statutes relative to stamps. Decisions on the vity between the plaintiff and the defendant, as in the case of a remote indorsee and the acceptor, the former will have no remedy against the latter, if the stamp be defective, and not remediable by the above provisions, and a court of equity will not in general afford him relief'. But where a party had entered into an express agreement, to give a valid note, and had given one upon an improper stamp, a court of equity enforced the delivery of a valid note'; and if a defendant in an action at law, pay money into court, upon the whole declaration, he is precluded from objecting to the sufficiency of the stamp on which the bill was drawn '. 2dly, Place where made. 3dly, Date. (2) It is proper, in all cases, to superscribe the name of the place where the bill is really made, and when the maker is not a person well known in the commercial world, it is advisable for him to mention the number of his house, and the street in which he resides, in order that the holder may be the better enabled to find him out, in case his responsibility is doubted, or in case acceptance, or payment is refused by the drawee. According to the form in the schedule contained in the 17 Geo. 3. c. 30. in certain cases where bills are under £5. it is absolutely necessary to insert the name of the place where they are made; and if this be omitted in a check on a banker it will not be exempt from the stamp duties imposed by the 55 Geo. 3. c. 184. and the prior acts. (3)-As the time, when a bill is to become due, is generally regulated by the time when it was made, the date of the instrument ought to be clearly expressed *, and although it is the common practice, to write the date in figures, yet, in order to prevent intentional, or accidental alteration, which may invalidate the instru 'Toulmin v. Price, 5 Ves. jun. 240. 2 Aylett v. Bennett, 1 Anstr. 45.-2 Bridgm. 538. 3 Israel v. Benjamin, 3 Campb. 40. 4 * Beawes, pl. 3.-Mar. 2d edit. 91.-Pardessus, Cours de Droit Commercial, 1 tom. 348. ment, even in the hands of an innocent holder', it may be advisable to write the date at full length in words, and it has been recently enacted, that it shall not be lawful for any banker or other person to issue any promissory note for the payment of money to the bearer on demand, liable to any of the duties imposed by the act, with the date printed therein, under a penalty of £50. There is no legal objection to a bill being dated on a Sunday3; and the date of a bill or note is primâ facie evidence of its having been made on the day of the date. A date, however, is not, in general, essential to the validity of a bill, for where a bill has no date, the time, if necessary to be inquired into, will be computed from the day it was issued'; and if a bill of exchange be made payable two months after date, and no date be expressed, the court will intend it to be payable two months after the day on which it was made. A check, if post dated and not stamped, we have seen is invalid"; and though it has been decided that a bill of exchange may be post dated; yet we have seen that this cannot be done so as to postpone the payment for more than two months or sixty days from the time it is issued, unless the 'Master v. Miller, 4 T. R. 320. 55 Geo. 3. c. 184. s. 18. 3 Drury v. De Fontaine, 1 Taunt. 131. Taylor v. Kinlock, 1Stark. 175. The date upon a promissory note made by a bankrupt of a time antecedent to an act of bankruptcy, is primâ facie evidence to shew that the note existed before the act of bankruptcy was committed, so as to establish a petitioning creditor's debt in an action by the assignees. 5 Armit v. Breame, 2 Lord Raym. 1076. 1082. An award which directed the removal of some scaffolds within 58 days from the date of the award, had no date; an objection being taken upon this ground, the court said the time was to be computed from the delivery. See also 2 Show. 422.-Goddard's Case, 2 Co. 5. (a).—Sel. Ni. Pri. 283, Bac. Ab. Leases, 1. 1.-Com. Dig. Fait, B. 3. De la Courtier v. Bellamy, 2 Show. 422. Case on a foreign bill of exchange, payable at double usance from the date, and it was alleged that the party beyond the sea drew the bill on a certain day, and that the same was presented to and accepted by the defendant. Exception, that the date of the bill was not set forth. The court said that they would intend the date of the bill from the drawing of it. See also Hague v. French, 3 Bos, & Pul. 173. S. P. 7 Ante, 71, n. 4. 'Pasmore v. North, 13 East. 517. 3dly, Date. 3dly, Date. 4thly, Sum payable. 5thly, Time and increased duty be paid'. By the statute 17 Geo. 3. c. 30. however, it is enacted, that all bills of exchange, or drafts in writing, being negotiable, or transferable, for the payment of twenty shillings, or any sum of money above that sum, and less than five pounds, or on which twenty shillings, or above that sum, and less than five pounds, shall remain undischarged, shall bear date before or at the time of drawing or issuing thereof, and not on any day subsequent thereto. (4) There is no necessity for the superscription of the sum for which the bill is payable, provided it be mentioned in the body of the bill; but the superscription will aid an omission in the body; and it is the advice of Beawes', that the sum payable be expressed so distinctly both in words and figures, that no exception can be taken to the instrument; and it is now the usual mode, to superscribe the sum payable, in figures at the head of the instrument, and in words in the body of it.—In drawing a check on a banker, the sum is generally subscribed. (5)-By a French ordinance, it was required that place of payn.ent. bills of exchange made in that country, should express the time when they were to be paid, or otherwise they would be invalid; but there being no positive regulation affecting bills in this country, they would be valid, although no time be mentioned in them, and would operate, as in the case of a check on a banker, as 'Ante, 67, and 55 Geo. 3. 184. s. 12. Elliot's Case, 2 East. Pleas Crown, 951, on an indictment for forging the following note: No. 17. 73. I promise to pay Mr. I. C. or bearer, on demand, the sum of fifty £ Fifty Entered C. Blewart. London, 20 June, 1795. For Governor and Company of the The forgery being proved, it was urged for the defendant, that this was not a note for fifty pounds, as the word "pounds" was not inserted; and judgment was respited for the opinion of the judges, who all agreed that the fifty in the margin removed every doubt, and shewed that the fifty in the body of the note was intended for pounds. 3 Beawes, tit. Bills of Exchange, pl. 3.-Marius, 139. payable on demand'. It is advisable, however, in all cases, to express the time of payment as clearly and intelligibly as possible', and it is therefore usual to write it in words, particularly as they are less subject to alteration than figures; and where a bill is drawn in one country using one style, and payable in a country using another, it is said that the drawer sometimes makes the date both according to the old and new style1. With respect to the time when payment is to be made, it depends entirely on the agreement of the parties, and there is no limitation in point of law, though the payment must not be contingent. But by the 17th Geo. 3. c. 30. negotiable bills and drafts under £5, of the description above mentioned, must be payable within twenty-one days after the day of the date thereof. The operation of this act is suspended with respect to drafts payable to bearer on demand, by the statute 37 Geo. 3. c. 32. and other subsequent acts. Foreign bills are frequently drawn payable at usance, or usances, but they, like inland bills, may be drawn payable at sight, or at days, weeks, months, or years, after sight or date, or on demand: bills, however, are very seldom drawn payable on demand; but usually, when it is intended they should. be payable immediately, are drawn payable at sight. If drawn at sight, the drawer of a foreign bill should express that it is payable according to the course of exchange at the time of making it'; for otherwise, it seems that the drawee must pay according to the exchange of the day when he has sight of the bill. Checks on bankers very seldom express any time when they are to be paid, and consequently, as will be seen If a bill of exchange be made payable at never so distant a day, if it be a day that must come, it is no objection to the bill. Per Willes, C. J. in Colehan v. Cooke, Willes, 396. 5" En especes au cours de ce jour." Poth. pl. 174. 5thly, Time and place of payment. 5thly, Time and hereafter, are demandable immediately they are deliverplace of payment. ed to the payee or bearer. 6thly, Request to pay. 7thly & 8thly, Of several parts. With respect to the time when a bill drawn payable in either of these ways becomes due, the reader is referred to that part of the work which treats of the presentment for payment. (6)-If it be intended that the bill shall be payable at a particular place, the drawer should so frame the bill which he may do either in the body of the bill, or in the direction to the drawee, as by the words, “payable in London." It is said by Beawes, in his Lex Merc. that payment of a bill should be ordered and commanded; it is sufficient however, if it be requested; and according to Marius, the direction to pay the money need not be contained in the body of the bill, or even on the same side of the paper, but this form is not recommended+. (7, 8)—Inland bills, checks, and notes, consist only of one part, but foreign bills, in general, consist of several parts, in order that the bearer having lost one, may receive his money on the other; but if the Hodge v. Fillis, 3 Campb. 463. post. This was an action by the indorsce against the acceptors of a bill of exchange, drawn in the following form: £2,314: 15s: 11d. Cork, 12th April, 1813. At two months date of this our first of exchange, (second and third of the same tenor and date not paid) pay to our order, £2,314: 15s: 11d. and charge the same to account as advised. W. & A. Maxwell. The bill was accepted by the defendants, payable at Sir John Perring and Co. Bankers, London. The plaintifs failed to aver in their declaration, the presentment of the bill for payment at a London bankers, which the defendants, on the trial, contended was a material omission. Lord Ellenborough expressed himself to be of the same opinion, but as the plaintifs counsel on the trial, proved a promise by defendants to pay the bill after it became due; Lord Ellenborough held, that that circumstance dispensed with direct evidence of a presentment for payment at the bankers, and therefore the plaintiffs had a verdict. 2 Pl. 3. Morris. Lee, Ld. Raym. 1397.-Brown v. Harraden, 4 T. K. 149.-Ruff v. Webb, 1 Esp. Rep. 129. 4 Mar. 11.-Brown v. Harraden, 4 T. R. 149. Poth. pl. 39.-Bayl. 18, 180. |