BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 361

The protest is only prima facie evidence, and may be overcome. Howard Bank
v. Carson, 50 Md. 27; Staylor v. Ball, 24 Md. 199; Ricketts v. Pendleton, 14
Md. 329.

If the protest states that "notice of protest" was sent to the endorser and the
manner of such notice, it implies a demand and refusal, unless the protest itself
shows no sufficient demand. Nailor v. Bowie, 3 Md. 257.

The protest should designate or identify the note—usually the original or a copy
is attached. The signature of the notary may be printed, if it appears to be his
act. Fulton v. Maccracken, 18 Md. 541.

This section does not exclude other evidence of non-acceptance, etc. Sasscer v.
Farmers' Bank, 4 Md. 419; Nailor v. Bowie, 3 Md. 258.

The design of this section is to place foreign and inland bills on the same foot-
ing. The protest or authenticated copy must be received in evidence according
to the lex fori, and there need be no proof of the signature or seal. Crowley v.
Barry, 4 Gill, 201; Whiteford v. Burckmyer, 1 Gill, 129.

A check is an inland bill of exchange, and therefore protestable under this sec-
tion and sec. 7. Hawthorn v. State, 56 Md. 534. See also Moses v. Franklin Bank,
34 Md. 579.

For the purpose of securing the benefit of this section, banks receiving bills of
exchange for collection, should place them in the hands of a notary for protest, if
necessary. Citizens' Bank v. Howell, 8 Md. 547.

This section does not alter the law in regard to the necessity of notice, or the
character of the notice. Graham v. Sangston, 1 Md. 66.

This section applied. Nailor v. Bowie, 3 Md. 255.

Cited but not construed in Farmers' Bank v. Bowie, 4 Md. 295.

An. Code, sec. 7. 1904, sec. 7. 1888, sec. 7. 1837, ch. 253.

7. When such protest shall state that notice of such non-payment or
non-acceptance has been sent or delivered to the party or parties to such
note or bill, and the manner of such notice, such protest shall be prima facie
evidence that such notice has been sent or delivered in the manner therein
stated.

If no sufficient demand was made, the protest is not evidence to prove notice.
Farmers', etc., Bank v. Alien, 18 Md. 478.

This section does not alter the law in regard to the necessity of notice, or the
character of the notice. Graham v. Sangston, 1 Md. 66.

A check is an inland bill of exchange, and therefore protestable under this sec-
tion and sec. 6. Hawthorn v. State, 56 Md. 534. See also Moses v. Franklin Bank,
34 Md. 579.

See notes to sec. 6; also sec. 171, et seq.

As to the power of notaries public to take protests, see art. 68, sec. 4.

An. Code, sec. 8. 1904, sec. 8. 1888, sec. 8. 1825, ch. 35.

8. No judgment of any court of this State rendered in any suit on a
bill of exchange, promissory note or other negotiable instrument, shall be
reversed, or in any way set aside, on appeal or writ of error, because the
endorsements thereon may be in blank, but such judgment shall be as good
and valid as if such endorsements were properly filled up.

While this section protects a holder with a blank endorsement, it does not extend
to one who is neither the holder nor owner. Whiteford v. Burckmyer, 1 Gill, 147.

This section applied; there must, however, be no mala fides. Elliott v. Chestnut,
30 Md. 565; Dunham v. Clogg, 30 Md. 292; Sumwalt v. Ridgeley, 20 Md. 114;
Kunkel v. Spooner, 9 Md. 475. And see Shriner v. Lamborn, 12 Md. 174; Bell v.
Hagerstown Bank, 7 Gill, 233; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 11 G. & J. 391; Sullivan v.
Violett, 6 Gill, 185.