We have hereinbefore discussed the place of service where the service is not to be made by mail and the residence is known.1 It will be necessary now to consider to what postoffice the notice should be directed when the postoffice address is known. The propriety of sending a letter to a discontinued postoffice has been considered in a former section.2 It should first be observed that notice by mail is not compulsory, for notice may be sent by messenger, and if the messenger exhibit reasonable diligence in transmitting it the service is perfectly good.3 In the next place the particular postoffice which it is desired to address may be called by more than one name; and if that be the case the use of either name is proper.4 Again, a particular place may have more than one postoffice, and a notice directed to the place without indicating which postoffice would be sufficient, unless it be shown that the holder or his agent serving was aware that the recipient of the notice used one of the postoffices exclusively,. or could have known it by reasonable diligence.5 The place to be addressed may be a district of country with a post-office in it, and if the indorser lives in the district, notice to him through the postoffice for the district would be sufficient, unless the holder knew that he made use of a postoffice outside of that district.6 If the notice to be addressed is to a city of considerable size, it is not necessary to address the person receiving the notice by his street and house number,7 unless it be shown that the holder or his agent for service knew the house number and the street, or unless the address has been indicated in such a manner, e. g., upon the paper, that the holder, ought to have known the number.8 There may be two places in different states with the same name; if one of those places be in the same state as the place where the notice is sent, the state need not be named in the address, but otherwise it should be.9 Subject to the above limitations the notice should be sent, in the absence of a controlling agreement, to the postoffice of the place of actual residence of the indorser or other person to be charged with notice, provided that place be known to be the residence of the party or represented by him to be such.10 This rule is to be followed regardless of the place where the bill or the note is dated.11 Sending the notice in this manner will always be considered sufficient if the mail is a proper method of service in the particular case.12 People, however, will be found residing in one place part of the year and in another place part of the year, and it would seem to be correct to address the postoffice of actual residence, regardless of the domicile.13 Yet mere absence from his family does not constitute a change of residence under this rule.11 But cases must frequently arise where the indorser lives away from a place with a postoffice. In that contingency the place to send the notice through the mail, if the server does not know where the person to be served receives his mail, is the postoffice nearest to the residence of the indorser or drawer.15 In order to determine the nearest postoffice it is said that the holder may consider the nearest postoffice the one from which he will get mail the soonest, not necessarily the post-office nearest in point of distance.16 But the case must be very rare where such a condition of affairs is likely to exist. It is the safer rule to choose the postoffice that is the nearer in point of distance, and that choice is proper though the postoffice be in another state.17 But where the nearer post-office was separated from the indorser's residence by a wide and rapid river, while another postoffice, though two miles farther away, was on the same side of the stream, the choice of the latter place of address was justifiable.18 This decision should have been put upon the ground that the holder had the right to assume that the indorser received his mail at the latter place. In yet another case, where the indorser lived three miles from the nearest postoffice and eleven miles from the place of demand, it was seemingly held, by an apparently foolish court, that the place of demand was the postoffice of the indorser, and that service by mail was improper.19 If it were shown that the holder knew that the indorser did not get mail at his nearest postoffice, but did get it from the postoffice at the place of demand, this decision might be upheld.20 Another court has held that where the drawer or indorser lives outside of the city the notice may be by mail to the city postoffice, if it is the nearest postoffice, and if he has no place of business in the city.21 And there are decisions denying this rule as to an indorser who lived one and a half miles,22 a few miles,23 but applying it to indorsers who live four or five miles,24 and nine miles out of the city.

24 Lawrence v. Miller, 16 N. Y. 235.

25 Payne v. Patrick, 21 Tex. 680.

1 See Sec. 274, ante.

2 See Sec. 273, ante.

3 Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet 578; Hazelton Coal Co. v. Ryerson, 20 N. J. Law, 129. But the special messenger differs from the mail in that notice put into the mail is good, but notice given to a special messenger proves nothing until it is shown that the messenger exercised diligenca Jarvis v. St Croix Mfg. Co., 23 Me. 287.

4 Geneva Bank v. Howlett, 4 Wend. 328.

5 Morton v. Westcott, 8 Cush. 425; Roberts v. Taft, 120 Mass. 169; Manchester Bank v. White, 30 N. H. 456; Downer v. Remer, 21 Wend. 10, 23 Wend. 620; Bank of Manchester v. Slason, 13 Vt 334; Burlingame v. Foster, 128 Mass. 125. If the post-office has two names, either name may be used (Bank of Geneva v. Howlett, 4 Wend. 328); but a notice addressed to a county which has more than one postoffice is bad. Bank of 111. v.Taylor, 7 T. B. Mon. 576.

6 Rand v. Reynolds, 2 Gratt. 171.

7 True v. Collins, 85 Mass. 438; Webber v. Gotthold, 28 N. Y. Supp. 763.

8 Bartlett v. Robinson,9 Bosw. 305, 39 N. Y. 187.