The notice may be either oral or written.1 This is true even as to the notice of dishonor upon a foreign bill;2 and a copy of the certificate of protest, either upon non-acceptance or non-payment, need not accompany the oral or written notice of such dishonor.3 The notice is sufficient if it informs the party, either expressly or impliedly, that the paper has been dishonored and that he will be looked to for payment.4 Thus a verbal notice is good, though the note or bill is not described or produced, if the indorser knows what paper was meant.5 And so of written notices; any notice is sufficient if it informs the party, either expressly or impliedly, that the paper has been presented for payment and payment refused.6 The conclusion sconded, notice should be given (Hilborn v. Artus, 4 I11. 344, under a statute). Michaud v. Legarde, 4 Minn. 43; Williams v. Matthews, 3 Cow. 252. If he has changed his residence out of the state or so that he cannot be found, notice should be given. Wolfe v. Jewett, 10 La. 384 Or if he be insolvent or had no funds notice should be given. French v. Bank of Columbia, 4 Cranch, 141; Rhett v. Poe, 2 How. 457; Mohawk Bank v. Broderick, 10 Wend. 304.

1 Cuyler v. Stevens, 4 Wend. 566; First Nat. Bank v. Hatch, 78 Mo. 13; Teconic Bank v. Stackpole, 41 Me. 321; Pierce v. Schaden, 55 CaL 406; Martin v. Brown, 75 Ala. 442; Hig-gins v. Morrison, 4 Dana, 100. But oral notice ought to be personal notice.

2 Linville v. Welch, 29 Mo. 203.

3 Wallace v. Agry, 4 Mason, 336; Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield, 1 Sandf. 146; Atwater v. Streets, 1 Doug. 455; Linville v. Welch, 29 Mo. 203.

4 Bank v. Norwood, 1 Har. & J. 423; Snow v. Perkins, 2 Mich. 238; Burkham v. Trowbridge, 9 Mich. 209; Stoughton v. Swan, 4 Cal. 213; Legg v. Vinal, 165 Mass. 555; Solomon v. Pfeister Leather Co. (N. J.), 31 Atl. R 602. But a statement that the paper is unpaid does not show a demand. Townsend v. Lorain Bank, 2 Ohio St. 345.

5 Thompson v. Williams, 14 Cal. 160. 6Piatt v. Drake, 1 Doug. 296;

The person to whom notice is being given should be addressed by his true name; but mere inaccuracies in the name do not vitiate the notice, where the person to whom the notice is sent is not thereby misled.15 A mistake in the name which is caused by the illegibility of the person's signature on the dishonored paper will not affect the notice.16

Newberry v. Trowbridge, 4 Mich. 391; Fisk v. Morse, 16 N. H. 271; Armstrong v. Thruston, 11 Md. 148; Littlehale v. Mayberry, 43 Me. 264. A statement that the note is due and unpaid is not sufficient. Pink-ham v. Macy, 9 Met 174; Arnold v. Kinloch, 50 Barb. 44 Contra, Wolf v. Lauman, 34 Mo. 575. See as to paper payable at a particular place, the opposite rule, Clark v. Eldridge, 13 Met 96; Hunter v. Van Bom-horst, 1 Md. 504.

7 Graham v. Sangston, 1 Md. 59; Shrieve v. Duckham, 1 Litt 194; Townsend v. Lorain Bank, 2 Ohio St. 345; Warren v. Gilman, 17 Me. 360; Cowles v. Harts, 3 Conn. 517.

8Chadwick v. Jeffers, 1 Rich. Law, 397; Gray v. Bell, 3 Rich. Law, 71; Benton v. Gibson, 1 Hill (S. C), 56. But notice of the suit must be given. Keater v. Hock, 11 Iowa, 536.

9Chadwick v. Jeffers, 1 Rich. Law, 397.

10 Bull v. Hoge, 2 Hilt 81. See Hirschfelder v. Manufacturing Co., 17 N. Y. Supp. 726.

11De Wolf v. Murray, 2 Sandf. 166.

12 Bank v. Woods, 28 N. Y. 561.

13Fulton v. McCracken, 18 Md. 528, signature put on by his clerk; Sussex Bank v. Baldwin, 17 N. J. Law, 487; Bank v. Woods, 28 N. Y. 561; Spalding v. Krutz, 1 Dill. 414.

14 Denegre v. Hiriart, 6 La. Ann. 100; Glicksman v. Earley, 78 Wis. 223.

15 Carter v. Bradley, 19 Me. 62.

16 Manufacturers' Bank v. Hazard, 30 N. Y. 226

The notice should be signed, a mere unsigned notice being worthless;17 but the notary's signature to a notice which is unsealed is good.18 The notice need not be dated,19 or the date may be indicated by any of the usual abbreviations.20 The notice, however, will not be destroyed as a notice, even if it be post-dated or ante-dated.21

In regard to its contents and recitals, it need not state who is the owner and holder of the note, nor upon whose behalf the notice is given,22 and need not state where the paper may be found.23 The particular paper should be described in such a way as to indicate what paper it refers to, but a mistake as to the date does not invalidate the notice,24 except where the error would mislead by showing protest before maturity.25 Mistakes in the description of the note, such as an error as to the name of a subsequent indorser to the one to whom notice is being given,26 a mistake as to the name of the drawer or day of maturity,27 a mistake as to the amount of the note28 or its date,29 or a mistake as to an indorsees name,30 do not destroy the efficacy of the notice. Omissions of date of the note,31 or name of the maker,32 or

17 People's Nat Bank v. Dibrell, 91 Tenn. 301; Walmsley v. Acton, 44 Barb. 312; Walker v. State Bank, 8 Mo. 704.

18 Crawford v. Branch Bank, 7 Ala. 205; Huffaker v. National Bank, 12 Bush, 287.

19 Artisans' Bank v. Backus, 36 N. Y. 100.

20 Brown v. Jones, 125 Ind. 375 (indicating month by number).

21 Lennig v. Tobley, 4 Clark, 275; 8. a, 14 Pa. 483; Journey v. Price, 2 Houst. 176.

22 Coff man v. Bank of Ky., 41 Miss. 212; Mills v. United States Bank, 11 Wheat. 431; Brown v. Jones, 125 Ind. 375; Shedd v. Brett, 1 Pick. 401.

23 Howe v. Bradley, 19 Me. 81.

24 Tobey v. Lennig, 14 Pa. 483 (the date of maturity was given); and see next two cases cited.

25 Mills v. Bank of U. S., 11 Wheat. 431; Bank of U. S. v. Watterson, 4 Cranch, C. C. 445; De La Hunt v. Higgins, 9 Abb. Pr. 422;. Ross v. Planters' Bank, 5 Humph. 335.

26 Meyers v. Bank of Tenn.,3 Head, 330.

27 Smith v. Whiting, 12 Mass. 6.

28 Snow v. Perkins, 2 Mich. 238; Rowan v. Odenheimer, 5 Smedes & M. 44

29 See note 24.

30 Moorman v. Bank of Alabama, 3 Port. 353 (it was a subsequent indorser); Gill v. Palmer, 29 Conn. 54 (indorser described as drawer).

31 Cayuga Co. Bank v. Warden, 1 Comst. 413.

32Howland v. Adrian, 80 N. J. Law, date of maturity,33 or of the name of an indorser,34 or of the number of the note,35 or an omission or mistake in any other particular, does not vitiate the notice, unless by reason of the fact that there were more than one note to answer the description,36 or by reason of the fact that the person receiving the notice has been misled to his injury.37

The notice should contain some statement either directly made or inferable by necessary result that the paper has been presented for payment and payment has been refused.38 But equivocal statements,39 or a statement to the indorser that the note is due and unpaid,40 if not payable at a particular place, or a verbal notice given the next day after maturity stating that payment had been demanded on the last day of grace and if note was not paid on the day of the verbal statement notice would be given,41 cannot be considered as statements of a demand and non-payment. But a statement that the paper was "duly protested " or " protested" for non-payment is a complete recital of presentment for payment, refusal of payment, and notice of dishonor to the indorser, for the meaning of the word " protested " includes both the formal act of the notary and the informal act of a third party.42 There were once decisions of authority contra, but they are overruled.43 The mode of demand44 or the time of demand need not be stated,45 but if the time is stated it must be correctly stated, for notice of the naked fact of non-payment, if accompanied by a demand on the in-dorser, is sufficient.46 If the paper is payable at a particular place, notice that it is due and unpaid is sufficient.47 But notice of demand and non-payment is something that can be given so easily in proper form, or, if not given, the excuse can be given in so few words, that no one ought to have difficulty in following a form; approved ones may be found in the note.48 The difficulty is that a holder never thinks of consulting a lawyer until, by his ignorance, he has plunged himself into a difficult position.

41. But see Home Ins. Co. v. Green, 19 N. Y. 518.

33 Gates v. Beecher, 60 N. Y. 518; Saltmarsh v. Tuthill, 13 Ala. 390.

34 Moorman v. Bank of Alabama, 3 Port. 353; King v. Hurley, 85 Me. 525.

35 Hodges v. Shuler, 22 N. Y. 114

36 Cook v. Litchfield, 9 N. Y. 279. See Bank of Cooperstown v. Woods, 28 N. Y. 561, and Davenport v. Gilbert, 4 Bosw. 532.

37 Manchester Bank v. White, 30 N. H 456. Any notice is sufficient if the instrument dishonored was intended to be described and such details are given as will put upon inquiry, and the person to be notified was not misled. Bank of Alexandria v. Swann, 9 Pet 33; Cooper v. Gibbs, 4 McLean, 396; Reedy v. Seixas, 2 Johns. Cas. 337; Beals v. Peck, 12 Barb. 245.

38 See note 6, supra.

39Klockenbaum v. Pearson, 16 Cal. 875; Town send v. Lorain Bank, 2 Ohio St. 345.

40opinkham v. Macy, 9 Met. 174. But see Clark v. Eldridge, 13 Met. 96.

41 Bank of U. S. v. Barry, 2 Cranch, C. C. 307; Union Bank v. Fonte-neaux, 12 Rob. (La.) 120.

42Wheaton v. Wilmarth, 13 Met 422; Cook v. Litchfield, 5 Sand. 330, 9 N. Y. 279; Burgess v. Vreeland, 24

Notice should be given upon the first dishonor.49 A holder cannot redeem himself for his failure by making a second demand and giving notice of that,50 although if what took place was not in legal contemplation a demand, he may make a good demand. If acceptance is refused, notice of dishonor must be given,51 whether presentation for acceptance was needed or not; if demand is made upon demand paper before there is any necessity for it, and payment refused, notice should be given.52 If the paper does not require any demand whatever, but a demand is made, notice need not be given;53 but the party to be charged by notice cannot object that a demand upon such paper was made.54

N. J. Law, 71; Glicksman v. Earley, 78 Wis. 223; Selden v. Washington, 17 Md. 379.

43 See Burkham v. Trowbridge, 9 Mich. 209; Cromer v. Piatt, 37 Mich. 132.

44 Sanger v. Stimpson, 8 Mass. 260.

45 See Tevis v. Wood, 5 Cal. 393; Reynolds v. Appleman, 41 Md. 615. But see Stephenson v. Dickson, 24 Pa. 148.

46 Mills v. United States Bank, 11 Wheat. 431.

47 See note 40 and note 6, supra, and Sasscer v. Farmers' Bank, 4 Md. 409. But where a clearinghouse is in operation, the exchange of checks at the clearing-house is not a demand; and if the bank presenting the check receives the clearing-house paper upon the drawee bank for the check, which paper is dishonored by the refusal of payment, the clearing-house paper is not to be protested, but the original check should be obtained from the bank refusing the clearing-house paper, and demand should be made on that original paper, and the check protested for non-payment. Notice is to be given upon this demand, not upon any provisional presentation through the clearing-house. Merchants'Nat. Bank v. Procter, 1 Cin. R 1.

48 Reynolds v. Appleman, 41 Md. 615; Stephenson v. Dickson, 24 Pa. 148.

49 See cases in the following notes. 50Rice v. Wesson, 11 Met. 400;

Stanley v. Farmers' Bank, 17 Kan. 592. But this rule ought not to preclude a good demand on the same day.