Brooklyn v. Deshel (1910), 123 N. Pennsylvania. First Nat. Bk. of Hanover v. Delone (1916), 98 Atl. 1042; Siegel v. Hirsch (1904), 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 398; Zoller v. Moffitt (1909), 222 Pa. 644. West Virginia.- Board of Education v. Angel (1915), 84 S. E. 747; Farmer's Nat. Bk. v. Howard (1912), 71 W. Va. 57. Section 106. Notice is deemed to have been deposited in the post-office when deposited in any branch post-office or in any letter. box under the control of the post-office department. California. Seely v. Stoltz, Inc. (1917), 163 Pac. 681, 32 Cal. App. 458. Connecticut.- Cent. Nat. Bk. v. Stoddard (1910), 83 Conn. 330, 76 Atl. 472. New York. Wilson V. Peck (1910), 121 N. Y. Supp. 344, 66 Misc. 179. New Jersey. Battery Park Bk. v. Ramsay (1917), 100 Atl. 51. Pennsylvania.- Phoenix Brewing Co. v. Weiss (1903), 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 519. Section 107. Where a party receives notice of dishonor, he has, after the receipt of such notice, the same time for giving notice to antecedent parties that the holder has after the dishonor. Connecticut. Gleason v. Thayer (1913), 87 Atl. 790. Kentucky. Williams v. Paintsville Nat. Bk. (1911), 143 Ky. 781, 137 S. W. 535. New York. Brill v. Jefferson Bk. (1913), 159 A. D. 461, 144 N. Y. Supp. 539; Fuller Buggy Co. v. Waldron (1907), 188 N. Y. 630; Jurgens v. Wichman (1908), 124 A. D. 531, 108 N. Y. Supp. 881. Section 108. Where a party has added an address to his signature, notice of dishonor must be sent to that address; but if he has not given such address, then the notice must be sent as follows: (1) Either to the post-office nearest to his place of residence, or to the post-office where he is accustomed to receive his letters; or (2) If he live in one place, and have his place of business in another, notice may be sent to either place; or (3) If he is sojourning in another place, notice may be sent to the place where he is so sojourning. But where the notice is actually received by the party within the time specified in this act, it will be sufficient, though not sent in accordance with the requirements of this section. v. Montague V. Colorado.- Torbet (1912), 127 Pac. 134. Massachusetts.- Hall Crane Raymond (1914), 217 Mass. 98, 104 N. E. 489. Missouri. First Nat. Bank of Grant City v. Korn (1915), 179 S. W. 721; Vogel v. Starr (1908), 132 Mo. App. 430, 112 S. W. 27. New York. Albany Trust Co. v. Frothingham (1906), 50 Misc. 598, 99 N. Y. Supp. 343; Century Bk. of City of N. Y. v. Breithart (1915), 151 N. Y. Supp. 588; Dupont de Nemour Powder Co. V. Rooney (1909), 63 Misc. 344, 117 N. Y. Supp. 220; Ebling Brewing Co. v. Rheinheimer (1900), 32 Misc. 591. 66 N. Y. Supp. 458; Fonseca v. Hartman (1903), 84 N. Y. Supp. 131; In re Mandelbaum (1913), 141 N. Y. Supp. 319; McGrath v. Francoline (1915), 156 N. Y. Supp. 981; Mohlman Co. v. McKane (1901), 60 A. D. 546; Smith Co. v. AmericaEurope Co. (1911), 128 N. Y. Supp. 81. Pennsylvania.- Scott V. Brown (1913), 87 Atl. 431; Siegel v. Hirsch (1904), 26 Pa. Super Ct. 398. Rhode Island.— Knight V. Infantry Hall Auditorium Co. (1913), 35 R. I. 383, 87 Atl. 165. Section 109. Notice of dishonor may be waived, either before the time of giving notice has arrived, or after the omission to give due notice, and the waiver may be express or implied. (1911), Iowa. Porter v. Moles 151 Iowa, 279, 131 N. W. 23; Quinn v. Bane (1917), 164 N. W. 788. Kentucky.-Doherty v. First Nat. Bk. (1916), 186 S. W. 937; Mechanics & Farmer's Sav. Bk. v. Katterjohn (1910), 137 Ky. 427, 125 S. W. 1071; Owensboro Sav. Bk. & Tr. Co.'s Receiver v. Haynes (1911). 136 S. W. 1004. Louisiana. Frank Taylor Kendrick Co. v. Voissement (1918), 77 So. 895. Maryland. Linthicum v. Bagby (1917), 102 Atl. 997. Crafts (1907), 196 Mass. 397, 82 N. E. 22. V. Roberts Missouri. Belch (1915), 177 S. W. 1062. New York.- Hayward v. Empire St. Sugar Co. (1905), 105 A. D. 21; O'Bannon J. W. Co. v. Curran (1908), 129 A. D. 90, 113 N. Y. Supp. 359; Weil v. Corn Ex. Bk. (1909), 63 Misc. 300, 116 N. Y. Supp. 665. North Carolina.- First Nat. Bk. of Henderson v. Johnson (1915), 86 S. E. 360. Oregon. Moll v. Roth Co. (1915), 152 Pa. 235; Robinson v. Holmes (1910), 57 Oreg. 5, 109 Pac. 754; Clark v. Sallaska (1918), 174 Pac. 505. Virginia. Security Loan & Trust Co. v. Fields (1910), 110 Va. 827, 67 S. E. 342. Washington. Galbraith v. Shep Section 110. Where the waiver is embodied in the instrument itself, it is binding upon all parties; but where it is written above the signature of an indorser, it binds him only. Kentucky. Owensboro Sav. Bk. & Tr. Co.'s Receiver v. Haynes (1911), 136 S. W. 1004; Atkinson v. Skidmore (1913), 153 S. W. 456. Oregon. Clark V. Sallaska (1918), 174 Pac. 505. Pennsylvania.-Burgettstown Nat. Bk. v. Nill (1906), 213 Pa. 456. West Virginia.- Central Nat. Bk. v. Sciotsville Milling Co. (1917), 91 S. E. 808. Section 111. A waiver of protest, whether in the case of a foreign bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument, is deemed to be a waiver not only of a formal protest, but also of presentment and notice of dishonor. V. 554; Frank Taylor Kendrick Co. v. Idaho.- Bk. of Montpelier Montpelier Lumber Co. (1909), 16 Idaho, 730, 102 Pac. 685. Kentucky.-Owensboro Sav. Bk. & Tr. Co.'s Receiver v. Haynes (1911), 136 S. W. 1004; Atkinson v. Skidmore (1913), 152 Ky. 413. Louisiana. Wisdom & Levy v. Bille (1908), 120 La. 699, 45 So. Section 112. Notice of dishonor is dispensed with when, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, it cannot be given to or does not reach the parties sought to be charged. New York.-University Press v. Williams (1900), 48 A. D. 188; Howard v. Van Gieson (1900), 56 A. D. 217; Fonseca v. Hartman (1903), 84 N. Y. Supp. 131; Silver v. Locheim (1914), 147 N. Y. Supp 29; Mechanic v. Elgie Iron Works (1917), 153 N. Y. Supp. 97. Section 113. Delay in giving notice of dishonor is excused when the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder, and not imputable to this default, misconduct or negli gence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate, notice must be given with reasonable diligence. New York.- University Press v. Williams (1900), 48 A. D. 188; Howard v. Van Gieson (1900), 56 A. D. 217. Oregon.- Price v. Warner (1911), 60 Oreg. 7, 118 Pac. 173. Section 114. Notice of dishonor is not required to be given to the drawer in either of the following cases: (1) Where the drawer and drawee are the same person; (2) When the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract; (3) When the drawer is the person to whom the instrument is presented for payment. (4) Where the drawer has no right to expect or require that the drawee or acceptor will honor the instrument; (5) Where the drawer has countermanded payment. Section 115. Notice of dishonor is not required to be given to an indorser in either of the following cases: (1) Where the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract, and the indorser was aware of the fact at the time he indorsed the instrument; (2) Where the indorser is the person to whom the instrument is presented for payment; (3) Where the instrument was made or accepted for his accommodation. New York.- Williams v. Brown (1900), 53 A. D. 486; Trader's Nat. Bk. v. Jones (1905), 104 A. D. 433, 93 N. Y. Supp. 768. Pennsylvania. - Aldred's Estate, No. 1 (1911), 229 Pa. 627. Tennessee.- Mercantile Bank of Memphis v. Busby (1908), 120 Tenn. 652, 113 S. W. 390; Nolan v. H. E. Wilcox Motor Co. (1917), 195 S. W. 581. United States.- In re Swift (1901), 106 Fed. 65; McDonald v. Luckenback (1909), 170 Fed. 434, 95 C. C. A. 604. Section 116. Where due notice of dishonor by non-acceptance. has been given notice of a subsequent dishonor by non-payment is not necessary, unless in the meantime the instrument has been accepted. Section 117. An omission to give notice of dishonor by nonacceptance does not prejudice the rights of a holder in due course subsequent to the omission. Maryland. Scheffenacker 917. New York.- Mt. Morris Bk. v. Twenty-Third Ward Bk. (1902), 172 N. Y. 244. Section 118. Where any negotiable instrument has been dishonored it may be protested for non-acceptance or non-payment, as the case may be; but protest is not required except in the case of foreign bills of exchange. Illinois. Sublette Ex. Bk. v. Fitz gerald (1912), 168 Ill. App. 240. Maryland. Scheffenacker V. Hoopes (1910), 113 Md. 111. |