ART. 13.] PROTEST—BLANK ENDORSEMENTS. 115

or inland, for non-acceptance or non-payment, shall be prima
facie evidence of such non-acceptance or non-payment, and of
the presentment of such note for payment, or of such bill for
acceptance or payment, at the time and in the manner stated in
the protest.

Burt v. Gwinn, 4 H. & J. 807. Bonk v. Magruder, 6 H. & J. 172, White-
ford v. Burckmyer, 1 Gill, 127. Barry v. Crowley, 4 Gill, 194. Bell v. Hagers-
town Bank, 7 Gill, 223. Graham v. Sangston, 1 Md. 66. Hunter v. Van
Bomhorst, 1 Md. 511. Boehme v. Carr, 3 Md. 202. Nailor v. Bowie, 3 Md.
251. Sasscer v. Farmers' Bank, 4 Md. 409. Farmers' Bank v. Bowie, 4 Md.
290. Manning v. Hays, 6 Md. 5. Citizens' Bank v. Howell, 8 Md. 530.
Kunkel v. Spooner, 9 Md. 463. Sasscer v. Whitely, 10 Md. 98. Moore v.

Hardcastle, 11 Md. 486. Armstrong v. Thruston, 11 Md. 148. Atwell v.
Grant, 11 Md. 106. Ricketts v. Fendleton, 14 Md. 320. Brailsford v. Williams',
15 Md. 150. Walters v. Brown, 15 Md. 293. Weems v. Farmers' Bank, 15
Md. 233 Selden v. Washington's admx., 17 Md 379. Farmers' Bank v.
Allen, 18 Md. 475. Fulton v. Maccracken, 18 Md. 529. Staylor v. Ball, 24
Md 183. Moses v. Franklin Bank, 34 Md. 574. Howard Bank v. Canon, 50
Md. 27. Reier v. Strauss, 54 Md. 285.

P. G L., (1860,) art 14, sec. 7. 1887, 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 fade evidence that such
notice has been sent or delivered in the manner therein stated.

Ibid. 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.

Ringgold v. Tyson, 3 H & J 172. Hudson v. Goodwin, 5 H. & J. 115. Day
v. Lyon, 6 H & J 140. Kierstecl v. Rogers, 5 H & J. 282. Cumb. Bank a
McKinley, 6 H. & J. 527. Bowie v. Duvall, 1 G & J 175. Williamson v.
Allen, 2 G. & J. 344. Bradley v. Hunt, 5 G. & J. 54, Mitchell v. Mitchell, 11
G. & J 388, Whiteford v. Burckmyer, 1 Gill, 127 Chesley v. Taylor, 3 Gill,
251. Sullivan v. Violett, 6 Gill, 185 Bell v. Hagerstown Bank, 7 Gill, 216,
Ellicott v. Love, 6 Md. 509 Kunkel v. Spooner, 9 Md. 475. Shriner v. Lam-
lorn, 12 Md. 171. Hopkins r Kent, 17 Md. 114. Sum wait v. Ridgely, 20
Md. 114. Dunham v. Clogg, 30 Md. 284. Elliott v. Chesnut, 30 Md. 562.