The death of the person to be served may affect the place of service, the manner of service or the time thereof. The death of the holder can only affect the time of service or the person by whom the notice is served. The notice, in case of the holder's death, should be given by the personal representative.1 Any delay in noticing that is reasonable, which is caused by the holder's death, is excusable.2 In case the in-dorser or other person to be served with notice is dead, the person upon whom to serve the notice is the personal representative of the deceased.3 Service upon any one of the personal representatives is good.4 A notice left at the temporary boarding place of the administrator is good if he received it, and ought to be good if he did not receive it, provided it was left with any suitable person therein in his absence with directions to deliver;5 a notice addressed to the deceased but served on the personal representative,6 and a notice addressed to the estate of the deceased, are equally good if received,7 and a notice addressed by mail to "Personal Representative " of deceased, naming the deceased, is good whether it be received or not.8 The holder here threw upon the postoffice the onus of a search and proper delivery, and the court presumed that the postoffice properly attended to the matter. It would be consistent with the proven facts that the postoffice authorities paid no attention to the letter. The executor named in the will, though not approved by the court, is the personal representative upon whom to serve;9 but the same is not true in the case of an executor who renounced, whereupon a special administrator (though it would seem he should have been administrator cum testamento annexo) was appointed, if the holder could have known the fact of such substitution by reasonable diligence.10 If there be a personal representative he should be served if the holder knows of the death. Service upon the son of deceased at the deceased's place of business was held insufficient where the personal representative had a place of business of his own.11 If the holder is ignorant of the death, a service by letter addressed to the deceased is sufficient.12 But if the holder has notice of the fact of death, he must exercise due diligence by consulting the records, if in the same place, or by proper inquiries as to the records and from other sources of information.13 If after such due diligence no personal representative is found, service at the deceased's residence, and the rule is the same if no personal representative exists;u or the mailing of notice addressed to the deceased indorser at his late residence, where the residence is such that service by mail is permitted, will hold the estate of the indorser.15 If the maker of the note is the indorser's personal representative, notice to him is still necessary;16 but even if the maker is one of several executors, he may be singly served with notice so as to bind all the executors.17 If there be no personal representative there is no need of applying for the appointment of one in order to serve notice upon him.18 The service upon the deceased in the latter case should be at his residence at the time of his decease, or upon his family or widow.19 A notice addressed to the place of residence of the deceased, where his family yet lived, addressed to " Legal Kepresentative " of the dead indorser, was held sufficient, though there was no personal representative.20 The agency to receive notice expires with the death of the principal, as in the case of all other agents who do not attain to the dignity of donees of a power coupled with an interest, and service cannot be made upon him after the death.21 If the personal representative, however, has been discharged, notice should be served upon the heirs.22 Upon the effect of illness the rules stated in a former section23 should be consulted, since the same excuses ought to apply to notice, being served personally.

10 Martin v. IngersolL 8 Pick. 1. 1He succeeds to the personalty.

2 White v. Stoddard, 11 Gray, 258.

3 Bank of Columbia v. King, 2 Cranch, C. C. 570; Cayuga Co. Bank v. Bennett, 5 Hill, 236; Oriental Bank v. Blake, 22 Pick. 206; Merchants' Bank v. Birch, 17 Johns. 25; Bird v. Doyal, 20 La. Ann. 541.

4 Carolina Nat. Bank v. Wallace, 13 a C. 347; Beals v. Peck, 12 Barb. 215.

5 Matthewson v. Strafford Bank, 45 N. H. 104

6 Beals v. Peck, 12 Barb. 245; Maspero v. Pedisclaux, 22 La. Ann. 227.

7 Jefferson v. Darling, 91 Hun. 236.

8 Pillow v. Hardeman, 3 Humph. 538. Smalley v. Wright, 40 N. J. Law, 471, seems to be contra.

9Shoenberger v. Lancaster Sav. Inst 28 Pa. 459; Drexler v. Mo Glynn, 99 CaL 143.

10 Goodnowv. Warren, 122 Mass. 79.

11 Bank of Columbia v. King, 2 Cranch, C. C. 570.

12 Linderman v. Guldin, 34 Pa. 54; Planters' Bank v. White, 2 Humph. 112.

13 Massachusetts Bank v. Oliver, 10 Cush. 557; Bank of Louisiana v. Smith, 4 Rob. (La.) 276; Dodson v. Taylor, 56 N. J. Law, 11.

14 Weaver v. Penn, 27 La. Ann.

129; Mathewson v. Strafford Bank, 45 N. H. 104.

15 Barnes v.Reynolds, 4 How. (Miss.) 114; Mathewson v. Strafford Bank, 45 N. H 104; Merchants' Bank v. Birch, 17 Johns. 25; Stewart v. Eden, 2 Caines, 121; Massachusetts Bank v. Oliver, 10 Cush. 567; Dodson v. Taylor, 56 N. J. Law, 11. If there be no administrator notice mailed to such non-existent potentiality seems to be good. Boyd v. City Sav. Bank, 15 Grat 501.

16 Alton v. Robinson, 2 Humph. 341.