
    Albert Smith versus William P. Whiting.
    Notice given to the indorser of a promissory note payable at a bank was held sufficient, being given on the day it fell due, although it stated the note to have fallen due three days before, and although the name of the promissor was mistaken in the notice ; it being in evidence that the indorser was liable on ne other note payable at such bank.
    
      This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the amount of a promissory note, signed by one Jotham Cushman, and indorsed by the defendant.
    At the trial, which was had before the present Chief Justice, November term, 1813, the note was given in evidence, of the tenor following, namely ; “ Boston, 4th November, 1811. For value received, I promise William P. Whiting to pay him or order, at the State Bank in Boston, two hundred dollars in sixty days, with grace. Jotham Cushman ”— and indorsed “ William P. Whiting.” To prove notice to the defendant of the non-payment of the note by the promissor, the following paper was offered in evidence, namely ; “jBoston, Jan. 6, 1812. State Bank.—Mr. Jotham Cushing's note, indorsed by you, for $200, became due Jan. 3, and is unpaid. You are therefore requested to pay the same immediately. J. P. Clark, Cashier," — which was superscribed to the defendant; and which, it was agreed, was left at the defendant’s office, on the [ *7 ] day of its date, by the runner of the State Bank ; and there * was no other notice given to the defendant of the nonpayment of said note by Cushman. No evidence was offered, that the defendant ever indorsed a note signed by Jotham Cushing; or that the defendant had ever paid any note by him signed or indorsed, at any bank, or that he ever had any notice, except as aforesaid, that any note, signed or indorsed by him, was ever discounted at, or lodged in, any bank for collection. But it was admitted, that there was no other note in the State Bank indorsed by the defendant, and that the note declared on was so indorsed, and was not paid by the promissoi at the bank.
    The defendant contended, that he was not bound by a notice from any bank, of the non-payment of a note indorsed by him, as he did no business at any bank, and knew nothing of their customs ; also, that he was not bound by this notice, because it described a note signed by Jotham Cushing.
    
    The judge directed the jury, that, if they believed that the said notice was intended for the note offered in evidence, and that the defendant must necessarily have known the same, they ought to find for the plaintiff; which they accordingly did. If, on this report of the trial, the Court should be of opinion that said notice was sufficient to bind the defendant, and that the direction to the jury was right, the verdict was to stand, and judgment to be rendered thereon, with additional interest; otherwise, the verdict was to be set aside, and a verdict to be entered for the defendant.
    
      Blake, for the plaintiff.
    
      Whiting, pro se.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Parker, C. J.

We cannot suppose that the trifling errai in the description of the note, on which the defendant was indorser, car discharge him from his liability. It was properly left to the jury to decide, whether he must not have known that the notice referred to the only note, which, it seems, lay in the bank, on which he was liable as promissor * or indorser ; and the jury have de- [*8] termined, that he must have had such knowledge. The note, being made payable at the bank, must be considered as having reference to the rules and practices there prevailing ; so that the form of the notice was sufficient.

As to the other objection, that, although the notice was left with the defendant on the proper day, yet that it stated the note to be due before the days of grace had expired ; we consider this as an immaterial error, as the notice was in fact given on the right day ; and it could not have prejudiced the defendant, to be told, as he was, that a note, which was due three days before, was still unpaid.

Judgment according to the verdict. 
      
       The notice of dishonor must give such a complete specification of the bill as leaves no doubt with regard to its identity. Thomson on Bills, 505.
     
      
      
         Renner vs. The Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheat. 581 - 4 — Raborg vs. Bank of Columbia, 1 Har. Gill, 231. — Bank of Columbia vs. Fitz Hugh, ib. 239. — Bank of Columbia vs MacGruder's Adm'z, 6 H. G., 172. — City Bank vs. Cutter, 3 Pick. 414.
     
      
       But it might mislead him, to be informed that it became due three days before it did in fact become due, as he might suppose himself exonerated for want of a seasonable notice, and, therefore, take no measures to secure himself.
     