The notice may be given by the holder or his agent.1 It is not material whether the one or the other gives the notice.2 Under this rule the notary employed is an agent, which fact may be inferred from his acting.3 The cashier of a bank holding for collection is an agent of the bank to give notices.4 The indorsee for collection has been called also an agent under this rule; but as we have elsewhere demonstrated, a bank holding paper for collection is a bailee, and therefore an actual holder, not an agent.5 Notice given by the acceptor6 or maker, as agent of the holder, inures to the benefit of other parties to the bill.7 The word "holder " includes any one through whose hands the bill or note has passed,8 even an assignor without indorsement.9 Each one of them may give notice to all or any parties prior to themselves.10 In the last section was necessarily considered the giving of notices by successive obligors.11 We saw that an agent could give notice to his principal instead of sending notices,12 or he might give notice himself in his own name13 or in his principal's name.14 The holder can give notice to any or all the prior parties.15 Each indorser must take precaution to see that all prior parties whom he desires to hold are notified,16 unless a statute should change the rule.17Notice to a prior indorser from the holder inures to the benefit of the subsequent indorser,18 and notice by a subsequent to a prior indorser inures to the benefit of the holder.19 It has been held that notices to all the prior parties properly addressed, inclosed in a letter to the last indorser, will hold all the prior indorsers to the holder, although the last indorser never received the letter, and the letter was lost in the mail.20 Other authority seems to require that the notices be actually transmitted with proper diligence to the prior indorsers.21 This modification is correct to this extent, that no intervening party be guilty of laches, and therefore the first statement of the rule is undoubtedly correct, even if the holder had knowledge as to the residences. If, however, the last indorser received the letter it must appear that he remailed or served the notices,22 either to his prior indorser or the parties separately, and the same rule as to miscarriage in the mail would apply.23 All the cases in the preceding section should be consulted in connection with this section. Notices given by those who are strangers to the paper are wholly void;24 but a liberal presumption will be indulged in favor of the authority of the giver of notice.25

See Jarnagin v. Stratton, 95 Tenn. 619, as to the effect of a statute making all joint obligations joint and several. It does not change this rule.

1 Burke v. McKay, 2 How. 66; Harris v. Robinson, 4 How. 336.

2 See cases in last note.

3Burbank v. Beach, 15 Barb. 326. See Payne v. Patrick, 21 Tex. 680.

4 State Bank v. Vaughan, 36 Mo. 91.

5 See Sec. 171, ante, and Manchester Bank v. Fellows, 28 N. H. 302.

6 Union Bank v. Grimshaw, 15 La. 321; Brailsford v. Williams, 15 Md. 150. But the allegation must be that the maker or acceptor acted as agent of the holder, and acted in due time. Sebree Deposit Bank v. Moreland, 96 Ky. 150.

7 See cases in last note.

8 Glasgow v. Prattle, 8 Mo. 336; West River Bank v. Taylor, 34 N. Y. 128; Stafford v. Yates, 18 Johns. 327.

9 He would be on the same footing as a holder to whom the note was unindorsed. See Pate v. State Bank, 3 Ind. 176.

10 See preceding section.

11 See last section.

12 See last section.

13 See note 17 to preceding section. 14See Sec. 270, ante.

15 See preceding section.

16 See preceding section. But if a subsequent party not notified gives notice to a prior party, the notice does not inure to the other parties to the paper. Brown v. Ferguson, 4 Leigh, 37, semble. This decision is wrong. The rule ought to be that as soon as it appears that the holder mailed the notice under cover to the last indorser, then the indorser should be called upon to show that he did not receive it, and to show laches. See notes 20 and 21. and Stafford v. Yates, 18 Johns. 327.

17 See note 29 to preceding section.

18 See preceding section. 19 See preceding section.

20Wamesit Bank v. Buttrick, 11 Gray, 387. Due diligence had been used to notify the prior parties. If the notices had not been lost, then the laches of an intervening holder would 'defeat recovery. Farmers' Bank v. Turner, 2 Litt. 13; Holland v. Turner, 10 Conn. 308.

21 See Aldine Mfg. Co. v. Warner, 96 Ga. 370; Stix v. Matthews, 63 Mo. 371; Van Brunt v. Vaughan, 47 Iowa, 145.

22 Renshaw v. Triplett, 23 Mo. 213; Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. McCague, 18 Ohio, 54; Holland v. Turner, 10 Conn. 308.

23 There is no doubt that a notice properly mailed by a proper person is notice.