As we have seen, the notice may come through successive holders or indorsers,1 and each indorser has one day in which to forward notice after service has been received by him.2 The rule of the earliest practicable mail upon the next day is applied to this method of service.3 The indorser notified must send notice of the first notice he receives to the prior indorser, however remote the party may be.4 He cannot wait until he receives a notice passing through successive parties after the one who has given him notice.5 But notice need not be, as one court mistakenly supposed, after the receipt of actual knowledge.6 The rule that whichever party to the paper is selected to be noticed directlv from the holder, notice from the holder must be given to him as of the next day after dishonor, without waiting and claiming the time that would have been made possible if the notice had been sent to him through the parties subsequent to him upon the paper,7 applies to indorsers giving notice to other indorsers after notice to them of dishonor.8 When notice is sent from the holder or server at another place to an indorser to serve upon a person in the same place as the indorser, that indorser may serve by mail,9 although some authority disputes this,10 and the rule as to the next day for service ought to apply to notice sent to an agent to serve;u but there is abundant authority for saying that he must act upon the same day that he receives the notice to serve.12 The rule applies conversely, and there is no doubt that the holder receiving notices from his agent has until the next day in which to serve.13 The persons who can give this notice must be, as we have seen, parties to the paper or their agents,14 and a transferrer of the paper without indorsement.15 But one who is merely interested in the paper cannot be entitled to this privilege,16 except as an agent for some actual party; nor can indorsers whose indorsements have been erased,17 it seems, according to a palpably erroneous decision.

14 United States v. Barker, 4 Wash. C. C. 464, 12 Wheat, 559.

15 United States v. Barker, supra. 16Cassidy v. Kreamer, 13 AtL R

744 (Pa.); Shelburne Falls Bank v. Townsley, 102 Mass. 177.

17West River Bank v. Taylor, 7 Bosw. 466, semble.

1 See Sec. Sec. 276, 277, 278, ante.

2 State Bank v. Ayres, 7 N. J. Law, 131; Smith v. Poillon, 87 N. Y. 590; Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H. 558; Allen v. Avery, 47 Me. 287; Lawson v. Farmers' Bank, 1 Ohio St 206; Davis v. Hanley, 12 Ark. 645; Grand Gulf Co. v. Barnes, 12 Rob. (La.) 127. It was held in New Orleans Co. v. Bieu, 9 Rob. (La.) 110, that the notice must be sent within one day from the time that notice was received in fact. But the indorser can await notice in the regular way. West River Bank v. Taylor, 7 Bosw. 466, 34 N. Y. 128.

3 Earliest mail on next day. Haskell v. Boardman, 90 Mass. 38; Mitchell v. Cross, 2 R L 437; American Life Ins. Co. v. Emerson, 4 Smedes & M. 177; Manchester Bank v. Fellows, 28 N. H. 302. Mail on the same day to same postoffice. Shelburne Falls Bank v. Townsley, 102 Mass. 177.

4 Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H. 55&

5 See the last note.

6 See note 2, supra, the case of New Orleans Co. v. Bieu, 9 Rob. (La.) 110.