Halsey v. Jarvis. the conversation of which he testified, were entirely inaccurate; and that the position of the parties was such as the evidence of Catherwood tended to show it was, and thus have so far corroborated his testimony, that the jury would have believed it, and given a verdict for the defendant. Mr. McClave had acted as broker in the transaction; was present at several interviews between Wade and Jarvis in relation to it; and we must assume that he might have testified that he negotiated the transfer and the details connected with it; and that in such negotiation "the subject of the quarter's rent to May, 1859, was settled between the parties" and the witness. Such testimony was clearly competent, and should have been received. If it related to conversations had, or any agreement as to this quarter's rent, made prior to January 28, 1859, then the practical question might have been, if it showed a clear and precise agreement, whether such agreement was modified on the 28th of January. But whatever the questions which it might have raised, it is quite evident that the evidence, in connection with that which was received, might have satisfied the jury that no such agreement was made as that which the evidence of Mr. Place, standing alone, tends to establish. And it might have so satified them, without at all questioning the good faith of Mr. Place's testimony. As the evidence was competent, and the court is ignorant what it would have been, it cannot assume, for the purposes of this appeal, that it would have been immaterial. The questions were pertinent, and we must assume that the evidence would have been material. The questions pointed to the subject of this quarter's rent, an arrangement between Wade and Jarvis in regard to it, and called for what was said between them, and the language used. We think an error was committed in overruling the last three questions. The judgment, therefore, must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Judgment accordingly. VOL. VII. 30 The West River Bank v. Taylor. THE WEST RIVER BANK, Plaintiff and Respondent v. JAMES B. TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant. 1. Where a bill of exchange has been negotiated by the indorsement of several parties, the holder has the next day after receiving notice of dishonor, to notify any prior indorser whom he desires to charge; and each successive indorser who receives notice, has at least one day thereafter to give notice to any antecedent indorser. 2. This rule is not confined to holders for value. An agent or banker entrusted with a bill to obtain acceptance or payment, is entitled to the same time to give notice to his principal, and the principal is entitled after such notice, to the like time to notify any prior indorser as if he had received notice from the true owner, instead of his banker or agent. 3. Where the party thus giving the notice, and the party to whom it is given, do not reside in the same town, the notice may be sent by mail. 4. There is no rule requiring that an indorser residing in the same town as the acceptor, shall be personally notified the next day after presentment; where the banker, at whose instance the bill is protested, and to whom notices of protest are sent, does not reside in that town. 5. The fact that the true owner knows that the indorser resides in the same place as the acceptor, does not, in such a case, entitle the indorser to notice on the day next after the presentment and protest. 6. It is enough to charge him, that the true owner mails notice to him by the first mail of the day next after that on which he, in due course, receives notice of dishonor, such owner and indorser residing in different towns. (Before BosWORTH, Ch. J., and WOODRUFF and WHITE, J. J.) APPEAL by the defendant, James B. Taylor, from a judg ment recovered against him as the indorser, and Charles St. John, as the acceptor of a bill of exchange, which, with its indorsements, is as follows, viz: $2,643.13 Robbins & Lawrence Co. WINDSOR, VT., June 21, 1856. Six months after date pay to the order of S. G. De Blois, Treasurer, twenty-six hundred and forty-three 13-100 dollars, value received, and charge to account of the Robbins & Lawrence Co. W. CURRIER, President. The West River Bank v. Taylor. To Charles St. John, Esq., 142 Water st., New York. Written across the face, "Accepted, Charles St. John." Endorsed, S. G. De Blois, Treasurer. James B. Taylor. Pay R. L. Day, Esq., Cashier, or order. J. E. BUTLER, Cashier. The action, being at issue, was referred to the Hon. Benjamin W. Bonney, to be determined by him, as referee, who found and reported, as matters of fact, as follows, viz: 1. That, at the times in the complaint mentioned, the plaintiff was, and now is, a corporation, created and existing under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Vermont, situated and transacting business in the town of Jamaica, in the county of Windham, and State of Vermont. 2. That the bill of exchange, in the complaint mentioned and described, and upon which this action is brought, was, at or about the day of its date, and at the city of New York, in the State of New York, accepted by the defendant, Charles St. John, and indorsed by the defendant, James B. Taylor, without consideration, and for the accommodation of the drawer thereof, or some person connected with said drawer. 3. That the said bill of exchange, so accepted by the defendant, St. John, and indorsed by the defendant, Taylor, was, soon after such acceptance and indorsement, and long before it became due, delivered by the drawer thereof, at said town of Jamaica, in Vermont, to the plaintiff, for full and valuable consideration then given and paid by the plaintiff therefor, and the plaintiff thereupon became, and ever since has been, the owner of said bill of exchange. 4. That before said bill of exchange became due and payable, the plaintiff indorsed and delivered the same for collection, to the Eliot Bank, situated and doing business in the city of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts, and said Eliot Bank indorsed and delivered said bill to the Nassau Bank, situated and doing business in said city of New York, in the State of New York. 5. That at the time of said acceptance and indorsement. The West River Bank V. Taylor. of said bill of exchange, and also when the same became due and payable, and before and afterward, both the defendant, Charles St. John, and the defendant, James B. Taylor, resided and kept, and had their respective places of business in the said city of New York, and the plaintiff, before and at the time when said bill of exchange was so indorsed and delivered to the Eliot Bank, had notice ⚫ thereof. 6. That on the twenty-fourth day of December, 1856, (when said bill of exchange became due and payable,) it was presented by the notary public of said Nassau Bank, then the holder thereof, for collection as aforesaid, at the office or place of business in said city of New York, of the defendant, Charles St. John, in his absence from said office, and payment thereof was then and there demanded, which was refused, and said bill was thereupon protested by said notary public for non-payment. 7. That the twenty-fifth day of December, 1856, was, by the law of the State of New York, a legal holiday, and for all purposes of protesting and giving notice of the dishonor of bills of exchange, treated, and considered as the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday. 8. That notices of such presentment, and demand and refusal of payment of said bill of exchange, and of the protest thereof, for the Eliot Bank, and for the plaintiff and the defendant, Taylor, were by said notary of said Nassau Bank, sent by mail on the twenty-sixth day of December, 1856, from said city of New York to said Eliot Bank; and were by said Eliot Bank received at said city of Boston, on the twenty-seventh day of December, 1856. 9. That said notices of such presentment, and demand and refusal of payment and protest of said bill of exchange for the plaintiff and for the defendant, James B. Taylor, were, by said Eliot Bank, sent by mail on said twentyseventh day of December, 1856, from said city of Boston to said plaintiff, at said town of Jamaica, in Vermont, and were by said plaintiff received, on or about the 29th day of December, 1856. The West River Bank v. Taylor. 10. That the plaintiff, by its cashier, inclosed said notice of demand and refusal of payment, and of protest of said bill of exchange, for the defendant, James B. Taylor, in a sealed envelope, addressed to said defendant Taylor, at said city of New York, and deposited the same in the United States post-office in said town of Jamaica, for transmission to the city of New York, and paid the postage thereon, before the departure of the next mail for said city of New York, after such notice was received by the plaintiff, as aforesaid. 11. That the interest on the amount of said bill of exchange, ($2,643.13,) from the twenty-fourth day of December, 1856, when the same became due and payable to the date of this report, (24th December, 1859,) (three years,) is five hundred and fifty-five dollars and five cents, ($555.05) and the whole amount of principal and interest due upon said bill at the date of this report, together with seventyfive cents for expense of protest thereof, is three thousand one hundred and ninety-eight dollars and ninety-three cents, ($3,198.93.) Upon the pleadings in this action, and the facts found and above reported, the referee decided, determined and reported as conclusions of law, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover against the said defendants, and each of them, in this action, the said sum of three thousand one hundred and ninety-eight dollars and ninety-three cents, and that on filing this report, judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants, for said last mentioned sum, and the costs of this action. Judgment having been entered on the report, the defendant, James B. Taylor, appealed from it to the general term. E. W. Stoughton, for Appellant. I. When the plaintiffs sent the draft to New York for collection, they knew that Taylor resided there; and it was, therefore, their duty, upon non-payment, to have caused notice thereof to be served upon him, either personally, or |