Incidentally, in the preceding section upon personal service, the effect of a person's absence from his home was noticed. The rule may be stated to be that the temporary absence of a person from his residence does not require any different method of service whether the absence be for several days or several months.1 If his place of business or his residence is kept open, service there otherwise good ought in all cases to be upheld.2 If the person is traveling, it would be absurd to expect the holder to pursue him from place to place with a notice. It is the duty of the person leaving home to make provision for proper attention to his business while he is away. The rule is reasonable and proper from every standpoint. It has been so held as to a person traveling in Europe,3 and as to a person who has accepted a consulship,4 and in a number of other contingencies, such as temporary absence from one's boarding house5 or office6 or residence.7 The rule ought to be that in case of absence from his residence the indorser or drawer should be served at his residence without attempt-

36 See note 22, Sec. 281, post.

37 See note 22, Sec. 281, post,

38 See note 22, Sec. 281, post.

39 See note 22, Sec. 281, post ing to ascertain his whereabouts or waiting for his return.8 Even though the house be closed during the absence, the notice may be left with a neighbor with directions to deliver.9 But it has been held that where an indorser with his family had left his home, which was kept open and occupied by servants, a notice left at the house was not a good service, if the holder by reasonable diligence could have ascertained that the family were absent.10 The family had gone south within the rebel lines, and there was no showing whatever that they had an established residence or even a nomadic stopping place elsewhere. The case is undoubtedly a wretchedly erroneous decision. In another case the indorser was away from his residence and within the Confederate lines, and a notice by mail was sent to his place of residence, and the notice was held bad.11 In yet another case the indorser was away from his residence and serving in the rebel army, and a notice left at his residence was held bad.12 On the principle of these decisions, if a man in the far west should absent himself from his residence and go out upon the range for the purpose of stealing cattle, a notice left at his house or mailed to his postoffice would be badly served, a conclusion absurd enough; yet the two cases do not differ except in the species of illegality that actuated the person leaving home. It is exceedingly difficult to avoid the impression of a political prejudice in these rulings of the court. The court seems to have thought that the interruption of communication by war cut some figure, but that is material only when the residences of the party serving and the one to be served are separated by the theatre of war. Here the only question to determine was that of residence or no residence at the place of serving. But even conceding that the indorser had obtained a residence in Richmond, nevertheless he kept his house at Alexandria, and there was nothing to show that the server had not exercised full diligence. It is difficult to speak of such opinions with anything but impatient distaste. Judges who make them simply certify to their own either incompetence or unfitness.

1 McCrummen v. McCrummen, 5 Mart (N. S.) 159; Walker v. Stetson, 14 Ohio St. 89; Goodwin v. McCoy, 13 Ala. 271; Wooley v. Lyon, 117 111. 244; McMurtrie v. Jones, 8 Wash. C. C. 206; Gist v. Lybrand, 3 Ohio, 307; Isbell v. Lewis, 98 Ala. 550; Burkhardt v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 6 Wkly. Law BuL 13a But see Runyon v. Montfort, 44 N. C. 371.

2 See Murray v. Ormes, 3 Mac A 60. 3 McMurtrie v. Jones, 3 Wash. C. C. 206.

4 Burkhardt v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 6 Wkly. Law BuL 13a

5 See Bradley v. Davis, 26 Me. 45; Bank of U. S. v. Hatch, 6 Pet 250. See Rives v. Parmley, 18 Ala. 256.

6Hobbs v. Straine, 149 Mass. 212; State Bank v. Hennen,4 Mart (N. S.) 227.

7 Lawrenoe v. Ralston, 3 Bibb, 102; Curtis v. State Bank, 6 Blackf. 312.

8 See Walker v. Stetson, 14 Ohio St 89.

3Williams v. Bank of U. S., 2 Pet 96.

10 Alexandria Sav. Inst. v. McVeigh, 84 Va. 41.

11 Gilroy v. Brinkley, 12 Heisk. 392. The court in this case does not see that the whole point is whether the residence of the indorser had been established anywhere else, and whether that fact was known to the server. The opinion is accurately described by the word " beta"

12 McVeigh v. Allen, 29 Gratt 588. See the same case 26 Gratt 785, where the opinion by Moncure, J., who seemed to be much more of a lawyer than the judge who delivered the controlling opinion, correctly states the law. It is pitiful to read the opinion of Anderson, J.

The cases of members of legislatures, while on service with their legislative bodies, may be considered sometimes as cases of change of residence, sometimes of temporary absence from home. If the legislator keeps a residence at his home, notice may be served there, though the proprietor is in Washington serving in the legislature.13 A notice left at the "Washington lodgings after congress had adjourned, where the congressman had returned, as was his habit, after adjournment to his home in Virginia, a home which he kept open all the time, was held to be not properly served.14 Again, it has been held that a notice left at the postoffice of the House or Senate for a member of either body was not good without showing an actual reception of it;15 but a notice left at the legislator's room in the hotel where he stopped was properly served.16 If the congressman retains a residence m his state it is wrong to send the notice to "Washington by mail,17 although afterwards the court held it a proper proceeding where the member had no residence or agent in the state.18 Another court held that when a member of congress was in Washington, a notice sent to him there was good.19 But in a case where Daniel "Webster, with his easy facility in matters of business, had indorsed a note, he was served with notice by mail to Washington while he was there attending a session of the senate. He had an agent in Boston who attended to his business (at Webster's place of business in Boston) in his absence, but the holder did not know this, although it is a fair inference that he could have found it out if he had tried to do so; yet the notice was held to have been properly served.20 From the foregoing decisions it is difficult to say what is the rule. Certainly, a legislator's absence from his place of residence is but temporary; he retains his legal residence there. Most of the members have their businesses and places of business at their homes. They may achieve a somewhat precarious residence while battening in some Washington boarding house, or may even attain to the dignity of a rented house. Under such circumstances a service at their homes ought to be held good, yet it is no less certain that a service by mail to Washington during the session, or a personal service, actual or constructive, at Washington during the session ought to be good. Perhaps the riddle is best solved by saying, under the circumstances above stated, that the member has his place of business at his home and his residence during the session in Washington, and a service at either place is good. Fortunately, the place of sojourn of congressmen is so thoroughly exploited by our indefatigable press that a service, either personal or by mail, is always possible, unless the member should be absent upon one of those admirable junketing expeditions which so justly permit a little relaxation from arduous duties, and which are so thoroughly designed to reflect credit upon our representative institutions.

13Marr v. Johnson, 9 Yerg. 1. Compare with Gilroy v. Brinkley, 12 Heisk. 392. The two cases are irreconcilable.

14 Bayley v. Chubb, 16 Gratt. 284 The learned reporter informs us that in this case Lee, J., did not "set" Compare McVeigh v. Allen, 29 Gratt. 588.

15 Hill v. Norvel, 8 McLean, 583.

There was no right to make mail service.

16 Graham v. Sangston, 1 Md. 59. The court was compelled to make the presumption that the room was the member's residence.

17Walker v. Tunstall, 3 How. (Miss.) 259. This case amounts to saying that the domicile and not the residence is the place to serve notice.

18Tunstall v. Walker, 2 Smedes & M. 638. The record in this case shows that a man may be secretary of the treasury and have little sense of business honor.

19 Commercial Bank v. Chambers, 14 Mo. App. 152.

20 Chouteau v. Webster, 6 Met. 1. The cases in this section should be compared with the cases in the last section. The courts have been unable to agree upon any reasonably fixed rule, and the same court has been unable to agree with itself. The question is complicated by the. distinctions that are sought to be made and are made between actual residence and domicile.