3lly. Time when be the province of the court to determine the time should be made. When a presentment ought to be made 1. the presentment The circumstance of the holderhaving received a bill very near the time of its becoming due,constitutes no excuse for a neglect to present it for payment at maturity, for he might renounce it if he did not choose to undertake that duty, and send the bill back to the party from whom he received it; but if he keep it he is bound to use reasonable and due diligence in presenting: it and therefore where the plaintiff in Yorkshire, on the 26th of December, renewed a bill of exchange, payable in London, which became due on the 28th, and kept it in his own hands until the 29th, when he sent it by post to his bankers in Lincoln, who duly forwarded it to London for presentment, and the bill was dishonoured, it was held that the plaintiff had by his laches lost his remedy against the drawer and indorsers. When a bill, &c. is payable at usance, or at a certain time after date or sight, or after demand, it is not payable at the precise time mentioned in the bill, days of grace being allowed; but in the case of bills, &c. payable on demand, no such days are allowed. Before we enter into a particular inquiry when bills, &c. payable at usance after date, after sight, after a particular event, at sight, or on demand, ought to be presented for payment, it may not be improper to make a few observations relative to the mode of computing time in the case of bills in general, and some remarks with respect to the days of grace, and as to usances. When a bill is drawn at a place using one style, and payable on a day certain at a place using another, the 1 Bayl. 103, 4, 123, ante, 290.-Darbishire v. Parker, 6 East. 11, 12. Parker v. Gordon, 7 East. 386.—Tindall v. Brown, 1 T. R. 168, 9, 170.—Brown v. Collinson, Beawes, pl. 229.- Brown v. Harraden, 4 T. R. 148.-Kyd. 45.-Molloy, b. 2. c. 10. acc.-Russell v. Langstaffe, Dougl. 515.-Muilman v. D'Eguino, 2 H, B. 568, 9. contra. 2 Anderton v. Beck, 16 East. 248. 3 Brown v. Harraden, 4 T. R. 141.-Leftly v. Mills, 4 T. R. 170.— Poth. pl. 14, 15.-Mar. 76. time when the bill becomes due must be calculated 3dly. Time when the presentment according to the style of the place where it is pay- should be made. able; because the contract created by the making a bill of exchange is understood to have been made at that place, and consequently should be construed according to the laws of it. In other works it is laid down, that upon a bill drawn at a place using one style and payable at a place using another, if the time is to be reckoned from the date it shall be computed according to the style of the place at which it was drawn, otherwise according to the style of the place where it is payable; and in the former case the date must be reduced or carried forward to the style of the place where the bill is payable, and the time reckoned from thence. Thus on a bill dated the 1st of March old style, and payable here one month after date, the time must be computed from the 19th February new style; and on a bill dated the 19th February new style, and payable at St. Petersburgh one month after date, from the 1st March old style. And although in some cases it has been considered, that when computation is to be made from an act done, the day in which the act is done is to be included 5, the law re . 'As to the old and new style, see Kyd. on Bills, 7, &c.-All places which we, in Great Britain, are in the habit of negociating bills, compute their time as we do, (except that Russia adheres to the old style) by years reckoned in sextiles, from the birth of our Saviour, and divided each into 12 months, and 365 (or in every fourth year 366) days. Bayl. 112. 2 Poth. pl. 155.-Beawes, pl. 251.-Mar. 102, ante, 120, 1. acc. Kyd. 8. contra.-Old style, it is said, still prevails in Muscovey, Denmark, Holstein, Hamburgh, Utrecht, Gueldres, East Friesland, Geneva, and in all the protestant principalities in Germany, and the cantons of Switzerland.-Beawes, pl. 258.-Kyd. 7, 8.—Mar. 56.-Bayl. 112; see last note. Bayl. 102, 3. * Bayl. 113. Glassington. Rawlins, 3 East. 407.-Cramlington v. Evans, 2 Ventr. 308, 310.-Castle v. Burditt, 3 T. R. 623.—Kyd. 6; but see observations of Lord Ellenborough in Watson v. Pears, 2 Campb. 296, from which it appears that in many cases the day is to be excluded; see also Pugh v. Duke of Leeds, Cowp. 714.-Glassington v. Rawlins, 3 East. 407.-Lester v. Garland, 15 Ves. jun. 254. Sdly. Time when the presentment should be made. Days of grace. lating to bills of exchange is different; for the custom of merchants is settled that where a bill is payable at usance, or at so many days after sight, or from the date, the day of the date, or of the acceptance, must be excluded'; and therefore, if a bill drawn payable ten days after sight, be presented on the 1st day of a month, the ten days expire on the 11th, and the bill by the addition of the days of grace when they are three in number, becomes due on the 14th. When a bill, &c. is drawn payable at usance, or at a certain time after date, and it is not dated, the time when it is payable must be computed from the day it issued, exclusively thereof3. The days of grace which are allowed to the drawee, are so called because they were formerly merely gra tuitous, and not to be claimed as a right by the person on whom it was incumbent to pay the bill, and were dependent on the inclination of the holder; they still retain the name of grace, though the custom of merchants, recognized by law, has long reduced them to a certainty, and established a right in the acceptor to claim them, in all cases of bills or notes payable at usance, or after date, after sight, or after a certain event. The number of these days varies according to the custom of the different countries. The fol 1 Bellasis v. Hester, Lord Raym. 280.-Lutw. 1591. S. C.-Coleman v. Sayer, 1 Barn. B. R. 303.-Poth. pl. 13. 15.-Campbell v. French, 6 T. R. 212.-Beawes, pl. 252.-Bayl. 113.-Kyd. 6.Les ter v. Garland, 15 Ves. jun. 254.-acc. May v. Cooper, Fort. 370. contra. * Kyd. 6, 7. 3 Hague v. French, 3 Bos. & Pul. 173.-Armitt v. Brcame, Lord Raym. 1076.-Kyd. 7. ante, 77. Brown v. Harraden, 4 T. R. 151, 2.—Terme de grace, n'est terme de grace que de nom, parce que c'est humanitatis ratione qu'elle la accorde, et pour le distinguer de celui porte par la lettre ; il est rcellement terme de droit, puisque c'est la loi qui le donne.-Poth. pl. 187. See Coleman v. Sayer, Barnard Rep. B. R. 303.-Vin. Ab. tit. Bills of Exchange, b. 9. Brown v. Harraden, 4 T. R. 151, where it is said to have been once decided, that days of grace are not allowable on inland bills. - Beawes, 200. 1st ed. 419.-Bayl. 110. lowing is a list of the days of grace established by 3dly. Time when the law merchant in different countries. England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Bergamo, and Vienna, 3 days. Leipsick, Naumberg, and Augsburgh, 4 do. . 5 do. Venice, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Middleburgh, Antwerp, 16 do. Leghorn and Milan, and some other places in Italy, no fixed time. In a late case, however, it was proved, that at Hamburgh the holder of a bill is not bound to present the bill for payment until the eleventh day after the time. limited for its payment, where the eleventh is a postday, but that if the eleventh be not a post-day he must present it by the next preceding post-day. And in another case it was held, that where a bill is drawn on a person resident at a place near Hamburgh, the holder need not present it until the eleventh day, although the eleventh be not a post-day . 2 3 Beawes, pl. 260.-Mar. 94.-Kyd. 9.-Bayl. 110. Kyd. 9.-Bayl. 110; but see Hamburgh ordinance, art. 16, 17, and quære if not eleven days; see the next cases. * Goldsmith and another v. Shee, C. P. cor. Lord Eldon, 20 Dec. 1799.-Bayl. 110. n. 1. A bill for £500, drawn on Katter at Hamburgh, at three usances, was dated the 25th of June, 1799; it was presented for payment on the 4th of October, which was a post-day. In an action by the indorsees against the payee, the defence was, that the presentment was improper; but it was proved in evidence as a settled usage at Hamburgh, that although it is usual to pay bills on the day they become due, the holder may, if he pleases, keep them a certain number of days, called respite days, and that the number of respite days is eleven, where the eleventh is a post-day; but where the eleventh is not a post-day, the respite days extend to the preceding post-day only, the holder being obliged, at his peril, to protest, and send off the protest by the eleventh day. Verdict for the plaintiffs. But it is observed (Bayl. 111) that this is not consistent with the Hamburgh ordinance, art. 17, in which it is stated, that the holders may postpone the protest until the twelfth day, if it be not a Sunday or a holiday. 'Goldsmith and another v. Bland and another, C. P. cor. Lord the presentment should be made. 3dly. Time when the presentment On bank post bills payable after sight, it has been should be made. said, that no days of grace are claimed'; and whenever a bill is drawn payable to the excise, it is also 'said that they usually allow six days beyond the three days of grace, if required by the acceptor, on payment of one shilling to the clerk at the expiration of the six days, for his trouble; and in a case where the commissioners of excise, being the payees of such a bill, gave the drawce the above time, Lord Mansfield decided, that as this custom was a general one, engrafted on such bills, and known universally, the drawer was not discharged by the above indulgence to the drawee . The days of grace which are allowed on a bill of exchange must always be computed according to the law of the place where it is due 3. At Hamburgh, and in France the day on which the bill falls due makes one of the days of grace; but it is not so elsewhere*. In Great Britain, Ireland, France 4, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Middleburgh, Dantzick, and Koningsburg, Sundays and holidays are always included in the days of grace; but not so at Venice, Cologn, Breslart, and Nuremburg. In this country, if the third day of grace happen to be a Sunday, Christmas Eldon, 1st of March, 1800. A bill for £998. 9s. 9d. drawn on Trevi ramus, of Bremen, but payable in Hamburgh, at three months, was dated the 15th of June, 1799; it was not presented or protested until the 26th of September, which was not a post-day; another bill for £261. 78. 2d. addressed to Voeg, in Lubeck, payable in Hamburgh at three months, was dated the 26th of June, 1799; it was not presented or protested until the 7th of October, which was not a post-day. In an action on these bills against the defendants, as indorsers, it was proved that it was optional in the holder of a bill at Hamburgh whether he would present and protest it on the post-day, before the eleventh day after the day limited for its payment, the eleventh not being a post-day; or whether he would keep it until the eleventh : and one witness proved, that where the drawee lived at Lubeck or Bremen, it was the constant usage to keep the bill until the eleventh, whether it was post-day or not, there being posts from Lubeck and Bremen to Hamburgh every day. Bayl. 111. .2 I Lovl. 247. 2 Welford v, Hankin, at Guildhall, Sittings after Hilary Term, 1763, 1 Esp. N. P. 59. Kyd. 8. 4 Beawes, pl. 260.-Selw. N. P. 4th ed. 338, n. 52. |