
    Union Bank of Louisiana v. Campbell.
    In an action against the endorsef'of a note who resided at the time of the protest in fclie’parishof S-, the certificate of a notary, by whom the note was protested, “ that the' parties were duly notified of the protest thereof, by letters to them written and addressed'/ &c.,- and served upon them in'the manner following, by means of writfccn-nofcices;addrcssod; to the endorsers, all of the parish of St. Mary, which notices I deposited in the post-office/” &c.,-will be insufficient to charge the endorser. Per Curiam: The notary certifies that the’ endorsers- were “ all of the parish of S.”> but we are not permitted to infer that the notices were addressed “ Parish of S.” In the, absence of any further direction, the letter enclosing the notes would have remainedin the office in which it was-depositod.-
    Appeal from the District Court of St. Mary, Voorhies, J.
    
      L E. Morse and Nichoils, for the appellants. Splane, for the defendant.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

The defendant is sued as endorser of a promissory note, and the case turns upon the question of notice. At the time of the protest the defendant lived in the parish of St. Mary, and Franklin was the post-office nearest to his residence. The certificate of the notary declares,, “that the parties were duly notified óf the protest thereof by letteVs io them written and addressed, dated on the day of said protest, and served upon them respectively in the manner following, viz : by means of three written notices addressed to the drawer, J. Smith, and to the endorsers, James Campbell and James S. Norris, ail of the parish of St. Mary, Which three notices I have deposited in the post-office at St. Martinsville, and by leaving and furnishing the said cashier, Adrien Dumartrait, similar notices as those directed as aforesaid.” This certificate is insufficient to charge tire endorser. It does not show that the notice was addressed to any place. It certifies that the drawer and endorsers were “ all of the parish of St. Mary,”'but we are not permitted to infer from this that the notices were addressed “ parish of St..Mary.” In the absence of a statement of place, in the address of the letter, it would remain in the post-office at St. Martinsville, instead of being transmitted to Frankliii ; in other words, it would not reach tlie endorser. Judgment affirmed.  