
    Case No. 2,375.
    CANA v. FRIEND.
    [2 Cranch, C. C. 370.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    April Term, 1823.
    Pkomibsokt Note — Protest—Notice.
    If the notary, not finding the indorser at home, leaves a written notice with some one of his family, it is sufficient.
    [See Greatrake v. Brown, Case No. 5,743; Bank of U. S. v. Hatch. 6 Pet. (31 U. S.) 250, affirming Case No. 918; McMurtrie v. Jones. Id. 8,903; Williams v. Bank of U. S., 2 Pet. (27 U. S.) 90; Bank of U. S. v. Corcoran, 2 Pet. (27 U. S.) 121, affirming Case No. 912.]
    At law. Assumpsit [by Frederick Cana] against [James Friend] an indorser of a promissory note, for $104.80, at four months. Whetcroft, the notary public, produced his notarial book in which he had stated that he notified the defendant by letter, all the parties being residents in the city of Washington; and testified that it was his general practice to call at the residence of the in-dorser, and, if he was not at home, to deliver a written notice to any person who came to the door when he knocked, and to request such person to deliver it to the in-dorser.
    Mr. Walla ch, for plaintiff.
    Mr. Caldwell, for defendant, objected that this was not sufficient notice.
   But

THE COURT

(nem. con.) said it was sufficient if the jury believed from the evidence that such notice in writing was so delivered at the dwelling-house of the defendant in this ease. Verdict for plaintiff.  