13 Gilchrist v. Donnell, 53 Mo. 591. See the language of the court in Whitridge v. Rider, 22 Md. 548; but Goodloe v. Godley, 13 Smedes & M. 233, says that no further inquiry is necessary.

14 See the preceding section. And he must make due inquiry as to whether there be a postoffice at the place. Tyson v. Oliver, 43 Ala. 455.

15 See the preceding section.

16 Gilchrist v. Donnell, 53 Mo. 591; Earnest v. Taylor, 25 Tex. Sup. 37; Mitchell v. Young, 21 La. Ann. 279.

17 Harris v. Robinson, 4 How. 336; Gawtry v. Doane, 51 N. Y. 84 (information from the maker); Eager v. Brown, 11 La. Ann. 625 (information from the drawee).

18 Libby v. Adams, 32 Barb. 542.

19 Lawrence v. Miller, 16 N. Y. 235. See Chapman v. Lipscomb, 1 Johns. 294

20 Bartlett v. Isbell, 31 Conn. 296. This case makes, as applied to the facts, an untenable distinction between a servant and agent. The case is really wrong, because the agent did not inquire of the holder. Harris v. Robinson, 4 How. 336. Garver v. Downie, 83 Cal. 176.

But the inquiry may designate a district as a county for the residence of the party to be charged without indicating his postoffice address. If the notice is mailed to the county generally, where it has more than one postoffice,26 or to a parish which is in the same condition,27 it will be insufficient. But if diligent inquiry does not develop the post-office beyond indicating the county, the notice may be mailed to the county seat.28 But a letter should not be directed to any place without knowledge or inquiry as to their being a postoffice at the place.29 If the information derived indicates that the person to be served has a residence in the same place with the server and the place has" no free-delivery system, the notice, under the rule, must be personally served; it cannot be served by mail,30 unless by force of a statute.31 As soon as the fact appears that the server has mailed a letter containing notice directed to the same place where it is mailed, that particular place having no freedelivery system, the burden is thrown upon the server, at once, to show due inquiry before such mailing, and failure to ascertain information.32 But this is subject to the rule that the server may always send the notices to a particular place to be served either personally33 or by mail,34 where he does not know the address. In making his inquiries to find the residence or place of business of the party to be served, in the same place where the server resides, he cannot act upon the identity of a name in the directory alone.35 He should make other inquiries. He must resort here as well to the people most likely to know the address,36 to the place where it is payable, if it be payable at a particular place,37 to the parties to the paper,38 and to the usual means of public information.39 If he cannot find the residence or place of business, he may leave the notice at the place where the paper is payable.40 If he does find the address or place of business and there be no free-delivery system, he must proceed to make personal service as indicated in a preceding section.41

21 Harris v. Robinson, 4 How. 336; Branch Bank v. Pierce, 3 Ala. 321, and last note.

22 Brighton Market Bank v. Phil-brick, 40 N. H. 506; Beals v. Parish, 24 Barb. 243. The liability-having been fixed by due diligence, the right to hold such indorser passes to every subsequent holder of the note, even though that holder was an indorser who had knowledge which the server had not.

23 See preceding section.

24 See preceding section.

25 Groves v. Tomlinson, 19 La. Ann. 90.

26 Taylor v. Bank of Illinois, 7 T. B. Mon. 576.

27 Freeman v. Wikoff, 16 La. 20.

28 Whitridge v. Rider, 22 Md. 548. 29 Tyson v. Oliver, 43 Ala. 455.

30 See Sec. 272, ante. 31See Sec. 272, ante.

Where a change of residence has taken place, inquiry should be made in the manner before indicated, to the place where the paper is payable,42 to the parties to the paper,43 to those people most likely to know,44 and to the usual sources of public information.45 But inquiry should be made at the last place of residence as well as the new place of residence, if it is ascertained.46 Where the new place of resa bill,3 the drawer of a check only when he has been injured by delay,4 the indorser of a check.5 This notice must be neither too early nor too late. A notice served before a demand made,6 or before a demand could be legally made,7 are alike worthless. A notice given on the second day of grace,8 unless the third day is Sunday,9 is a nullity. The notice can be sent as soon as the demand is made on the third day of grace;10 but in jurisdictions where the whole of the third day of grace is permitted to the maker or drawee in which to pay,11 a notice cannot be given before the close of business hours on the third day of grace,12 or, if the paper is payable at a bank, before the close of banking hours on the third day of grace.13 But as soon as the demand for acceptance is made and refused,14 or, if no such demand is made, as soon as a demand for payment is made and refused,15 the notice must be given. It will be immaterial if a second demand is made and notice of that demand and refusal given.16 This notice may be given the same day,17 but it is not necessary that it should be. If the parties live in the same place, notice may be given the next day, if the notice is personal.18 If the service in the same place is to be made by mail, by reason of a statuteI9 or the existence of a free-delivery system,20 the notice, if mailed the next day after the demand and refusal, should be mailed in time to be delivered on that day,21 and, if addressed to a place of business in the same city, it ought, on principle, to be mailed in time to be delivered during business hours of that day.22 The mailing is a substitute for the personal service, but the question of time is determined by the deposit in the mail, without regard to the receipt of the notice. Therefore a rale can be laid down uniformly as to a mail service where the residence is known. But where the residence is unknown, time consumed in diligent inquiry for the residence is always permitted, whether the service is personal or by mail to the same place or another place.23 Where personal service is had, the question of reasonableness of the time of service is to be determined by the receipt of the notice. The test is whether notice is given within a reasonable time in view of all the circumstances.24 The notice need not be immediate where there is no regular communication,25 yet diligence should be shown to use the earliest means of conveyance where the mails are not regular.26 The holdings upon this question are generally negative and many of them made when means of communication were defective. Thus, a delay of two and a half years to serve a notice at a distance of one hundred and thirty-two miles,27 a delay of four years,28 a delay of two years by one indorser to another,29 a delay of twelve months,30 a delay of seven months,31 of four and one-half months,32 of four33 and of two34 months in the same city, a delay of fourteen days,35 of fifteen days,36 of three weeks,37 of nineteen days in the same town,33 of ten days,39 of nine days to serve at a distance of two miles,40 nine days on a foreign bill,41 eight days to serve at a distance of four miles,42 a delay of several days,43 - was in each instance held unreasonable. Approaching the shorter times, a delay of two days unexplained on a personal service,44 of two days without diligence shown,45 a notice after three days' delay,46 a notice on the second day after maturity,47 or after one day's delay,48 is too late. Thus the rule can be brought down to the general statement that a delay in serving notice personally or by mail for any longer period than the next day after demand is presumptive negligence and must be explained. The effect of holidays intervening will be noticed a little later on.49 But certain delays have been held reasonable. Thus, in the old days when the mails were carried at comparatively long intervals between Europe and America, a delay in waiting for the fast mail was excusable, though ships carrying mails left earlier, but would not reach the port any sooner than the fast mail.50 One court, at an early day, achieved the unique distinction of saying that in case of dishonor notice must be sent by the first ship sailing for any port in the United States.51 A delay, in the year 1S16, of six or seven days in starting a letter from New York to New Orleans was considered reasonable,52 or a delay of six or seven days when that was the due course of mail,53 or a delay of one day in serving twenty miles.54 Delays caused by miscarriages in the mail55 are excusable. The delays caused by death or war or pestilence will be later examined.56

32 See Sec. 272, ante.

33 See Sec. 272, ante.

34 See Sec. 272, ante.

35 Bacon v. Hanna, 137 N. Y. 379; Greenwich Bank v. De Groodt, 7 Hun, 210. The directory should be consulted if it is accessibla Lawrence v. Miller, 16 N. Y. 231; Cooley v. Shannon, 20 La. Ann. 548.

36 See cases in note 20, supra.

37 See cases in note 11, supra.

38 See cases in note 16, supra. Pierce v. Pender, 5 Met 352. Or to a party's agent. Barker v. Hall, 8 Tenn. 183.

39 The cases in the notes just cited indicate these means. See note 35, supra.

40 He needs not serve notice at alL

41 See Sec. 272, ante.

42See cases in note 11, supra.

43 See cases in note 16, supra.

44 See cases in note 20, supra.

45 See note 39, supra.

46 Hume v. Watt, 5 Kan. 34. The first head-note to this case ought idence is in another place than the former, and not in the same place where the server resides, the mail will be used. If the person to be served with notice has moved into another state, notice needs not be given to him;47 but if the party to be served has absconded48 or has departed without leaving any address49 or agent,50 notice to him will not be necessary. Since in all cases diligence to find is equal to a good service, it follows that, if afterward information be obtained as to the residence, notice then will not be necessary;51 but on this point there seems to be a doubt suggested in a certain case which is not authority.52 But even if diligence has not been used in any case, the receipt of the notice in due time by the person to be served from some one competent to give it, however irregular the means, renders the lack of diligence immaterial.53 These rules as to service are all of them modified by the right to transmit notices, and to serve them as between successive obligors upon the paper.54