
    Robert Estep’s Administrator v. John R. Cecil & Co.
    It is not essential, in order to charge an indorser of a bill of exchange drawn in Ohio and payable in another state, for the notary who protests it for nonpayment, to attach thereto a certificate of protest; notice of demand and non-payment is sufficient to charge the indorser.
    The certificate of protest is convenient proof of the demand and non-payment, but is not, in such a case, essential for anjr other purpose than the recovery of statutory damages.
    This is a motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the district court of Stark county.
    Estep was the payee of a bill of exchange drawn in Ohio and payable in the city of New York; and after acceptance, and before maturity, he indorsed the same to the defendants in error.
    *At the maturity of the bill, it was duly presented by a notary for payment and was not paid, and Estep was notified of such non-payment.
    The notary attached to the bill a certificate of protest before he sent notice to Estep, but in this certificate he described a bill entirely different in its parties, amount, and all other particulars, from the bill to which the certificate was attached; having by mistake attached a certificate of protest prepared for a different bill.
    The defendants in error who were the plaintiffs below, brought their action against Estep’s administrator on the indorsement, and the administrator set up the mistake in the certificate by way of defense, claiming that the protest was not complete, and that the notice to his intestate was insufficient. The plaintiffs read in evidence the deposition of the notary, tending to' prove that the bill was regularly protested, and a certificate of protest made out for this bill with others, but by mistake the wrong certificate was attached to this bill. The district court held the proof of the notice- and protest sufficient, and gave judgment for the plaintiff.
    
      Dunbar & McSweeney, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      J. W. Underhill, for defendants in error.
   Bartley, C. J.

In regard to this bill, notice of non-payment was-all that was necessary to charge either the indorser or the makers. The instrument of protest was not essential to the proof of demand and notice. According to the decision of Case v. Heffner, 10 Ohio, 180, and McMurchy v. Robinson, Ib. 496, protest for this bill for nonpayment was not essential for any purpose except the recovery off statutory damages. And according to the decisions of Bailey v. Dozier, 6 How. U. S. 23, it is not necessary *that the formal [538 protest be drawn up at the time the facts occurred, on presenting the bill, but may be drawn up afterward at the convenience of the notary. It does not appear in this case that the mistake in the certificate of protest attached to the bill and sent to the holder misled the parties as to the bill intended. Even an inaccuracy in the notice as to the description of the instrument, or the place where it is • lying, not calculated to mislead as to the bill intended, has been held to bo immaterial. Stockman v. Parr, 1 M. & W. 809; Bromaze v. Vaughan, 16 S. I. Ex. 10; Rowland v. Springett, 14 M. & W. 7; and it was competent to correct the mistake in the certificate o'f protest attached to the bill in this case at any time either before or after suit brought.

Motion overruled.

Swan, Brinkerhoee, Bowen, and Scott, J.J., concurred.  