Tennessee. The mere fact that a note is made payable at a certain bank does not make that bank the holder's agent to receive payment of the note unless such bank holds the note, but a tender of payment at maturity at such bank stops the running of interest. Stansbury v. Embrey, 128 Tenn. 103, 158 S. W. 991.

A maker of a note payable at a bank is not discharged when the bank fails to pay the note at maturity when the holder of such note does not present it for payment, although the maker had ample funds to pay the note on deposit at the bank on the date of maturity of the note. Binghampton Pharmacy v. First Nat. Bank, 131 Tenn. 711, 176 S. W. 1038.

§ 1088. (88). What constitutes payment in due course.

Payment is made in due course when it is made at or after the maturity of the instrument to the holder thereof in good faith and without notice that his title is defective.

For discussion of this provision, see ante, § 962.

Federal.-A bank discounting drafts attached to bills of lading, even though the drawer has overdrawn his account, becomes a holder of the drafts for a valuable consideration. National Bank v. Bradley, 264 Fed. 700.

Alabama.-Evidence of payments made on a note to the payee thereof is not admissible in a suit by a holder in due course of such note unless it can be shown that the payments so made came into the possession of such holder. Oneonta Trust & Banking Co. v. Box, 15 Ala. App. 440, 73 So. 759.

Arkansas. A defendant in an action on a note who pleads payment of such note has the burden of proving the payment, and if he can prove payment in good faith, it amounts to a complete defense to the note. Johnson v. Aylor, 129 Ark. 82, 195 S. W. 4.

Iowa. The burden of proving payment upon a note is upon the defendant as long as the holder holds the note, and evidence is admissible to show payments made on the note from time to time. Wendt v. Haglestange, 179 Iowa 476, 161 N. W. 455.

Massachusetts.-A payment of a note at maturity to an apparent holder of such note is a valid payment of the note when such holder delivers the note to the maker. Wheeler v. Guild, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 545, 32 Am. Dec. 231.

New York. A bank which pays a check drawn by one who was dead at the time the check was cashed, in good faith without notice of the death of the drawer, is not liable on such check to the personal representative of such drawer. Glennan v. Rochester Trust &c. Co., 209 N. Y. 12, 102 N. E. 537, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 302.

Washington.-An agreement between one of the indorsers of a note and the bank which held the note by which the indorser deposited money in escrow to buy any judgment which the bank might obtain against the other indorser, does not amount to such a payment of the note as will preclude the bank from suing the other indorser on the note. Capitol Nat. Bank v. Robinson, 41 Wash. 454, 83 Pac. 1021.

§ 1089 (89). To whom notice of dishonor must be given.

Except as herein otherwise provided, when a negotiable instrument has been dishonored by non-acceptance or non-payment, notice of dishonor must be given to the drawer and to each indorser, and any drawer or indorser to whom such notice is not given is discharged.

For discussion of this provision, see ante, § 795.

Alabama.-A maker of a note is not entitled to notice of dishonor, but one who signs his name on the back of a note with the maker may show that he is an indorser and entitled to notice of dishonor Hall v. First Nat. Bank, 196 Ala. 627, 72 So. 171.

Arkansas.-A maker of a check who has no funds in the bank upon which such check is drawn is not entitled to notice of protest of such check. Gibbs v. Hopper, 110 Ark. 60, 160 S. W. 879.

California.-A guarantor on a note is liable thereon upon the default of the principal, and such guarantor is not entitled to notice of dishonor of such note. Wetzel v. Cale, 175 Cal. 208, 165 Pac. 692.

Colorado.-A complaint on a note in a suit against the indorser thereof which does not allege notice of dishonor of such note, or a waiver thereof does not state a cause of action. Sykes v. Kruse, 49 Colo. 560, 113 Pac. 1013.

Connecticut.-Notice of dishonor is not necessary in order to hold a guarantor of a note. Breed v. Hillhouse, 7 Conn. 522.

Where suit is brought upon a note against an indorser before notice of dishonor is given to such indorser, and judgment entered thereon for the indorser, such judgment is not a bar to a suit brought after notice of dishonor was duly given to such indorser within the statutory period allowed to give such notice. Peck v. Easton, 74 Conn. 456, 51 Atl. 134.

When on the trial on a note the question of notice of dishonor did not come up at all, such question will not be reviewed on the appeal even though it appear that such notice of dishonor was never given to the indorsers. Foster v. Balch, 79 Conn. 449, 65 Atl. 574.

In a suit by a holder of a note who sues to collect installments from an indorser, who was duly served at the proper time with notice of the maker's failure to pay, the indorser can not set up a collateral agreement as a set off to the plaintiff's suit. Hopkins v. Merrill, 79 Conn. 626, 66 Atl. 174.

Where testimony is introduced tending to show that notices of dishonor were properly mailed to the indorsers, such testimony is sufficient to support a contention that such notice was given in the absence of proof to the contrary. Central Nat. Bank v. Stoddard, 83 Conn. 332, 76 Atl. 472. Notice of dishonor may be given by the holder of the dishonored note to all prior parties or he may notify his immediate indorser and let him notify the prior parties thereon. Gleason v. Thayer, 87 Conn. 248, 87 Atl.

790, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1069.

When the holder of a note who received notice of its dishonor notified the prior parties upon such note, one by telephone and the other by a personal visit and conversation, notice was sufficiently given to hold the prior parties. Blue Ribbon Garage v. Baldwin, 91 Conn. 674, 101 Atl. 83.

Florida. The burden of proving that notice of dishonor was given to the indorser is upon the plaintiff and unless it is shown that notice of dishonor was duly given within the time allowed by law, the indorser is discharged. Marks v. Boone, 24 Fla. 177, 4 So. 532.

Where it is shown in a suit upon a note against the indorser thereof that such indorser waived notice of dishonor, it is not necessary to show that notice of dishonor had been given to such indorser in order to hold him liable on the note. Baumeister v. Kuntz, 53 Fla. 340, 42 So. 886.

An indorser is not liable on a note until he 'receives notice of dishonor thereof unless it is shown under proper allegation that such indorser waived presentment, protest and notice of dishonor. Worley v. Johnson, 60 Fla. 294, 53 So. 543.

Illinois. Notice of dishonor must be given to an indorser of a note before a suit can be maintained on such note against such indorser. State Bank v. Parkhurst, 155 Ill. App. 101.

An illegible indorsement excuses failure to give notice of dishonor. Sublette Exch. Bank v. Fitzgerald, 168 Ill. App. 240.

Notice of nonpayment must be given to a person placing his signature upon an instrument otherwise than as maker, drawer or acceptor. Kroll v. Hoyt, 214 Ill. App. 428.

Indiana. An allegation in a complaint on a check against the indorser, which alleges that the checks were dishonored and that thereupon plaintiff gave due notice to the indorsers, is a sufficient allegation of notice of dishonor to allow proof. Swift & Co. v. Miller, 62 Ind. App. 312, 113 N. E. 447.

Where there is no waiver in a note of demand and notice of dishonor, proof thereof must be made in order to recover from an indorser, unless there is a legal excuse shown for failure of demand and notice. Thompson v. Divine, 73 Ind. App. 113, 126 N. E. 683.

Kansas.-A bill of particulars in a suit upon a note, setting out the note with all the proper allegations except notice of dishonor, or a waiver of such notice, does not state a cause of action against the indorser of such note. Guaranty Inv. Co. v. Gamble, 102 Kans. 791, 171 Pac. 1152.

Kentucky. An accommodation indorser on a promissory note is discharged from liability on the note in the absence of notice of dishonor of such note. Mechanics & Farmers Sav. Bank v. Katterjohn, 137 Ky. 427, 125 S. W. 1071.

A surety on a note is primarily liable thereon and, consequently, notice of presentment and dishonor is not necessary to hold such surety liable on the note. Fritts v. Kirchdorfer, 136 Ky. 643, 124 S. W. 882.

In a suit on a note against the indorser of such note, it must be shown that presentment and notice of dishonor of such note was given so as to charge the indorser. Hoyland v. National Bank of Middlesborough, 137 Ky. 682, 126 S. W. 356.

A note executed by a corporation and indorsed by stockholders of the corporation from which the corporation receives the proceeds is not a note for the accommodation of such stockholders and they must be given proper notice of the dishonor of such note before they can be held liable thereon. First Nat. Bank v. Bickel, 143 Ky. 754, 137 S. W. 790.

Joint indorsers on a note who are not given notice of the note's dishonor are discharged from liability on the note. Williams v. Paintsville Nat. Bank, 143 Ky. 781, 137 S. W. 535.

The case holds that an accommodation indorser of a draft is discharged from liability thereon when the payee thereof failed to protest such draft at maturity and give such indorser notice of dishonor. Young v. Exchange Bank of Kentucky, 152 Ky. 293, 153 S. W. 444, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 148.

An indorser of a note who is president of the bank holding the note is entitled to notice of dishonor of such note, and is discharged from liability thereon by a failure to give him proper notice of dishonor when the duty was not upon such president to serve the notice. Frazee v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 161 Ky. 175, 170 S. W. 532.

An accommodation indorser on a note is primarily liable thereon and is not entitled to notice of dishonor of such note. First State Bank v. Williams, 164 Ky. 143, 175 S. W. 10.

Where a promissory note had never been negotiated before its maturity, the parties on such note are not entitled to notice under the Kentucky statute. Sim v. Citizens Bank, 173 Ky. 799, 191 S. W. 489.

Louisiana.—An allegation in a complaint on a note in a suit against the indorser, that such note was duly protested is not enough to state a cause of action when there is no allegation of notice of dishonor or waiver thereof. Wisdom v. Bille, 120 La. 700, 45 So. 554.

Maryland. Where a number of signers placed their names on the back of a note before such note was delivered, without any agreement to be liable other than as indorsers of the note, they can not be held without proper notice of dishonor of the note. Lightner v. Roach, 126 Md. 474, 95 Atl. 62.

Massachusetts.-Notice of dishonor is a condition precedent to an indorser's liability on a note, and such notice must be shown before the indorser can be held on the note. Bennet v. Tremont Securities Co., 221 Mass. 218, 108 N. E. 891.

Michigan. The fact that he received no notice of dishonor is not a defense available to a guarantor of a promissory note in a suit on such note against the guarantor. Roberts v. Hawkins, 70 Mich. 566, 38 N. W. 575.

Minnesota. One who guarantees the payment of a promissory note becomes primarily liable on such note on the default of the maker, and is not entitled to notice of dishonor. Hungerford v. O'Brien, 37 Minn. 306, 34 N. W. 161.

An indispensable element of a cause of action against the indorser of a negotiable instrument is notice of its dishonor by the maker, given by the holder in the manner and within the time prescribed by law. Torgerson v. Ohnstad, 149 Minn. 46, 182 N. W. 724.

Mississippi. Indorsers in blank of a note are only secondarily liable and are discharged unless given notice of the dishonor of the instrument. Gresham v. State Bank (Miss. 1923), 95 So. 65.

Missouri.-One is not shown to be an accommodation indorser, so that this section of the act will apply, when it is shown by parol evidence that the note was given for the joint purchase of an automobile. Overland Auto Co. v. Winter (Mo. App. 1915), 180 S. W. 561.

A notice of dishonor of a note sent by mail to the address indicated by an indorser after his signature is a sufficient notice to hold such indorser. Eaves v. Keeton, 196 Mo. App. 424, 193 S. W. 629.

In order to hold an indorser on a note, it must be shown that such note was presented for payment and that notice of dishonor was properly given to the indorser. Peoples Bank v. Baker (Mo. App. 1917), 193 S. W. 632.

An attorney who signs a note for the accommodation of the payee thereof is liable only as an indorser to such payee, and can not be held on such instrument until his liability is established according to law. Long v. Todd (Mo. App. 1920), 226 S. W. 262.

New Hampshire.-Any one who is an indorser on a note is not liable on such note unless he is notified of its dishonor. Trafton v. Garnsey, 78 N. H. 256, 99 Atl. 290.