
    Pillow vs. Hardeman, adm'r.
    
    The “legal representative” of a dead man, is his administrator or executor, and, therefore, a notice addressed through the mail to the “legal representative” of Harde-man, deceased, the endorser, in due time, to the last residence of the deceased, is good, though it does not appear that the legal representative ever received it.
    This was an action of assumpsit, instituted in the circuit court of Williamson county, by Pillow against Hardeman, administrator of Hardeman, on the endorsement by the deceased of a note. Plea, non-assumpsit, and issue taken. And on the trial before a jury, the question was as to- the sufficiency of the notice to-the endorser. The notary addressed a letter, through the mail, to the last residence of the deceased, in due- time» “to the legal representative” of Thomas Hardeman, containing in-iormation of non-payment by the maker and protest. Pillow was informed of the death of' the endorser, but did not know who- was administrator or executor of the estate. There was no proof that the administrator ever received it.
    
      The judge charged the jury that the notice was not sufficient, unless it were proved that the administrator received the notice.
    The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff prosecuted his appeal in error.
    
      R. C. Foster, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Andrew Ewing, for the defendant in error.
    The charge of the court in this case was, that the direction on the back of the letter of notice, viz, “To the legal representative of Thomas Hardeman,” was too indefinite to create a presumption that it was received by his executor or administrator unless further proof was adduced of the fact. , I think this charge correct. The Post Office is a means of delivering notice recognized by law, solely on the account of its being a government engine, and the saving of trouble and great expense. No conveyance through a belman, private post or conveyance has ever been recognized as creating a presumption of delivery. In order to the right reception of a letter through the mail, a proper and certain designation of the individual is necessary as no other directions accompany the letter. See Chitty on Bills, 505, 21 English C. L. Rep. 402.
    Is the direction in this case certain or proper? If the Notary Public was aware of the death of Thomas Hardeman, he ought to have enquired who was executor or administrator, and sent the notice to him. It is true, that the supreme court, in the case of The Planters' Bank vs. S, M. White aclm'r. 2 Hum. 11,4, say that he is not absolutely bound to know who the executor or administrator is in all cases, regardless of time and distance; but it will be remembered, in that case the notary was unaware of the death of the intestate. Here there was something to put him on his enquiry.
    But suppose it was not his duty to make any enquiry, then he ought to have directed the notice to Thomas Hardeman, at Franídin. See Planters' Bank vs. S. M. White, adtrSr. The phrase “legal representative” is a mongrel one; it may mean next of kin, executor or administrator, children, grand-children, &c. See 3 Brown’s C. C. 224: 3 Vesey 486: Nic. & Car. 253, Statute of Distributions.
    There is no doubt but that notice should be given to the executor or administrator of a party who is dead. Chitty 629. But if there be no executor or administrator, notice sent to the residence of the deceased party’s family is sufficient. Chitty, 529, note k. And if there be an executor or administrator, but their existence be not known to the holder, notice addressed to the endorser at the residence of his family is sufficient. 17 John. Rep. 25, 27,
   Reese, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action against the administrator of Thomas Hardeman deceased, who was the endorser of a promissory note made payable at the Planters’ Bank, Nashville. Before the maturity of the note Thomas Hardeman died. The notary at the time of the protest, was informed of the death of Harde-man, but ignorant as to the fact whether he had an executor or administrator or either, but as Hardeman had resided at the time of his death in the town of Franklin, between which place and Nashville there is much intercourse, the notary upon enquiry might have been informed. He directed, however, through the mail, in due time, notice of the non-payment and protest, “to the legal representative of Thomas Hardeman deceased.” And the 1 principal question before the circuit court was whether notice so directed was sufficient in the absence of proof of its actual reception by the administrator. The court charged the jury, “that itwas insufficient, that the words “legal representative,” would apply in one connexion to the next of kin of a man, or those entitled to his personal property, and in another connex-ion would apply to his executor or administrator.” A verdict upon this charge was found against the plaintiff, who moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he has thereupon prosecuted his appeal to this court, and the only question here is whether the charge of the circuit court upon this point shall be held to be correct. And we are well satisfied that it is errone-\ ous. It is true as stated by the circuit court, that the phrase “legal representative,” must sometimes be held to indicate the next of ldn, but this is not because the words are in themselves of vague and doubtful signification, and have never had affixed to them an ordinary and appropriate meaning, but because other words associated with them, or found in the context of some •instrument, or will or deed, may constrain those who expound such instrument, to depart from and abandon thelegal and ordinary signification of the terms. This fate not. unfrequently attends a large portion of the words of our language, and indeed of every language; the ordinary sense of particular phrases, however well ascertained, having to yield to the sense and meaning of the context and to the scope and purpose of the instrument. But upon the back of a letter there is no such context, or at any rate there was not upon the letter in question. If the ordinary meaning of the words in question, therefore, appropriately embraces an executor or administrator, they would constitute a sufficient direction.

It is held in a number of cases that the words “legal representative” are synonymous in their ordinary use with executor or administrator. See 2 Williams’ Ex’rs. 820: Med. and Gild 159. Se$ 1 Russ, and M. 587. But it is also ruled in other cases, “that the ordinary sense of the words, ‘legal representative,’ ” may be controlled by a different intention appearing upon the whole instrument, W. Ex. 822: 1 M. & K. 465: 3 Yes. 146. The words are alike descriptive of an executor or administrator, and would be appropriate to a case where a party directing the notice might be uninformed as to which of those offices specifically, the person to be notified was entitled. Upon the whole, we think the notice was well and '' sufficiently directed, and we, therefore, reverse the judgment./  