Bowling v. Harrison

Citations: 47 U.S. 248; 12 L. Ed. 425; 6 How. 248; 1848 U.S. LEXIS 313

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; February 25, 1848; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A legal dispute arose in the case of John D. Bowling v. Jilson P. Harrison, originating from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi regarding a promissory note. Bowling, the indorsee residing in Maryland, sought recovery from Harrison, the indorser based in Mississippi. The note, amounting to $5,800, was dated November 26, 1836, and was payable at the Planters' Bank in Vicksburg. 

During the trial, Bowling's witness, Alexander H. Arthur, testified that a memorandum on the note, in Harrison's handwriting, indicated he resided in Vicksburg. Arthur confirmed that he demanded payment from the bank on November 29, 1838, but was refused. He then mailed a notice of non-payment to Harrison at the Vicksburg post-office. Arthur claimed he acted as the bank's agent and relied on the established practice of the Planters' Bank, which typically required personal notice to indorsers in the area unless a specific notice arrangement was noted on the instrument. 

The court instructed the jury that for an indorser living in the same town where the note was payable, personal notice of non-payment was necessary unless the indorser had consented to receive notice by other means or a customary practice allowed for postal notification. The jury ultimately found in favor of Harrison, prompting Bowling's counsel to take exception to the court's instructions.

The court ruled that the memorandum attached to the note was insufficient to waive personal notice for the indorser and that the bank's customary practices did not eliminate the need for personal service. The jury was instructed that, to charge an indorser residing in the same town as the note's payment location, personal notice was required unless there was a clear agreement otherwise or if bank usage allowed for notice via post. The plaintiff's attorney argued that the indorser's separate residence in a different town should have allowed for postal service, asserting that the relevant post-office was in Vicksburg, where the indorser lived. The plaintiff contended that the memorandum and bank practices should have been presented to the jury as evidence of the indorser's consent to receive notice by mail. In contrast, the defendant's counsel argued that the plaintiff's residence was irrelevant to the case, emphasizing that the notice's validity depended on the parties to the note, not the lawsuit. The defendant claimed that the notice was insufficient, referencing case law to support this view. Ultimately, the court found that the notice could not be construed as having been agreed to be sent via post, ruling that the evidence should not be introduced to the jury.

Two key questions arise in this case: the sufficiency of the notice in law and whether any lawful usage or agreement between the parties could validate an insufficient notice. It is not contested that when both parties reside in the same location, notice must be given personally or left at the entitled party's dwelling or business. However, the opposing argument claims that because the holder, Bowling, resided in Maryland while the party entitled to notice, Harrison, was in Vicksburg, notice sent by post was sufficient. The counterargument highlights that the record does not demonstrate a separation in residence; Bowling could have been residing in Vicksburg at the time of the note's dishonor. The presumption from the record suggests that Bowling was indeed in Vicksburg, and any significant fact regarding his residence would likely have been proven if it were true.

Moreover, the Planters' Bank, acting as the note collector, was located in Vicksburg, where Harrison resided, making it the appropriate place for Bowling to demand payment. The notice given by the collecting bank is considered an act within its agency, effectively representing Bowling. This arrangement is essential for practical enforcement of presentment and notice, particularly when the holder is distant from the location of dishonor. The established rule mandates that notice must be personal or delivered to the party's residence or business to ensure prompt receipt. The notice's purpose is to provide the drawer an opportunity to secure indemnity, necessitating timely delivery to the party entitled to it. Legal precedent emphasizes that notice should be given as early as possible, ideally ensuring actual receipt, which is why it is crucial to deliver it personally or to a known location where the entitled party is likely to be found.

Notice can be sent by post when the sender and recipient reside in different locations, as it is often received more quickly than other methods. The sufficiency of postal notice, even when parties are in the same city, is sometimes seen as a relaxation of the general rule, where the postal service acts merely as an agent for delivery. Various cases illustrate the principle: in Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, the adequacy of mailed notice to a different location was upheld; in Williams v. The Bank of the United States, leaving notice at a neighbor's house was considered; while Munn v. Baldwin confirmed that mailing notice is sufficient and constitutes conclusive evidence of notice. However, in Cuyler v. Nellis, a mailed notice was inadequate because it lacked specific addressing at the recipient's location. The rule is that when parties are in the same place, notice must be personal or left at their residence or business. This standard is supported by multiple case citations, including Smedes v. Utica Bank and Ireland v. Kip, which emphasize that notice must be personal when both parties reside in the same city. Further, Judge Story's interpretations align with these principles, stressing the necessity for personal delivery in close locales. In Louisiana State Bank v. Rowel, the court ruled that notice left at a post office was insufficient when the indorser lived nearby, reiterating the importance of direct notice. Overall, the legal consensus upholds the necessity for personal notice when parties are in close proximity.

In the case of Porter v. Boyle et al., 8 La. Rep. 170, the court ruled that notice of protest sent via post to an indorser residing in New Orleans was inadequate without proof of reasonable efforts to provide personal notice. Although the issue pertains to general commercial law, several Mississippi cases were referenced to underscore the legal standards applicable to negotiable instruments. The court emphasized that personal notice is required if the parties reside in the same locality, asserting that mail can only serve as a legal notice instrument in specific exceptions. It was established that the Planters' Bank had a consistent practice of serving personal notice to indorsers in Vicksburg, unless otherwise specified in writing. In this instance, an unsigned note suggesting the indorser J. P. Harrison could receive notice via the post was deemed insufficient evidence of a waiver of his right to personal notice. The witness's assumption regarding the indorser's intent was considered speculative and unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the court determined that no agreement existed to forgo personal notice, and the jury was appropriately guided in this matter.

Mr. Jones argued that notice requirements differ based on whether parties reside in the same town. If they do, notice must be personal; if not, mail is sufficient. He asserted that either Bowling or the bank holds the note. If Bowling holds it, he should receive notice in Maryland, which would then obligate him to notify indorser Harrison via mail. However, Bowling's agent sent notice through the post-office in Vicksburg instead. If the bank holds the note, it similarly should have notified Bowling in Maryland, who would then notify Harrison. The court opinion, delivered by Mr. Justice Grier, addressed an assignment of error regarding jury instructions on notice requirements for indorsers. The court clarified that personal notice is required if the indorser resides in the same town as the note's payment location unless an agreement or bank custom specifies otherwise. The court found the jury was correctly instructed, despite differences in legal phrasing. The decision emphasized that the best evidence of notice is personal service or leaving a copy at the indorser's residence, while mailing is only valid in inconvenient situations.

When public postal services are not necessary for notice transmission, there is no justification for their use or for relaxing the requirement for more reliable notice. In commercial transactions involving notes payable at a bank, the holder must notify indorsers of dishonor. If indorsers are local, personal service is preferred; if distant, notice is sent via mail to a designated location. This approach reflects established practice nationwide. The Planters' Bank of Vicksburg, as the holder of a note, was obligated to notify all indorsers. The notary, acting on behalf of the note's owner, is also considered a holder. The court’s instructions to the jury correctly articulated the practical application of the rule based on the case's specifics.

An exception arose regarding a memorandum on the note, which the court deemed insufficient to waive personal notice for the indorser. The memorandum indicated the indorser lived in Vicksburg but did not constitute an agreement to receive notice by mail. Evidence showed that the bank's practice was to serve notice personally unless a specific alternate arrangement was documented. The notary misinterpreted the memorandum, assuming it permitted postal notice, but failed to substantiate that this interpretation aligned with established usage. The court noted that while jurors assess credibility, they should not be prompted to make inferences about key facts without supporting testimony.

Stability and certainty in legal rules regarding notice for charging an indorser are crucial for commercial transactions, avoiding variability influenced by banking corporations or notaries. Usages must be definite, uniform, and well known, established by clear evidence to be presumed in contracts. Many notaries display negligence or ignorance, leading courts to be cautious in allowing juries to assume usages that contradict established legal principles. A written memorandum should clearly state terms, and any claim of an unusual custom must be strictly proven. The court correctly decided not to let the jury infer improbable customs from ambiguous witness statements. The judgment from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi is affirmed, including costs.