Subject to certain qualifications which will appear under the head of demand upon paper payable at a particular place, the general rule unquestionably is that a demand must be accompanied by the instrument itself.1 It is not necessary that the instrument be actually exhibited, but it is sufficient that the person making the presentment has the instrument ready to produce it if a production of it should be required.2 And if a view of the instrument is requested the demand will not be good unless the instrument be produced, unless it should be lost or destroyed.3 Of course, however, if the note or other instrument be lost or destroyed, its production is not requisite;4 but the demand must be accompanied by an offer of the proper indemnity, if such protection is required by the person to be charged.5 Some authority holds that the instrument must be exhibited,6 while other authority holds that the person making the presentment need not have the instrument to produce, even if requested.7 But if the demand is made upon interest coupons the presenter need not have the notes with the coupons.8 The person upon whom a demand is made has the right to have the instrument surrendered,9 and also the collateral deposited with it, securing it, and this is the reason for the above rule as to presentation ; if the person upon whom a demand is made offers and is ready to pay the paper upon surrender of the collateral and the instrument, and the person presenting refuses to so surrender unless the holder has some other right to retain the collateral, there is no refusal of payment upon which to predicate the liability of an indorser.10 Whether a presentment made through the mail is a good presentment for payment or not depends upon whether the party to be charged refuses payment.11 If he does refuse to pay it is a good demand ; for as in all other cases a refusal to pay the instrument dispenses with a demand or presentment.12 But if presentment be made through the mail and the person to whom the presentment is to be made pays no attention to the demand, the indorser will be discharged as well as a drawer of a bill.13 Sending the paper directly to the drawer or maker is prima facie a want of diligence in the holder,14 and it is easy to see that unless a refusal to pay is received the holder cannot tell whether to give notice of dishonor or not.15 The demand must also comport with the tenor of the bill or note. Thus, a demand of payment in gold upon a bill not made so payable is not a good demand,16 and such is the rule as to any other demand which departs from the apparent and legal effect of the instrument.17

19 Gardner v. Bank of Tennessee, 1 Swan, 420; Decatur Branch Bank v. Hodges, 17 Ala. 42; Draper v. Clemens, 4 Mo. 52.

20 Wesson v. Garrison, 8 La. Ann. 136.

21 See Brown v. Turner, 15 Ala 832.

22 Nelson v. Fotterall, 7 Leigh, 180; Stainback v. State Bank, 11 Gratt. 260; Draper v. Clemens, 4 Mo. 52.

23 See the cases in the last note.

24 Hunt v. Maybee, 7 N. Y. 266.

25 Wiseman v. Chiapella, 23 How. 366; Baumgardner v. Reeves, 35 Pa. 250; Berg v. Abbott, 83 Pa. 177; Shedd v. Brett, 1 Pick. 413; Great-rake v. Brown, 2 Cranch, C. C. 541.

26 Teller: First Nat. Bank v. Owen,

23 Iowa, 185; bookkeeper: Armor v. Lewis, 16 La. 331. To one apparently cashier. New Orleans R. Co. v. McKelvey, 2 La. Ann. 359. But the officer must be in the bank. Peabody Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 29 W. Va. 528.

1Musson v. Lake, 4 How. 262.

2 Draper v. Clemens, 4 Mo. 52; Arnold v. Dresser, 90 Mass. 435. But see Maine Bank v. Smith, 18 Me. 99 (customary demand by the cashier of a bank; the note was at the bank in the same town, but cashier did not have it); Gallagher v. Roberts, 11 Me. 489; Union Bank v.. Morgan, 2 La. Ann. 418.

3King v. Crowell, 61 Ma 244. And see Arnold v. Dresser, 90 Mass. 435. Where a demand is upon interest coupons it is not necessary to have or to produce the note with the coupons. Codman v. Vermont R. Co., 17 Blatchf. 1.

4 Arnold v. Dresser, 90 Mass. 435.

5 This is true as to all negotiable paper. But see Hinsdale v. Miles, 5 Conn. 331.

6 Smith v. Gibbs, 2 Smedes & M. 479; Draper v. Clemens, 4 Mo. 52. Musson v. Lake, 4 How. 262, is a decision as to the statements of a notarial certificate. It is undoubtedly incorrect, a hasty and inaccurate statement. See the cases in note 2, supra, and First Nat. Bank v. Hatch, 78 Mo. 13; Fisher v. Beck-with, 19 Vt. 31.

7 See cases contra in note 2.

8 Codman v. Vermont R Co., 17 Blatchf. 1.

9 Bank of Vergennes v. Cameron, 7 Barb. 143, and cases in notes 1 and 2, supra.

10 Ocean Nat Bank v. Tant, 50 N. Y. 475.