Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Century Land & Water Co.

WOOD, J.

Plaintiff bank commenced this action to obtain a deficiency judgment after a sale by foreclosure of a trust deed given to secure the payment of a promissory note in the sum of $27,500. The maker of the note and various

[198]

endorsers were made parties defendant. Upon a separate appeal by plaintiff we have this day decided that plaintiff is entitled to an increased judgment against all the defendants except defendant Merrill. In the present appeal defendant Merrill appeals from the judgment, making the point, among others, that he was not served with notice of dishonor as required by law.

The note in question was executed August 25, 1930. On July 11,1934, plaintiff gave written notice of dishonor by mail to various defendants. The letter addressed to defendant C. C. Merrill was enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed to him at 2277 West 23rd Street, Los Angeles, with two cents ordinary postage and the proper registry postage prepaid thereon and was mailed as a registered letter with the instruction endorsed on the envelope that it should be delivered to the addressee only. The letter was returned to plaintiff by the postoffiee department on July 24, 1934, with endorsement on the envelope showing that it had been readdressed by the Los Angeles postoffiee to “622 North Arden, Beverly Hills, California”, that it had been marked “Due 1c”, had been forwarded from the Los Angeles postoffiee to the Beverly Hills postoffiee on June 12th, had been marked “Unclaimed, Return to Writer” and had been dispatched from the Beverly Hills postoffiee to the Los Angeles postoffiee on June 23, 1934. The Los Angeles city directory current at the time of the mailing showed a business address of Charles C. Merrill at “727 West 7th Street, Los Angeles” and a residence address of Charles C. Merrill “Beverly Hills”. The directory did not contain the name of any other C. C. Merrill. The official in charge of the division of registered letters of the Los Angeles postoffiee testified that if a letter is registered without restriction it is delivered to any authorized person at the residence, but if a letter is registered and delivery restricted to the addressee only and delivery is not made to the addressee personally the letter is returned to the writer; that if delivery of a letter is restricted to the addressee only, delivery cannot be made at his residence to a man having an office in Los Angeles who is away from his home during postal delivery hours unless the addressee personally calls at the postoffiee for the letter during postoffiee hours.