
    No. 2860.
    Bank of New Orleans v. B. L. Millaudon and J. M. Lapeyre.
    Whore tlie evidence shows that the indorser was temporarily absent from New Orleans, at which place he resided, and where his family remained during his absence; that a notice? of protest, intended for the indorsor, was given to one Gasquet, his son in law, at said Gasquot’s office; and that the indorser never received the notice;
    Held — That this is no notice and that the indorser is discharged,
    APPEAL from the Fourth District Court, parish of Orleans. TMard, J.
    
      A. YoorMes, for plaintiff and appellee. A. Trudeau, for defendant and appellant.
    Justices concurring: Ludeling, Taliaferro, Howell, Wyly, Morgan.
   Ludeling, C. J.

This is an action on a promissary note against the maker and the indorser. The maker pleaded the general issue; the indorser alleges want of demand, of protest, and notice of protest. There was judgment against the defendants, in solido, for the amount claimed, and the indorser, Lapeyre, alone has appealed.

The only question, necessary to decide, is whether or not there was legal notice of non-payment given to the indorser.

The evidence shows that the indorser was temporarily absent from New Orleans, where he resided and where his family remained during his absence; that a notice of protest of the note was given to one Gasquet, a son in law of the indorser, at Gasquet’s office; and that the indorser never received the notice. This was no notice to Lapeyre, and he is discharged for the want thereof. Parsons on Bills, vol. 1, p. 556.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the court a qua against J. M. Lapeyre be reversed, and that there be judgment in his favor rejecting the plaintiff’s demand against him, with costs in both courts.

Rehearing- refused.  