 14,353.
Decided February 24, 1879.
1. Where the holder and indorser of a promissory note resides in the city, proof that notice of protest was deposited in the post office addressed to the indorser at his place of business is not sufficient to fix the liability of the indorser.
2. In cities where the letter carrier system prevails, it may be sufficient to serve such notice through the post office, but in such case the residence or place of business of the indorser must be proven to be within the limits of the carrier system, and that he is accustomed to receive his letters through that means.
STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
Action of assumpsit upon a promissory note against the maker and the administrator of the indorser. Fleas, never indebted, and that defendants did not promise.
On the trial, the plaintiff* gave the note in evidence, and he offered proof that the note was protested for non-payment, and that notice of protest was deposited in the post office in the city of Washington, directed to the indorser at his place of business in said city in his lifetime. It also appeared that the plaintiff was a resident of the city of Washington, residing within three squares of the said place of business. The plaintiff then rested, and defendants’ counsel requested the court to instruct the jury to render a verdict for him, because the notice of non-payment was deposited in the post office as certified by the notary in his certificate of protest, and not given to the indorser, Ward, personally, or left at his residence or place of business, which was in the city of Washington. This instruction was given as requested, and constitutes the subject of the exception now before the court. A verdict was returned in favor of the defendants.
William A. Cook for plaintiff*.
Wm. F. Mattingly for defendants.

Opinion:
By the Court :
The sole question in this ease is, whether, whqn both the holder and indorser of a promissory note reside in this city, it is . sufficient to hold the indorser by merely offering in proof certificate of a notary public, showing on its face demand on the maker, refusal to pay, and that notice of protest was deposited in the post office addressed to the indorser at his place of business. That this is not sufficient to hold the indorser was expressly decided in Bowling vs. Harrison, 6 How., 648; Ireland vs. Kipp, 11 John., 231. Authorities which suggest that in large cities, where the letter carrier system prevails, it might be sufficient to send notice through the post office, yet also show that in such cases the residence or place of business of the indorser must be proven to be within the limits of the carrier system, and that he is accustomed to receive his letter's through that means. Nothing of the kind was attempted to be shown in this case.
Judgment affirmed.