
    TALBOT C. MURRAY v. DE FORREST P. ORMES, JAMES M. ORMES, AND WILSON AGER.
    No. 12,489.
    At Law.
    Where an endorser had a residence in Washington previous to the making of the notes, and then moved to New York, but left his daughter, who was a member of his family, in possession of such tenement in Washington, together with his servants, and maintained that branch of his family there, stopping there from time to time when he came to Washington on business, it was held that notice of protest served at such house was sufficient.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    The defendant Ager was sued as endorser on two promissory notes dated April 11, 1872, each for the sum of $1,082.33, payable at the Freedman’s Savings and Trust Company. On the trial of the action it was stipulated by counsel that the only defense made by the said Ager is that there was not due notice of protest of the promissory notes in suit. The plaintiff introduced as a witness W. E. Howard, a notary public, who testified that he presented for payment one of said notes .and produced a certificate of protest, which recited that he delivered notice of protest at the residence of said Ager, on E street, between Ninth and Tenth streets, in the city of Washington. He further testified that before delivery of said notice he was advised said Ager resided at that place, and at the time of delivery was informed by the person who answered his inquiries at the door of said residence that Wilson Ager resided there. Witness never heard it intjmated, until very recently, that said Ager did not reside there at that time, and never, until the day of trial, heard it intimated that he did not reside at that place at the time of service of said notice. Witness kept a record of his acts as notary public, and read therefrom as follows, to wit: “ On the next morning I left a written notice of protest for J. M. Ormes at his residence, Ninth street, between E and F, and I left one for W. Ager at his residence, E street, between Ninth and Tenth streets northwest,” and testifiedthat he made said entry at the timé mentioned therein, and that he had no further recollection in regard to the ■matter.
    On cross-examination said Howard testified that he had no recollection of the facts, aside from the record made by him; but had no doubt, from his general course of business, that he was informed as to the defendant’s residence, and that on inquiry at the door he was then further informed that this was his residence.
    In regard to the other note, the plaintiff introduced as a witness Mr. McKenney, a notary public, who presented the other note for payment, and protested it. His certificate of protest was also in evidence without objection, reciting the fact that he had addressed notice of protest to each endorser.
    After plaintiff rested, the defendant Ager testified, on his own behalf, that in March, 1872, he removed with his wife to New York city, leaving said house here in possession of his daughter and servants; that he boarded with His wife at a hotel in that city a month or six weeks, when he rented a house there, and he has resided in that city continuously since, and that he had not resided nor had a place of business in this city or District since he removed as aforesaid to New York, where was his place of business and of receiving his mail; that he left his daughter and servants in occupation of his house here, because lie had taken a lease of it for a year,.which did not expire until the following autumn. On cross-examination he testified that he had resided for several years in the house in questiou in this city, but having,an office in another part of the city prior to his removal to New York; that he paid the rent and supported the part of his family he left here; that he frequently visited this city on business, and while here stopped at said house; that a few weeks after he removed to New- York he rented a house on-avenue, and resided there with his wdfe; that he paid his rent there monthly, but could not recollect from w'hom he rented, nor to whom he paid the rent, nor between what streets his house there was located, nor its number; that he did not give up his house here because the term of renting had not expired, and that he did not know whether it was generally known among his acquaintances that he had removed.
    The defendant then introduced as a witness his son, E. C. Ager, whose testimony was substantially the same as that of the defendant.
    The defendant further testified that no notice w>as served personally on him, and he had no recollection of having received the notice of protest of either of said notes. Whereupon the court charged the jury as follows, to wit:
    “If the jury find from the testimony that the defendant (Ager) had a residence in Washington previous to making the notes, and in March, 1872, moved to New York city for the purpose of a residence there, and continued to reside there until the present time, but left the tenement he had occupied in possession of his daughter and servants, and continued to maintain that branch of his family at such tenement, and stopping there from time to time when he came to Washington, and that the notary delivered notices of protest at this house in Washington, then the verdict must be for the plaintiff.”
    To which charge the defendant, by his counsel, excepted. The jury returned a verdict for the amount of the notes, with costs of protest and interest. The case is here upon the exception to the charge of the court.
    
      L. G. Sine, for plaintiff.
    
      W. Willoughby, for defendant,
    cited 6 Mass., 386; 2 Exch., 718; 3 Maine, 233; 1 Pet, 578; 16 Gratt., 284; 9 Wheaton, 198.
   Mr. Justice Olin

delivered the opinion of the court:

An action was brought upon two promissory notes against Ager as endorser. The defense interposed was that he had not received notice of protest. The notice of protest was left at the residence of the defendant in this city, where the defendant Ager had rented a house, and which, at the time of the maturity of the note, was occupied by his daughter and servant, and which he made his home when in Washington on business. On looking through the bills of exception in this case, we think it quite apparent that notice of protest was duly served, and the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.  