
    Bowie & Kurtz v. R. S. Blacklock.
    It is a sufficient excuse for not giving notice to the indorser of the non-payment of a promissory note by the maker, that the holder called at the usual place of business of the indorser, in business hours, and found it shut and no person there to receive notice.
    Assumpsit, against R. S. • Blacklock, surviving partner of the firm of N. & R. S. Blacklock, who were' indorsers of William F. Thornton’s note, due 25th August, 1818. On that day N. Blacklock, one of the partners, died, at Port Tobacco, in Maryland, and the storehouse in Alexandria, where they usually transacted their mercantile business, was shut when the notary came, within the usual business hours, and knocked hard at the door, but no person appeared to whom he could give notice of the nonpayment' by the maker, of the note. The defendant’s dwelling-house was in Alexandria, a short distance from the storehouse; but no notice was given or left at the dwelling-house.
    The Couet (nem. con.) at the last term, had, upon the trial, instructed the jury, that the plaintiffs could not recover, for want of notice to the defendant.
    The verdict.being for the defendant, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to move for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection of the jury upon the question of notice.
    
      Mr. Taylor, for the plaintiff,
    cited Crosse v. Smith, 1 Maulé & Selwyn, 545, and Parker v. Gordon, 7 East, 385.
    
      Mr. Mason, contra,
    
    cited Chitty, 136-, 201, 202.
   The Court

(Thruston, J., absent,)

overruled the opinion before given, and instructed the jury that the holder of the note was only bound to call at the usual place of business of the defendant, in business hours; and if it be shut, and no person there to receive notice, the holder is excused for not giving notice.  