
    * The President, Directors, and Company, of the Lincoln and Kennebeck Bank versus Abraham Hammatt.
    Where the custom of a banking company was to give notice to endorsers ot promissory notes discounted by them, by letters put in the post-office where the company is established, directed to such endorsers at the place of their residence, it is not necessary to prove the receipt of such letters; nor is it material that such endorser was absent from his residence at the time, and so could not receive the notice.
    This action, being upon the same note as that demanded in the preceding action, was tried at the same term before Thatcher, J., and the same - evidence substantially produced, with the additional-testimony of the postmaster of Bath, where this defendant also lived, tending to prove that a letter of notice from the cashier was received by the mail from Wiscasset, and that it was delivered from the post-office in Bath; but at what time did not appear. It was also agreed by the parties in this action, that the defendant, Hammatt, was in the city of Washington at the time the note fell due, and that he did not return to Bath until two or three months afterwards. A verdict being found for the plaintiffs, under the same directions from the judge as in the preceding case, the defendant moved for a new trial.
   Sewall, J.

This action, and the action by the same plaintiffs against Page, are upon one and the same note. And as to evidence of a demand and notice, the same observations apply. But whether a demand was made, and notice was given, are questions of fact, for the jury to determine upon the evidence and testimony adduced at the trial. These, as reported, prove a number of cir cumstances, from which, taken together, the jury may lawfully, and perhaps will be induced to presume the requisite demand and notice, which are to be proved in cases of this kind, to enable the holder of a note to recover against an endorser. The confidence reposed in the director of the bank coming from Bath, by the parties living there, in their dealings with the bank, and Mr. Tollman’s attendance on the day when notice was to be given, are strong circumstances, from which, perhaps, notice may be inferred; but* we think the inference, as a presumption of one fact from another, or from a number of facts and circumstances proved, is to be made by the jury. The absence of Hammatt is not a material circumstance. It is enough, if a letter was left, or might have gone by the mail to Hammatt’s usual residence or place of business ; nor, as the agreement and usage were respecting endorsers living out of Wiscasset, is it at all necessary to prove an actual delivery of a letter to Hammatt, or at his house. It is sufficient if a letter was sent in the ordinary course of the mail from Wiscasset to Bath,

New trial granted. 
      
      
         [ Weld vs. Gorham, 10 Mass. Rep. 366. — Blanchard vs. Hilliard, 11 Mass. Rep. 85. —Jones vs. Fales, 4 Mass. Rep. 245, and note to that case. — Widgery vs. Munroe & Al., 6 Mass. Rep. 449. — Smith vs. Whiting, 12 Mass. Rep. 6.— Odiorne & Al. vs. Marcy Al, 13 Mass. Rep. 181. — Pierce vs. Butler, 14 Mass. Rep. 303. — City Bank vs. Cutter & Al. 3 Pick. 414. — Loring vs. Gurney, 3 Pick. 15.— Tippetts vs. Sumner, 19 Pick. 166. —Vide Rogers vs. Mechanics Ins. Co., 1 Story, 608. — Donnell & Co. vs Columbian Ins. Co., 2 Sumn. 377. — The Reeside, 2 Sumn. 569, 570. — Ed.]
     