
    Bank of Columbia v. George King’s Administrator.
    If the indorser of a note payable on the 8th-llth of October, die intestate on the 9th, notice of non-payment left with Ms son at the counting-house of the deceased, on. the 11th, is sufficient.
    If the note become payable on the I5th-18th of October, a like notice left on the 18th is sufficient, no administration haying been granted before that day.
    But if the note become payable on the 22d-25th of October, a like notice left at the same place on the 25 th is not sufficient, the administrator having a separate place of business in another part of the town. ,
    Assumpsit, against the administrator of the indorser of several promissory notes, made by Wharton & Grindage.
    One of the notes became payable on the 11th of October, 1821, for $2,565; that being the last day of grace. George King, the defendant’s intestate, died on the 9th and was buried on the 11th, on which day notice of non-payment was left with a son'of George King in the counting-house occupied by him as his place of business up to the day of his death. This was a warehouse in the lower story of the dwelling-house in which George King died, and in which his family continued to reside. The son, with whom the notice was left, was of full age, and had sometimes transacted business for his father in that warehouse.
   The Court

(nem. con.) said the notice was sufficient.

Another note became payable on the 15th-18th of October, 1821, for $1,026. A like notice was left in like manner at the same place, on the 18th and 19th of October. Administration was granted to the defendant on the 18th.

Mr. Mar bury, objected that this notice was not sufficient to charge the defendant, and cited the case of The Bank of Washington v. Reynolds, in this Court at April term, 1822, [ante, 289.]

But the Court overruled the objection.

A third note became payable on the 22d-25th of October, 1821, for $950. The administrator kept a counting-house, in which he transacted the business of the estate, at another part of the town ; but the notice was left in the same manner as the other notices.

The CouRT {nem. con.) said it was not sufficient notice to charge the defendant.

Mr. Marbury again contended, in regard to the note due 15th-18th October, that as a notice on the 19th, (the day after the last day of grace,) would not have been too late, and as administration had been granted on the 18th, notice should have been given to the administrator on the 19th.

But the Court {nem. con.) said that the plaintiffs, having done all that they were bound to do on the 18th of October, (the last day of grace,) were not bound to give a notice to the administrator on the 19th.  