Subject to excuses for no notice at all, and subject to reasons for delay which are adequate, the rule as to the necessity of promptitude in giving notice is strictly held. The parties who may claim this right to prompt notice have been hereinbefore indicated as the indorser of a note,1 the drawer of a bill,2 the indorser of to be put among the genuine curiosities of the law.

47 See Sec. 281, ante, note 4.

48Madderom v. Heath Mfg. Co., 35 111. App. 588; Williams v. Bank of U. S., 2 Pet. 96.

49Williams v. Bank of U. S., 2 Pet 96.

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

51 Lambert v. Ghiselin, 9 How. 552; Rowland v. Howe, 48 Conn. 432.

52 Canonge v. La. St Bank, 7 Mart (N. S.) 583 But see Blodgett v. Dur-gin, 32 Vt 361.

53Witeford v. Burckmeyer, 1 Gill, 127; Thomas v. Marsh, 2 La. Ann. 353; First Nat Bank v. Wood, 51 Vt. 471; Cadillon v. Rodriguez. 25 La. Ann. 79; Matthews v. Strafford Bank, 45 N. H 104; Moreland v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 97 Ky. 211; Freeman v. Wikoff, 16 La. 20; Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet 578.

54See Sec. Sec. 277, 278, ante.

1 See Sec. 239, ante.

2 See Sec. 235, ante.

3 See Sec. 235, ante. 4 See Sec. 237, ante.

5 See Sec. 237, ante.

6 Lawrence v. Langley, 14 N. H. 70.

7Toothaker v. Cornwall, 3 Cal. 144; Etting v. Schuylkill Bank, 2 Pa. 355; Thornberg v. Emmons, 23 W. Va. 325.

8 Etting v. Schuylkill Bank, supra.

9 See Sec. 286, post

10 Manchester Bank v. Fellows., 28 N. H. 302; Bussard v. Levering, 6 Wheat 102; Lyndenberger v. Beall, 6 Wheat. 104: Guignon v. Union Trust Co., 156 I11. 135; King v. Crowell, 61 Me. 244; Corp v. Mc-Comb, 1 Johns. Cas. 328; Garland v. West, 9 Baxt 315; Draper v. Clemens, 4 Mo. 52.

11 Pierce v. Cate, 12 Cush. 190. For rule in California, see Toothaker v. Cornwall, 4 Cal. 28.

12 See the last note.

13 See the last note.

14 See Sec. 233, ante.

15 See Sec. 233, ante.

16 See Sec. 270, ante, note 50.

17 See cases in note 10, supra.

18Pierson v. Duokham, 3 Litfc. 385; Lockwood v. Crawford, 18 Conn. 361; Curry v. Bank of Mobile, » Port. 360; Remington v. Harrington, 8 Ohio, 507; Barker v. Weston, 10 Iowa, 593 (the usage of bank does not change this rule); Grand Bank v. Blanchard, 23 Pick. 306.

19 See Sec. 272, ante.

20 See Sec. 272, ante.

21 Bell v. Hagerstown Bank, 7 Gill, 216; Walters v. Brown, 15 Md. 285; Shoemaker v. Mechanics' Bank, 59 Pa. 79.

22 There seems to be no decision on this point.

23 Eagle Bank v. Chapin, 3 Pick. 180; Smyth v. Hawthorn, 3 Rawle, 355. The court is mistaken in its statement of the.facts of the case. The notice was one day too late, unless the time was given for inquiry.

24 Phelps v. Blood, 2 Root, 5ia It is singular to notice how much superior the old style of opinion is to the present method of writing treatises in each case.

25 See cases in succeeding notes.

26 Spencer v. Sterling, 10 Mart (O. S.) 88; United States v. Barker, 4 Wash. C. C. 464, 12 Wheat. 559.

27Steinmetz v. Curry, 1 DalL 234, 270.

28 Hager v. Boswell, 4 J. J. Marsh, 61.

29Steinmetz v. Curry, 1 DalL 234.

30 Kilpatrick v. Heaton, 3 Brev. 92.

31 Lewis v. Brewster, 2 McLean, 21 (a guarantor).

32 Patillo v. Alexander, 96 Ga. 60. 33 Yancey v. Littlejohn, 9 N. C. 525. 34 London v. Howard, 2 Hayw.

(N. C.) 332. 35 Hubbard v. Troy, 2 Ired. 134.

36 Brown v. Turner, 11 Ala. 752.

37 Alshausen v. Lewis, 1 Biss. 419.

38 Green v. Darling, 15 Me. 141. 39Deininger v. Miller, 40 N. Y.

Supp. 195 (notice to an executor).

40 Morris v. Gardner, 1 Cranch, C. C. 213.

41 United States v. Barker, Fed. Gas. 14,519.

42 Hussey v. Freeman, 10 Mass. 84,

43 Bank of Orleans v. Whittemore, 12 Gray, 469.

Howland v. Adrian, 30 N. J. Law, 41.

45 Union Bank v. Fonteneau, 12 Rob. (La.) 120.

46 Clark v. Nat. Metrop. Bank, 3 MacA. 249. \

47Hert v. Vincent, 29 N. Y. Supp. 61.

48 East River Bank v. Gedney, 4 E. D. Smith, 582; Hert.v. Vincent, 29 N. Y. Supp. 61. And see Farmers' Bank v. Butler, 3 Litt. 498.

49SeeSec. 286,posf.

5°Stainbaok v. Bank of Virginia, 11 Grat. 260.