As we have seen, where notice is served by mail in the same place where it is given, the letter should be deposited in the mail, if deposited the next dav after demand, in time to be delivered on that day.1 There is another rule applicable to posting on the next day after demand which has its reason in the same considerations of active diligence which support the rule just stated. It is that notice mailed upon the next day after dishonor must be by the first mail on that day.2 But this rule is subject to limitations: first, that there be a mail on that day; if there be none, the server may wait until the next mail day;3 second, the mail must be made up at a reasonable hour on that day. If the mail of that day closed the night before, it is a mail of the preceding day.4 What is a reasonable hour should be decided by the business hours of the place, allowing reasonable time for the preparation of the notice after the beginning of business hours.5 Thus, 8 o'clock in the morning is an unreasonable hour in New-York,6 but an Ohio court contends that 9 o'clock A. M. is a reasonable hour for a Pennsylvania man at the depressing city of Pittsburg.7 But 2 o'clock A. M. and 5 o'clock A. M. are unreasonable for mailing.8 In Mississippi a mail at sunrise is too early,9 but one at 9 o'clock in the morning is a perfectly reasonable hour.10 At just what barbarous hour business begins in Mississippi cannot be said, but it lies somewhere between sunrise and 9 o'clock in the morning. In Louisiana 7 o'clock in the morning is presumed to be early enough.11 Subject to the foregoing considerations as to the hour of the mail's leaving, and subject to the rule as to the first mail, the notice if mailed on the succeeding day must be mailed in time to be put into the mail of that day.12 The better rule is that the notice need not be sent by the first mail on the next day after maturity if a reasonable excuse exists for not doing so, or if there be more than one mail on that day,13 and a special indulgence of one day was given to the secretary of the treasury owing to the necessities of public business.14 If the server sends notices to an agent to mail, the agent must exercise due diligence, and his delay of one day has been considered unreasonable,15 as well as his mailing of the notice to be delivered on the next day where he could have delivered on the same day.16 The choosing of a needlessly circuitous route is not an excuse for the delay resulting therefrom.17

51 Fleming v. McClure, 1 Brev. 428. There was no evidence to show an earlier sailing. The jury were left to presume it without proof.

52 Pinder v. Nathan, 4 Mart. (O. 8.) 346.

53Sharpe v. Drew, 9 Ind. 281. 54 Freeman v. Wikoff, 16 La. 20. 55 See Sec. 273, note 1, and Newbold v. Boralf, 155 Pa. 227. 56 See gSec. 287, 291, post.

1 See note 21 to the preceding section.

2 Burgess v.Vreeland,24N. J. Law, 71; Dodge v. Bank of Kentucky, 2

A. K Marsh. 610; U. S. Bank v. Merle, 2 Rob. (La.) 117; Peabody Ins. Co. v. "Wilson, 29 W. Va. 528. And see cases in the next two notes-See also Smith v. Poillon, 87 N. Y. 590; Eagle Bank v. Chapin, 3 Pick. 180; Commercial Bank v. Union Bank, 19 Barb. 391.

3 Lawson v. Farmers' Bank, 1 Ohio St 206. But he must send by the first mail thereafter. Townsley v. Springer, 1 La. 122.

4Wemple v. Dangerfield, 2: Smedes & M. 445.

5 Sussex Bank v. Baldwin, 17 N. J. Law, 487; Marks v. Boone, 24 Fla. 177; Farmers' Bank v. Duvall, 7 Gill & J. 78; Chick v. Pillsbury, 24 Me. 458.

6 Howard v. Ives, 1 Hill, 263. 7Lawson v. Farmers' Bank, 1

Ohio St. 206. The Pennsylvania court considers 7 A. M. a reasonable hour! Stephenson v. Dickson, 24 Pa. 148.

8 West v. Brown, 6 Ohio St. 542; Stephenson v. Dickson, 24 Pa. 148.

9 Deminds v. Kirkman, 1 Smedes & M. 644. The case carefully conceals the time of year.

10 Downs v. Planters' Bank, 1 Smedes & M. 261. It was held that a mailing at 9 o'clock A. M. was insufficient unless it appeared that there was no earlier mail.

11 Commercial Bank v. King, 3 Rob. (La.) 243. Notice put into the mail at 7 o'clock A. M. will be presumed to be in time for the mail of that day, but notice put in at 9 A. M. will not be so presumed. Beckwith v. Smith, 22 Me. 125.

12 Lenox v. Roberts, 2 Wheat. 373; Goodman v. Norton, 17 Me. 381; Beckwith v. Smith, 22 Me. 125; Manchester Bank v. White, 30 N. H. 456; Bank of Alexandria v. Swan, 9 Pet. 33; Moore v. Burr, 14 Ark. 230.

13Smith v. Poillon, 87 N. Y. 590; Whitwell v. Johnson, 17 Mass. 454.