The propriety of a service by mail is dependent upon the residence of the parties. It is allowable in all cases, except when the party giving the notice and the one receiving the notice reside in the same place. It will be advantageous to consider the various situations that may arise. The holder may serve the notices himself or he may serve them through an agent. The agent may reside in the same place as the holder, or in the same place as the party to be charged by notice, or he may reside in a different place from either. The holder serving may receive the notices from his agent in another place, or he may make them out himself. All the parties - holder, agent and party to be charged - may reside in the same place. Confining ourselves first to a case where an agent does not supervene, if the holder giving notice and the party receiving notice reside in the same city or town, service by mail is not permissible; the service must be personal,1 except where there is a free delivery system covering the indorser's residence, and the notice is mailed so that it will be delivered on the same day that it is mailed.2 In other cases the service must be personal, if the parties reside in the same town.3 But nevertheless if the mail is used, and the person to be charged is shown to nave received the notice on the same day that he would have been entitled to receive it by personal service,4 but not later,5 the service is good; and a person may have a place of business in the city where service is being made and reside outside of the city. In such a contingency the service must be personal upon him, either actually or constructively so,6 and some authority holds that the service must be personal even though he have no place of business in the city.7 But if he have no place of business in the city where service is being made and reside outside of the city, having his mail delivered at the city postoflice, the better authority is that he may be served by mail;8 but some authority seems to suggest the use of special messenger or a personal delivery in that case.9 Therefore a notice mailed to a person in the same place,10 or by a drop letter,11 is prima facie bad without more appearing, unless the rule is changed by statute, as it is in many instances,12 or unless the rule be changed by a banking custom, as to a bank giving notices upon paper payable at the bank,13 but not upon other paper, even though the custom be known to the person to be charged.14 In case the notices are served by an agent, the residence of the agent may be regarded in order to determine the propriety of the mailing of the notice.15 But even if the agent sending the notices to the holder lives in the same town with the party to whom notice is being given, the residence of the holder may govern as to mailing;16 if, however, the notary sends the notices to the town where the person to be charged lives, for the purpose of having the proper address inserted, the notice may be mailed.17 It may happen that the notary or agent will make demand in the place where the indorser resides, but where the agent does not reside. In such cases the notices may be mailed.18 But the agent is acting for the holder and he may therefore govern his actions by the residence of the holder; and if the agent living in the same town with the indorser mails the notices to the holder, and if the holder does not reside in the same place with the party to be charged, the notice may be mailed whatever the residence of the notary.19 But although a service by mail is permitted it is not compulsory, and if a special messenger is used for the purpose of "making a personal service, the service is none the less good,20 provided the messenger exercises due diligence.21

51 United States v. Barker, 4 Wash. C. C. 464, 12 Wheat. 559; Smith v. Roach, 7 B. Mon. 17; Pendleton v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 5 Fed. R. 238; Landrun v. Trowbridge, 2 Met. (Ky.) 281; Car-michael v. Pennsylvania Bank, 4 How. (Miss.) 567. Contra, House v.

Adams, 48 Pa. 261. See Austin v. Rodman, 8 N. C. 194,

52 Rice v. Wesson, 11 Met. 400.

53 This is non-negotiable paper. Some courts, as we have seen, allow the drawer or indorser to claim demand.

54 Central Bank v. St John, 17 Wis. 157.

1 Williams v. Bank of U. S., 2 Pet. 96; Bowling v. Harrison, 6 How. 248; Spalding v. Krutz. 1 Dill. 414; Curtis v. State Bank, 6 Blackf. 312, and many other cases. The case of Farmers' Bank v. Battle, 4 Humph. 85, extends the rule as to the same place to a neighborhood using the same postoffice.

2 Morton v. Cammack, 4 McA. 22; Bell v. Hagerstown Bank, 7 Gill, 216; Walters v. Brown, 15 Md. 285; Shoemaker v. Mechanics' Bank, 59 Pa. 79.

3 See cases in note 1, supra.

4Hyslop v. Jones, 3 McLean, 96; Spalding v. Krutz, 1 Dill. 414; Cabot

Bank v. Warner, 92 Mass. 522; Hen-dershot v. Nebraska Nat. Bank, 25 Neb. 127; Grinman v. Walker, 9 Iowa, 426; Foster v. Sineath, 2 Rich. Law, 338.

5 See cases in last note and Ter-bell v. Jones, 15 Wis. 253; Nevins v. Bank of Laningsburgh, 10 Mich. 547; Gordon v. Pedrick, 6 Phila. 254.

6 Vowell v. Patton, 2 Cranch, C. C. 312; Patrick v. Beasley, 6 How. (Miss.) 609; Brown v. Bank of Abingdon, 85 Va. 95.

7 Louisiana State Bank v. Rowel, 6 Mart. (N. S.) 506; Nashville Bank v. Bennett, 1 Yerg. 166; Davis v.

Bank of Tennessee, 4 Sneed, 390. See Ireland v. Kip, 10 Johns. 490, 11 Johns. 231, and compare Ransom v. Mack, 2 Hill, 587; Paton v. Lent, 4 Duer, 231.

8 Forbes v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 10 Neb. 338; Carson v. State Bank, 4 Ala. 148; Fisher v. State Bank, 7 Blackf. 610; Barret v. Evans, 28 Mo. 331; Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet. 578; Walker v. Bank of Augusta, 3 Ga. 486; Bondurant v. Everett, 1 Met (Ky.) 660; West-fall v. Farwell, 13 Wis. 504; Sanderson v. Reinstadler, 31 Mo. 483; Jones v. Lewis, 8 Watts & S. 14; Foster v. Sineath, 2 Rich. Law, 338; Timms v. Delisle, 5 Blackf. 447; Bell v. State Bank, 7 Blackf. 456. The distances from the city in these cases vary from one and a half miles from the city to nine miles therefrom. Bird v. McCalop, 2 La. Ann. 351. Contra, Power v. Mitchell, 7 Wis. 161 (under statute).

9 Fish v. Jackman, 19 Me. 467. See cases in note 7 and Van Vechten v. Pruyn, 9 How. Pr. 222, 13 N Y. 549. Where the indorser resides at the place, it seems that he must be served there personally and cannot be served by mailing to his place of business elsewhere.

10 Clay v. Oakley, 5 Mart (N. S.) 137, and cases in note 1.

11 Newberry v. Trowbridge, 4 Mich. 391.

12Peet v. Zanders, 6 La Ann. 364; Jameson v. Pothaus, 26 La. Ann. 63; McNatt v. Jones, 52 Ga. 473; Glicks-man v. Earley, 78 Wis. 223; Brennan v. Vogt, 97 Ala. 647; Isbell v. Lewis, 98 Ala. 550; Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn. 426, are cases under statutes.

13Gindrat v. Mechanics' Bank, 7 Ala. 324; Chicopee Bank v. Eager, 9 Met. 583; Carolina Nat. Bank v. Wallace, 13 S. C. 347.

14 Lime Rock Bank v. Hewett, 52 Me. 531.

15 Greene v. Farley, 20 Ala. 322. Contra, Foster v. McDonald, 5 Ala. 376.