
    No. 5545.
    Pierre Aurianne vs. George T. Eschbacher et al.
    .In this suit on a promissory note against the maker and two indorsers, it is proved that notice of dishonor was served on one the indorsers by delivering it to his book-keeper in his office, and on the other by delivering it to his wife in his store, he not being in. This was sufficient.
    APPEAL from the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans. Saucier, J,
    
      Jerome Meunier, for plaintiff and appellee.
    
      Kornor & Benedict and JS. Sabourin, for defendants and appellants.
   Wvly, I.

This is a suit on a promissory note against the maker and two indorsers, and from a judgment against them the indorsers, George Mertz and Ed. Erliard, haye appealed. -The objection is that notice of dishonor was not properly served. Notice was served, as appears by the certificate of the notary attached to the protest, on Mertz, by delivering it “ to his book-keeper in his office,” and on Erhar.d by delivering it “ to his wife in his store, he not being in.” We think the service of notice of dishonor was sufficient. 2 R. 119; 14 L. 494; 15 L. 113; 4 An. 483; 8 An. 136.

Judgment affirmed.  