If a foreign bill be not accepted, or not paid at maturity, it must be protested at once; and this should be done by a notary public, to whose official acts under his seal, full faith is given in all countries. (l) Inland hills are generally, and promissory notes very often protested in like manner, hut this is not required by the law-merchant. (m) It is held, on the weight of authority, that our States are so far foreign to each other, that a bill drawn in one of them, upon a drawee resident in another, requires protest. (n) The notary's certificate * of protest would not be evidence of dishonor, where the protest was not required by law, (o) even if the notes were payable in a foreign country. (p) If the bill be protested for non-acceptance by the drawee, any third person may intervene, and accept or pay the bill, for the honor of the drawer or of any indorser; and such acceptance supra protest has the same effect as if the bill had been drawn on him. He is liable in the same way, and he has his remedy against the person for whom he accepts, and all prior parties with notice; and if he pays the bill for an indorser he stands in the position of an indorsee for value. (q) And this is true although the acceptance is at the request and for the honor of the drawee after his refusal. (r) The holder is not bound to receive an acceptance supra protest, (s) but must receive payment

(k) Parke, B., Kearsley v. Cole, 16 M. & W. 135; Ex parte Gifford, 6 Ves. 805; Boultbee v. Stubbs, 18 Ves. 20; Ex parte Glendinning, Buck, Cases in Bankruptcy, 517; Nicholson v. Revill, 4 A. & E. 675; Lewis v. Jones, 4 B. & C. 506, n; Nichols v. Norris, 3 B. & Ad. 41; Clagett v. Salmon, 5 G. & J. 314; Owen v. Homan, 3 E. L. & E. 112; Price v. Barker, 30 E. L. & E. 157; Sohier v. Loring, 6 Cush. 537. See ante, p. * 29.

1 An indorser or surety is not discharged by the creditor's voting to accept a composition in bankruptcy from the maker, Ex parte Jacobs, L. R. 10 Ch. 211; Megrath v. Gray, L. R. 9 C. P. 216; Guild v. Butler, 122 Mass. 498; and notice must be sent to an indorser, although a bankrupt, and his assignee has been appointed, Ex parte Baker, 4 Ch. D. 795. - K.

(l) Gale v. Walsh, 5 T. R. 2.39; Bry-den v. Taylor, 2 Har. & J. .396; Towneley v. Sumrall, 2 Pet. 170. And the duty of the notary cannot be performed by an agent or clerk. Onondaga County Bank v. Bates. 3 Hill (N. Y.), 52; Cole v. Jes-sup, 9 Barb. 393.

(m) Windle v. Andrews. 2 B. & Ald. 696; Bonar v. Mitchell, 5 Exch. 415; Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheat. 146; Burke v. McCay, 2 How. 66; Johnson v. Brown, 154 Mass. 105. See Corbin v. Planters Nat. Bank, 87 Va. 661.

(n) Whether a bill drawn in one of the United States upon persons resident in another is a foreign bill so as to re-quire a protest in case of non-acceptance or non-payment, is a question concerning which there has been a difference of judicial opinion. It has been held in New York and Connecticut that such bills are not foreign. Miller v. Hackley, 5 Johns. 375; Bay v. Church, 15 Conn. 15. But the case in New York has been since overruled in the same jurisdiction; and in the other States where the question has arisen, and in the Supreme Court of the United States, a contrary opinion has been held. Duncan v. Course, 1 S. Car. Const. 100; Cape Fear Bank v. Stine-metz, 1 Hill (S. C), 44; Lonsdale v. Brown, 4 Wash. C. C. 14S; Phoenix Bank v. Hussey, 12 Pick. 483; Brown v. Ferguson, 4 Leigh, 37; Halliday v. McDou-gall, 20 Wend. 81; Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H.558; Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586; Schneider v. Cochrane, 9 La. An. 235; Armstrong v. American Bank, 133 U. S. 433; Joseph v. Salomon, 19 Fla. 623, 632; Johnson v. Brown, 154 Mass. 105. Tin's is in accordance with the doctrine of Mahoney v. Ashlin, 2 B. & Ad. 47S, where a hill drawn in Ireland upon a person resident in England was held to be a foreign bill.

(o) Union Bank v. Hyde, 6 Wheat. 574; Taylor v. Bank of Illinois, 7 Monr. 580; Bank of U.S. v. Leathers, [0 B. Mon. 64; Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H. 558.

(p) Kirtland v. Wanzer, 2 Duer, 278.

((q) Holt, C. J., in Mutford v. Walcot, 1 Ld. Raym. 574; Mertens v. Winning-ton, 1 Esp. 112; Goodhall v. Polhill, 1 C. 15. 233; Geralopulo v. Wieler, 3 E. I.. & E:. 515; Wood v. Pugh. 7 Ohio, Part 2, 156; Baring v. Clark, 19 Pick. 220. The payer supra protest for the honor of the indorser cannot hold such indorser liable if he have already been discharged by reason of want of notice of the non-acceptance. When a part} has once been exonerated, his liability cannot be revived without his assent. Biggins v. Morrison, 4 Dana, 100.

(r) Konig v. Bayard, 1 Pet. 250.

(s) Mitford v. Walcot, 12 Mod. 410.

if tendered to him supra protest. But after a general acceptance by the drawee there can be no acceptance supra protest, and a third party can only add his credit to the bill by a collateral guaranty. (t) If the bill designates a third party to whom recourse is to be had on non-acceptance, it is said that this direction must be obeyed. (it)

The notarial protest is generally admissible, but not conclusive evidence of the facts therein stated, which properly belong to the act of protest. (v) Banks which receive bills and notes for collection, generally, perhaps always, employ agents to collect, and notaries to demand and protest. And it has been held that such a bank is liable only for due discretion in choosing its agent, and not for the agent's negligence. (w) And if any act is to be done at a distance from the bank, the assent of the holder of the note to the employment of a sub-agent will be presumed. (x) But where a bank assumes to act directly by its own servants or agents, the general principles of agency would apply, and make the bank responsible for the acts of its agents.

As to the form and particular statements of the protest, the true rule is, that notice of protest should inform the party, with reasonable certainty, what note or bill it is on which he is to be charged. (xx)