Manchester v. Van Brunt

To an action by the holder of a note against the indorser, the defendant pleads a discharge for default in notice of dishonor. The note being payable and the indorser resident in the city of Eew York, the plaintiff availed himself of the method of notice provided by statute, namely, by deposit in the post-office; but, by indorsement on the envelope containing the protest, the postmaster was requested to return it to the plaintiff if not delivered within ten days, and the argument is that this direction defeated the effect oE the deposit as a notice. We are of opinion that the contention is untenable.

The law never required actual notice to the indorser, but due diligence sufficed to charge him. Gawtry v. Doane, 51 N. Y. 84 ; Libby v. Adams, 32 Barb. 542 . Proceeding on the presumption that a communication duly addressed and deposited in the post-office will regularly reach its destination (Oregon Steamshing Co. v. Otis, 100 N. Y. 446 ; Price v. McGoldrick, 2 Abb. N. C. 69 ), the statute prescribes that a notice of protest “ may he served ” by being so addressed and deposited. Hence such deposit is the legal equivalent of notice. Ellis v. Bank, 40 Am. Dec. 63 ; Montgomery v. Marsh, 7 N. Y. 481 .

Yet, notwithstanding the literal terms of the statute, it may be assumed that were the deposit so conditioned and incumbered as to repel the presumption of delivery, it would not amount to notice. But such is not the present case. From the facilities and securities for the prompt delivery of mail matter in the city of Eew York, the inference is inevitable that ten days was ample time for the receipt of the notice by the defendant.

By the Hnited States Bevised Statutes, it is provided that a letter not called for within a given period shall be sent to the “dead-letter” department, and by section 3939 that, after thirty days, if the name and address of the writer he indorsed On the letter, it shall he returned to him. The state statute making a deposit in the post-office equivalent to notice, must have contemplated these provisions of federal law, and hence

By the Code, under certain circumstances, service of pleadings may be made by mail; and the service is complete upon deposit in the post-office, although, in fact, the paper miscarry in the delivery. Jacobs v. Hooker, 1 Barb. 71 ; Crittenden v. Adams, 5 How. 310 . In Gafney v. Bigelow, 2 Abb. N. C. 311 , the defendant deposited his answer in the post-office, but with a direction to return it, “ if not called for in five days.” An objection that this qualification of the deposit destroyed its effect as a legal service, was overruled by a court consisting of Mullen, P. J., E. Darwin Smith and Gilbert, JJ. The authority is in point, and would control our decision even were it supported by less satisfactory reasons.

Appellant assails the judgment again on the ground that the defendant was discharged by an extension of time to the maker; but it appearing beyond doubt that the indulgence was gratuitous, the liability of the indorser is unaffected. Hpon this point, nothing need be added to the argument of the City Court, General Term.

So far as the appeal invites a consideration of questions of fact, they are concluded before us by the determination of the court below. In other exceptions, we observe no feature of gravity.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Daly, Ch. J., concurs.

No appeal lies to this court from an order of the City Court of. New York, which refuses a new trial, and we are, therefore, authorized to review the judgment only upon due exception taken at the trial. Code Civ. Proc. § 3191; Wilmore v. Flack, 96 N. Y. 512 ; Smith v. Pryor, 16 Daly, 169 .

. At the close of the testimony for both parties, defendant’s counsel asked that a verdict be directed for defendant, and the exception taken to the denial of this motion presents error for which the judgment must be reversed.

Before the statute, which authorizes service of a notice of nonpayment of a promissory note by deposit in the post-office, was enacted, such service, if the indorser resided in the same city or town where the note was, in terms, payable, or legally presented, or had his place ofbus'mess therein, could only be made by leaving the notice at the residence or place of business of the indorser. Van Vechten v. Pruyn, 13 N. Y. 549 . Service by mail was ineffectual. Ransom v. Mack, 2 Hill, 587 . By Laws of 1857, chapter 416, however, it is provided that “Whenever the residence or place of business of the indorser of a promissory note * * * shall be in the city or town * * * where such promissory note * * “ is payable or legally presented for nonpayment * * * all notices of nonpayment may be served by depositing them, with the postage thereon prepaid, in the post-office of the city or town where such note * * * is payable or legally presented for payment, * * * directed to the indorser or drawer at such city or town.” This was created a mode of technical or constructive service theretofore unknown, and in derogation of the indorser’s common-law right to insist upon actual notice. Hence, the statute must be strictly construed. Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 400 ; McManus v. Gavin, 77 N. Y. 36 .

It is to be observed that the statute makes the fact of deposit im, the post-office notice to the indorser. Whether, or not, the indorser recewed the notice by transmission through the mail is, therefore, immaterial, and the presumption of

When defendant requested that a verdict should be directed for him it did not appear that any notice was attempted to be given him other than a notice which was .inclosed in an envelope directed to defendant at his place of business and dropped in one of the street mail boxes, postage prepaid. But this envelope also bore plaintiff’s address and a request from them to the postmaster to return the package if delivery thereof to the defendant was not effected within ten days; and by act of congress of June 8, 1872 (U. S. Rev. St. tit. 46, chap. 7, § 3939) compliance with this request is made obligatory upon the federal postal authorities. Thus the controlling question involved on defendant’s motion was not whether, or not, defendant had presumptively, or in fact, received the notice by transmission through the mail, but, whether plaintiffs had performed the condition precedent to defendant’s liability and given him due notice of nonpayment of the note at maturity. This, when the facts are not in dispute, or conflicting inferences cannot be drawn therefrom, presents a question of law which must be determined by the court. Lambert v. Ghiselin, 9 How. (U. S.) 552; Harris v. Robinson, 4 id. 336 ; Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 23 Wend. 620 .

The motion assumed that the facts were as claimed for plaintiffs and logically we are brought to consider the question whether, or not, the mailing of the notice of nonpayment indorsed as stated constituted a deposit of it in the post-office within the meaning of chapter 416, Laws of 1857.

.We are of the opinion it did not. Obviously the statute contemplated that the indorser would have the advantage of all means to be employed by the federal government in its

But, it may be urged, the legislature is presumed to have provided for service of the notice by deposit in the post-office with reference to the federal laws, and as these authorize a deposit for delivery within a limited time, such a deposit was contemplated by and is within the statute. To this the answer is that the statute which creates notice of nonpayment to the indorser by deposit of it in the post-office was enacted in 1857, while the obligation of the postal authorities .to return it upon expiration of the time limited by the sender for delivery was not imposed until June 8,1872. Hence the statute could not have contemplated a limitation of the time for delivery of matter deposited in the post-office; and it is rule in the inter

We attach no importance to the testimony of Manchester, a witness for plaintiffs, to the effect that the notice was never retmmed to them, because if the view- entertained by us that the notice was not deposited in the post-office, as required by the statute referred to is correct, then, as matter of course, the omission to give defendant notice of nonpayment can in no sense be cured because a notice of which service wag intended was not returned.

Our conclusion is that there was a failure of proof sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that defendant’s motion for direction of a verdict should have been granted.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Judgment affirmed.