The place to serve a party with notice may be designated by him, and such direction remains good until it is countermanded;1 and a notice left at that place will be good, although an actually personal service would be equally good. And where the indorser writes his address upon the paper under his name, this will be an implied direction as to the place of giving notice, and a notice left at that place in proper manner will be sufficient.2 But merely finding the indorser's address under his name will not justify a notice left at such address, unless it is shown to be his residence or place of business, and that the notice was left in a proper manner at that place.3 If the note has been negotiated by an agent for the indorser, the directions of the agent as to the indorser's address will be binding upon the indorser.4 This rule ought to be qualified, however, by the statement that if the holder knows that the address has been changed and the person has removed from the place designated, he ought to follow the new address in serving the notice.5 This matter of the designation of the place of address will be further considered under the head of the proper place to which to direct notice by mail.6 But the whole subject of service of notice, both as to place and time, is governed by the general consideration that any agreement made between the maker of

But in the following case the notice was held bad. The server called at the house quite early and the house was closed, but he handed the notice to a servant apparently, who, however, was not connected with the family. Dufour v. Morse, 9 La. 333. The person to be served was not shown to be absent. Adams v. Wright, 14 Wis. 408 (given to boy in yard not good). Giving a notice to the indorser's son, who said he was going home and would deliver, is not good unless it be shown to have been delivered. Paterson Bank v. Butler, 12 N. J. Law, 268

1 Eastern Bank v. Brown, 17 Me. 356.

2 Baker v. Morris, 25 Barb. 138; Davis v. Bank of West Tennessee, 4 Sneed, 390; Morris v. Husson, 4 Sandf. 93; Farmers' Bank v. Battle, 4 Humph. 86.

3 Davenport v. Gilbert, 4 Bosw. 532, 6 Bosw. 179.

4 Catskill Bank v. Stall, 15 Wend. 364.

5 This would seem to be the proper rule.

6 See Sec. 279, .post the note or the drawer of the bill as to the service of notice, known to the indorser at the time he indorses, will be binding upon him as well.7