
    
      CHANDLER vs. STERLING.
    
    East’n District.
    
      April, 1821.
    Reasonable notice to the endorser is a mixed question of law and fact.
    Appeal from the court of the third district.
   Porter, J.

This is an action, by the endorsees of three several bills of exchange, against the endorsers. The statement of facts shews, that the bills were drawn, protested for non-acceptance, and for non-payment, and that notice thereof was given to the defendant, whose endorsement is admitted.

The case was tried by a jury, who found for the plaintiff; the defendant appealed, and the cause has been submitted without argument.

On examining the record, I do not see any objection that can be made to the judgment, unless it be, that notice was not given according to law, of the protests for non-acceptance and non-payment.

The bills, it appears, were drawn by a house in New-Orleans on one in Lexington, Kentucky; the defendant resides in St. Francisville, and the endorsee (whose representative is now plaintiff) resided at Huntsville, in the then territory of Mississippi.

Reasonable notice is required; and what is reasonable notice, is a mixed question of law and fact. Chitty on Bills, 238, 280. Depending on the distance between the residence of the parties, the course of the post, the facilities of communication. It appears, the defendant was notified of the protest of these drafts for non-acceptance and non-payment; and nothing has been shewn, that the information given him, was improperly kept back, or that it was a longer time reaching him, than what was necessarily occasioned by the distance of the parties from each other.

Maybin for the plaintiff, Duncan for the defendant.

I am therefore, of opinion, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.

Martin, J.

I concur in this opinion.

Mathews, J.

I do also.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.  