If notice by mail be permissible, a proper notice, mailed at a proper time, and properly stamped and addressed, is a good service of notice, whether the person ever received it or not.1 But a letter addressed to a place where there is no postoffice is, generally speaking, not good.2 If the place, however, has another place for the receipt of mail, where its mail is regularly received, there seems to be no good reason for saying that the letter is not properly mailed.3 But if the postoffice at a place has been discontinued for a considerable period of time, a letter put into the mail addressed to such a post-office would not constitute a service.4 A letter is mailed when it reaches any portion of the postoffice, as a street or building letter-box,5 any branch postoffice,6 or a room in the postoffice where mail is received by one acting in the post-office, although it may not be the regular postoffice room, and though it is received by an unsworn assistant.7 A letter delivered to a mail carrier on his route is mailed.8 A letter properly folded and addressed is no less a letter, because it is not inclosed in an envelope.9 It is immaterial whether or not the letter is regularly put into the mail by the postmaster.10 But a letter put into a private letter-box not under government control is not mailed;11 nor was a letter deposited in the Confederate mail service.12 The person giving the notice by mail is not responsible for any miscarriage in the postoffice, and this rule applies where the mailing is done under a banking custom,13 or under a free-delivery system,14 or under a statute, as well as under the law merchant.

16 Bibb v. McQueen, 42 Ala. 408; Duncan v. Young, 1 Mart. (O. S.) 32.

17 Hartford Bank v. Stedman, 3 Conn. 489.

18 The place of residence governs, not the place of presentment. West River Bank v. Taylor, 7 Bosw. 466, 34 N. Y. 128. See Fahnestock v. Smith, 14 Iowa, 561.

19 Foster v. McDonald, 5 Ala. 376; Gindrat v. Mechanics' Bank, 7 Ala. 324 But the agent forwarding ought to be treated as a holder, and if the agent lives in another place, although the holder resides in the same place as the indorser, mail service ought to be permitted. Shelburne Falls Bank v. Townsley, 102 Mass. 177; Warren v. Gilnian, 17 Me. 360.

20 Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence 1 Pet. 578; Hazelton Coal Co. v. Ryerson, 20 N. J. Law, 129.

21 Jarvis v. St. Croix Mfg. Co., 23 Me. 287.

1 Harris v. Robinson, 4 How. 336; Sanderson v. Reinstadler, 31 Mo. 483; Smyth v. Hawthorn, 8 Rawle, 855; Walworth v. Seaver, 30 Vt. 728, and many other cases.

2 See case cited in note 4,