
    
      CANONGE vs. CAUCHOIX.
    
    East’n District.
    
      May, 1822.
    Notice of nonpayment must be given on the day which foi-low 6 the protest.
    Appeal from the court of the parish and city of New-Orleans. ~
    
      Grymes for the plaintiff, Seghers for the defendant.
   Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court, 1 This is an action on a promissory note, pro-1 j i tested on Saturday, the second of August, 1820 — notice was given to the endorser, the defendant, on Tuesday the fifth. There was judgment for him, and the plaintiff* appealed.

The parish court was correct in deciding, that, as the endorser resides in New-Orleans, he ought to have had notice on Monday the 4th, the day following the protest, the intervening Sunday being excluded. Chittyon Bills, 326, Am. ed. 241, Smith vs. Mullet, 2 Camp. 208.

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