512 Mishler v. The Commonwealth..... 377 Hamburgh and American Packet Co., Guil- Musselman's Appeal................................... 882 laume V.................................................................................................................... 512 Harrow, Ryan v........................................ 302 roughs v........... Orberndorf v. Union Bank of Baltimore... 31 273 Otis, Vivian V............................................ 199 Kaster v. Pierson...................................... 254 Kelsey, Kershaw V........................................................................................................ 142 186 576 Leonard v. The New York, Albany and Roberts, Rice v......................................... 195 490 Robinson, Williams V................................. 359 Russell v. Carrington........................................................................ 498 Ryan v. Harrow.................................................................. 302 Maryland Fire Insurance Co. v. Whiteford, 45 McClaughry, McNaught v......................... 487 McCormick, Petition of.............................. 197 Mclean v. Bovee................. Taylor, Lancaster National Bank v............ 71 215 The Chicago and Northwestern R. R. Co., 164 The City of Milwaukee, Cook v. ......... 183 The City of Oshkosh, Goodnough v........... 202 The Commonwealth, Mishler v.................. 877 The Corn Exchange Insurance Co. v. Bab- 601 The New York, Albany and Buffalo Electro- Magnetic Telegraph Co., Leonard v........ 446 The Park Bank v. Watson Washington, etc., Insurance Companies, Watson, The Park Bank v▼.............................................................. 573 Western Union Telegraph Co., Wolf v...... 387 Wheat and others v. Cross..... 858 setts Railroad Co......................................................................... 365 Wolf v. Western Union Telegraph Co...... 387 Woolverton, Herrick V............................................................ 461 Wunsch, Duffy v........................................................................... 514 PEOPLE'S BANK OF BALTIMORE, appellant, v. BROOKE A protest of a notary is prima facie evidence of the truth of its statements, and, when exclusively relied on to prove the necessary facts, must contain sufficient averments that every thing requisite has been done to authorize the demand upon the indorser. When the protest merely states that the note was presented for payment, but does not say where, the statement is insufficient to charge the indorser. APPEAL from circuit court for Prince George's county. The action was assumpsit on a note indorsed by appellee. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. Thomas F. Bowie, for appellant. Henry M. Murray, for appellee. STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The single inquiry presented by the two exceptions, in this case, is as to the sufficiency of the proof furnished by the notarial protest to fasten liability upon the appellee, as the indorser, for the payment of the note upon which this suit was instituted. The protest of the notary was the only evidence relied upon by the appellant to establish due demand of payment of the note, its People's Bank of Baltimore v. Brooke. by the maker, and legal notice given to the appellee or the amounts to just as much proof as would have been the imony of the notary, or any other credible witness, if he had been present at the trial, and testified to the same facts certified to in the protest. It is prima facie evidence of the truth of its statements, and where the protest is exclusively relied upon to prove the necessary facts to fix liability upon the parties to be affected, it must contain sufficient averments to them, that every thing requisite has been done on the part of the holder of the note, or his agent, to authorize the demand upon the indorser. The certificate of the notary, in this instance, does not furnish the indispensable evidence of compliance with the conditions incident to the contract, to render the appellee as indorser responsible for the payment of the note. "The commercial law, which, throughout all its departments, inculcates the doctrine of reasonable diligence, and frowns upon and discourages laches, has introduced a rule of great strictness on this subject, which, although it may sometimes be found harsh in its practical operation, yet is, for the general purposes of business, highly useful to the commercial community, by introducing prompt. ness, fidelity and exactness, in the demand of payment." Story on Pro. Notes, $201. The sufficiency of the proof by the protest, according to the commercial law, is to be tested in its application to the case of an indorser. According to the requirements of this law, the indorser contracts to be liable for the payment of the note, in case of its dishonor, if it is duly presented for payment according to its terms, and due notice is given to him of its dishonor, and not otherwise. "The engagement of the indorser is conditional, and any neglect or laches of the holder, in not making due presentment, will discharge him." Story on Pro. Notes, § 198. In order to charge the indorser, it is indispensable that the presentment of the note for payment should be made at the place lesignated in the note, and it is necessary to prove that the presentment was there made, otherwise the indorser will be absolutely lischarged Story on Pro. Notes, § 230; Byles on Bills, 169. "It will be sufficient, indeed, if the notice sent, necessarily, or |