PRESENTMENT FOR PAYMENT.

91

The (c) validity of a post-dated cheque had been decided in Gatty v. Fry, 1877, 2 Ex. Div. 265, before the present Stamp Act or Bills of Exchange Act. Where the payee of a cheque, which is postdated, becomes bankrupt between the day of receiving the cheque and the day of date, and notice thereof is sent to the drawer, there is no obligation on the drawer to stop payment of such cheque for the benefit of the payee's (d) creditors. (Ex parte Richdale, 19 Ch. D. 409.) It might have meantime been negotiated to a holder in due course, to an action by whom the drawer would by stopping payment expose himself.

For another point decided by this case the reader is referred back to § 23.

65.-Subject to the provisions of the Act a cheque must be duly presented for payment. If it be not so presented the drawers and indorsers shall be discharged. A cheque is duly presented which is presented in accordance with the following rules:

(c) Cf. also Whistler v. Forster, 14 C. B. N. S. 248; Williams v. Jarrett, 5 B. & Ad. 32; Austin v. Bunyard, 6 B. & S. 687; Bull v. O'Sullivan, 40 L. J. Q. B. 141; Misa v. Currie, 45 L. J. Q. B. 852; Hitchcock v. Edwards, 60 L. T. 636; Emanuel v. Robarts, 9 B. & S. 121.

(d) Where a garnishee order is served upon the drawer of a cheque between the giving of a cheque for value and the payment thereof, there is no obligation on him to stop payment. (Elwell v Jackson, 1 Cab. & E. 362.)

92

TIME FOR PRESENTMENT.

This failure to present within a reasonable time does not discharge the drawer of a cheque, as it does the drawer of a bill. (Cf. Robinson v. Hawksford, 9 Q. B. 52.) He can be sued at any time within six years. (Cf. Laws v. Rand, 3 C. B. N. S. 442, a case under the old common law rule, by which, if the drawer had suffered at all by the delay (e), he was discharged, but otherwise remained liable for six years.)

(1) As regards the indorser presentment must be made within a reasonable time after its indorsement in order to render the indorser liable. (S. 45 (2).)

(2) As regards the drawer, where a cheque is not presented for payment within a reasonable time of its issue, and the drawer or the person on whose account it is drawn had the right at the time of such presentment as between him and the banker to have the cheque paid and suffers actual damage through the delay, he is discharged to the extent of such damage, that is to say, to the extent to which such drawer or person is a creditor of such banker to a larger amount than he would have been had such cheque been paid. (S. 74 (1).)

(3) In determining what is a reasonable time regard shall be had to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade and of bankers, and the facts of the particular (S. 74 (2).)

case.

(e) See Hopkins v. Ware, 38 L. J. Ex. 147.

TIME FOR PRESENTMENT.

93

(4) Presentment must be made by the holder or by some person authorised to receive payment on his behalf at a reasonable hour on a business day at the bank whereon the cheque is drawn. (Cf. S. 45 (3).)

The cases prior to the Act establish the following rules as to time within which presentment must be made. Their value is in some cases doubtful, as the effect of s. 74 may be to introduce " a new and less rigorous measure of reasonable time." (Chalmers.) Four of these rules are borrowed from Chalmers, namely, 1, 2, 3 and 5.

(1) If the person who receives a cheque and the banker on whom it is drawn are in the same place, the cheque must, in the absence of (f) special circumstances, be presented for payment on the day after it is received. (Firth v. Brooks, 4 L. T. N. S. 467; Alexander v. Burchfield, 7 M. & Gr. 1061 (g).) And if crossed it must still be presented on the day after it is received, if received in time for payment into the holder's bank on the day of receipt. (Alexander v. Burchfield, supra, but this was before crossing received legislative sanction, and is now of doubtful authority).

(f) E.g., illness of payee, as in Firth v. Brooks, 4 L. T. N. S. 467.

(g) See also Moule v. Brown, 4 Bing. N. C. 266, where cheque was cashed by plaintiff bank on the 28th and presented on the 31st, and was held not to be in due time ; and Bailey v. Bodenham 16 C. B. N. S. 288.

94

EFFECT OF CASES BEFORE THE ACT.

(2) If the person who receives a cheque and the banker on whom it is drawn are in different places, the cheque must, in the absence of special circumstances, be forwarded for presentment on the day after it is received, and the agent to whom it is forwarded must, in like manner, present it or forward it on the day after he receives it. (Hare v. Henty, 10 C. B. N. S. 65; Prideaux v. Criddle, 10 B. & S. 515.)

(3) In computing time non-business days must be excluded, and when a cheque is crossed any delay caused by presenting the cheque pursuant to the crossing is probably excused. (Cf. Alexander v. Burchfield, 7 M. & Gr. 1061, and Springfield v. Lanezzari, 16 L. T. 361.)

(4) Any delay caused by the cheque having to pass through the hands of an agent for collection, in lieu of direct presentment, is excused (Prideaux v. Criddle, 10 B. & S. 515; Bond v. Warden, 14 L. J. Ch. 154), and a custom to collect through agents of the two banks using a common clearing house will be recognised, and delay occasioned by such mode of collection, in lieu of direct presentment, is excused (h). (Prideaux v. Criddle, supra; Hare v. Henty, 10 C. B. N. S. 65.)

(5) Where authorised by agreement or usage a presentment through the Post Office is sufficient. (h) See also Beeching v. Gower, Holt, 313.

DELAY IN PRESENTING.

95

(S. 45 (8), and cf. Bailey v. Bodenham, 16 C. B. N. S. 288; Heywood v. Pickering, 43 L. J. Q. B. 145.)

(6) A banker guilty of delay in presenting a cheque is liable to his customer for any resulting loss. (Hare v. (Hare v. Henty, supra; Boddington v. Schlencker, 4 B. & Ad. 752; Forman v. Bank of England, 18 T. L. R. 339.) In Boddington v. Schlencker it was contended that by the custom of the city of London, a banker, receiving a cheque from his customer, must, as between himself and the customer, present it the same day, notwithstanding that as between the customer and the drawer, the former would have a day within which to present it, but the Court, while not satisfied of the existence of the custom, decided that it was in any case inapplicable in the case before them, which was between the payee and the drawer.

(7) Where a cheque is expressed to be payable in two places, the holder may present it at either and is not prejudiced by delay consequent upon presenting it at the remoter of such places (Beeching v. Gower, Holt, 313), but where a cheque was apparently payable at Norwich or in London, the jury found upon the evidence, that there was a custom to treat such cheques as London cheques, and the defendants, the collecting bankers, were liable for presenting it at Norwich through their country clearing house, whereby it was collected later than it would