Page images
PDF
EPUB

BILL OF EXCHANGE—(FORM-CONSIDERATION-STAMP).

persons, is good, if they be not in partnership for the purpose of banking. Perring v. Dunston, 1 R. & M. 264. [Best]

(C) FORM AND CONSTRUCTION.

An instrument, as follows, "Received of A B 100., which I promise to pay on demand, with lawful interest-J. Davies," is a promissory note. Green v. Davies, 3 Law J. K.B. 185, s. c. 4 B. & C. 235, s. c. 6 D. & R. 306, s. c. 1 C. & P. 454, ibid, 675.

On an indictment for uttering a forged promissory note for the payment of money, as follows: £28. 15s. Newport Nov. 20, 182, Two months after date pay Mr. B H, or order, the sum of twenty-eight pounds fifteen shillings, value received.

J. J.

At Messrs. Y. & Co. bankers, London. Held, that the instrument was a bill of exchange, and not a promissory note. Rex v. Hunter, R. & R. C.C.R. 511.

An instrument which is in the form of a note, but which is in addition addressed to a third party who accepts it, is a promissory note.

When an instrument is equivocal between a bill of exchange and a promissory note, the holder may treat it as either. Eedis v. Berry, 5 Law J. K.B. 179, s. c. 6 B. & C. 433, s. c. 2 Č. & P. 559.

A note payable on demand, but with interest until paid, is not to be deemed as payable immediately. Gascoyne v. Smith, 1 M'Clel. & Y. 338.

If a man draws a bill in Ireland, payable in England, and stating that it is for sterling money, it must be construed to mean, sterling in that part of the United Kingdom where it is payable. Taylor v. Booth, 1 C. & P. 286. [Best]

(D) CONSIDERATION.

It is not sufficient that the acceptor of a bill of exchange receive some benefit indirectly from the contract for which he accepted the bill, but the consideration, however small, should be directly from him for whom the bill was accepted. Archer v. Bamford, 1 Law J. K.B. 228.

Bills made in France, and on French stamps, cannot be enforced in England, if they were given for a gambling debt. Winne v. Callender, 1 Russ. 293.

All games, whether of skill or of chance, being within 9 Anne, c. 14, s. 5, a promissory note, given to secure the payment of money won at either is invalid. Sigel v. Jebb, 3 Stark. 1. [Abbott]

A bill of exchange given for differences on stock bargains, is not void in the hands of an innocent holder. Greenland v. Dyer, 6 Law J. K.B. 345, s. c. 2 M. & R. 422.

If the importation of certain goods be prohibited, and the plaintiff sell such goods in this country to A, who indorses a bill of exchange to him in payment; the plaintiff cannot recover on that bill against the acceptor, although there was no evidence that the plaintiff was the importer of the prohibited goods. Billard v. Hayden, 2 C. & P. 472. [Abbott]

Where the defendant, who had applied for his discharge under the Insolvent Debtors Act, gave a promissory note to a creditor in consideration that be would not oppose such discharge, the Court held

111

the consideration corrupt and illegal. Rogers v. Kingston, 3 Law J. C.P. 77, s. c. 2 Bing. 441, s. c. 10 B. Mo. 97.

A bill given to a creditor to induce him to sign a bankrupt's certificate, is void, in whose hands soever it may be, and whatever the consideration given by the holder; but a bill given to a creditor to keep him from taking steps to oppose the certificate, would be good in the hands of a holder for value without notice. Birch v. Jervis, 3 C. & P. 379. [Tenterden]

No consideration being proved in an action by an infant against the executor of the maker of a note, expressed, for" value received," the Judge told the jury that the words "value received," imported a legal consideration, and that affection for the payee, or friendship for his father, or a desire to avoid the legacy duty, amounted to a legal consideration. The jury having found for the plaintiff,-it was holden, that they had been misdirected, inasmuch as the considerations pointed out were insufficient, and as the jury might have presumed a good consideration, yet as that may be rebutted, a new trial was granted. Holliday v. Atkinson, 5 B. & C. 501, s. c. 8 D. & R. 163.

Where a note had been altered, and a party, on being applied to for payment, replied, that "from the death of a relation he could not then attend to the subject, but would give his earliest attention:" It was holden, not to render him liable. Perring v. Hone, 2 C. & P. 401. [Best]

(E) STAMP.

The time for which a bill is drawn is that expressed on its face; and therefore, if it be post-dated, so as to make it in fact drawn for more than two months, yet it is sufficient to have the stamp for a bill payable two months after date. Upstone v. Marchant, 1 Law J. K.B. 244, s. c. 2 B. & C. 10, 8. c. 3 D. & R. 198.

The Court may inquire as to the time when a stamp, not originally affixed to the instrument, was, in fact, affixed thereto: therefore, where it appeared on the face of a note, that it had been issued without having affixed to it a stamp of the legal amount; and also that, since its issue, a penalty had been paid, and a 17. agreement stamp affixed, though bearing no particular denomination on the face of it,It was held, that the commissioners had no power to fix another stamp after it had been issued; and that it was therefore not receivable in evidence, either in support of the count on the promissory note, or of the account stated. Green v. Davies, 3 Law J. K.B. 185, s. c. 4 B. & C. 235, s. c. 6 D. & R. 306, s. c. 1 C. & P. 451, 676.

A promissory note, payable to bearer, is a note within the first class of promissory notes, in the Schedule No. 1, to the statute 55 Geo. 3, c. 184; and consequently a note for 401. requires a stamp of five shillings. Whitlock v. Underwood, 1 Law J. K.B. 251, s. c. 2 B. & C. 157, s. c. 3 D. & R. 356.

Promissory notes payable to the bearer on demand, are liable to the duty imposed by 55 Geo. 3, c. 184. Schedule, part 1, title "Promissory Note;" although the person who makes them may not have availed himself of the qualification given by the act to re-issue them. Keates v. Wheildon, 6 Law J. K.B. 226, s. c. 8 B. & C. 7.

112

BILL OF EXCHANGE (ALTERATION-PRESENTMENT-ACCEPTANCE).

A bill drawn at Calais, and dated Paris, does not

require a stamp.. Bire v. Moreau, 2 C. & P. 376. [Abbott]

A promissory note given as security for money had and received, is sufficient to support a sequestration in Scotland, though on an improper stamp. Ex parte Geddes, 1 G. & J. 414.

Where an unstamped bill purports to have been drawn at Paris, and it appears the drawer was in England on the day it bears date,-it is for the jury to say, whether it was possible for the drawer to have been absent, so as to have drawn the bill out of England. Bire v. Moreau, 2 C. & P. 376. [Abbott]

(F) ALTERATION. [See post, M. g.]

If a bill of exchange be altered without the consent of the parties, in any material part, as, by inserting a particular place of payment, such alteration will render the bill wholly invalid. Cowie v. Halsall, 3 Stark. 36, s. c. 4 B. & A. 197.

Where after the 1 & 2 Geo. 4, the drawer, without the consent of the acceptor, added to a bill payable generally, the name of a banker: Held, that the alteration was material, and therefore the acceptor was discharged. Macintosh v. Haydon, 1 R. & M. 362. [Abbott]

The addition to a general acceptance, by adding words, making the bill payable at any given place, if made without the consent of the acceptor, will discharge him; although the addition may not be in terms which would make the acceptance special under the 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 78. Sparks v. Spurr, 5 Law J. K.B. 293.

Where the directors of a company drew a joint note, which the plaintiff refused to take, upon which the secretary to the company, who had no general authority, consulted two of the directors, and inserted the words joint and several: It was holden, that the note was void. Perring v. Hone, 2 C. & P. 401. [Best]

and

The circumstances of the erasure of a name, a considerable arrear of interest appearing due on a note, seem not sufficient to found a notice of illegality in the original creation of the note, so as to put an innocent indorsee in the same situation as the payee against the maker. Gascoyne v. Smith, 1 M'Clel. & Y. 338.

If the drawer and acceptor of a bill give it to their agent, to pay away, and he, perceiving that it has been dated, by mistake, 1822, instead of 1823, makes the necessary alteration without the authority of his principals, it does not vitiate the bill. Brutt v. Picard, 1 R. & M. 37. [Abbott]

The date of a bill of exchange having been altered before it was negotiated by the drawer, the acceptor wrote the day of the month when it would become due, which corresponded with the date as altered; Held, that such alteration was immaterial, and could not avail the acceptor in an action brought against him by an indorser of the bill. Leykcriff v. Ashford, 5 Law J. C.P. 90.

If a bill is addressed to A & B by the name of A, B & Co." and they accept it by the name of "A & B," and the address of the bill is afterwards altered to "A & B," this is an immaterial alteration, and does not discharge the acceptor. Farqu

har v. Southey, 1 M. & M. 14, s. c. 2 C. & P. 497. [Littledale]

Where a bill was drawn payable to "bearer," It was holden, that, after acceptance, the addition of the words "or order," did not render a new stamp essential. Atwood v. Griffin, 2 C. & P. 368, s. c. 1 R. & M. 425. [Best]

One having made and signed a promissory note, handed it to a third person, the payee being present; but before it was given to the payee it was altered, by the consent of all parties: Held, that this giving it to the third person was not an issuing of it, and that it did not require a new stamp. Sherrington v. Jermyn, 3 C. & P. 374. [Tenterden]

In an action on a promissory note apparently altered, if the plaintiff gives no account of the making of the note, it is matter for the jury, whether the alteration was made after the completion of the instrument. Bishop v. Chambre, 1 M. & M. 116, s. c. 3 C. & P. 55. [Tenterden]

(G) PRESENTMENT FOR ACCEPTANCE.

The word "acceptance" in a banker's deposit note, does not render it necessary for the holder to leave such note with the banker for acceptance. Sutton v. Toomer, 6 Law J. K.B. 49, s. c. 7 B. & C. 416, s. c. 1 M. & R. 125.

If a bill drawn by a banker in the country, on a banker in town, in favour of A, payable after sight, be indorsed by A to the defendants, who indorse to the plaintiff's seven days after the date of the bill, and the plaintiff's delay presenting it for acceptance for four days; it will be left to the jury to say whether the plaintiffs have been guilty of unreasonable delay; and in considering this, the jury may infer, from the defendant himself having kept the bill so long unaccepted, that it is not the course of business to present such bills for acceptance immediately after the party receives them. Shute v. Robins, 3 C. & P. 80, s. c. 1 M. & M. 133. [Tenterden]

(H) ACCEPTANCE.

That an acceptor may qualify his acceptance is clearly established, by cases including almost every species of qualification. If the qualification as to place cannot be introduced by the acceptor, it must be on account of some circumstance which belongs to place, and does not belong to time or mode of payment, or any other species of qualification what

ever.

When a bill is drawn generally, considering that it is an address to the person who is to accept it generally, it is the duty of the acceptor who intends to give a special acceptance, to accept in such terms that the nature of his contract may be seen in the terms he has used; that the acceptance, which he insists is not general, may clearly appear to be qualified or special.

It is not true that an acceptor must be antecedently the debtor; all the cases of qualified acceptance shew the contrary. A man may accept to pay out of the produce of a cargo consigned to him, when that cargo shall arrive in England. In the case of a consignee, bis acceptance is almost universally qualified.

BILL OF EXCHANGE-(ACCEPTOR-TRANSFER).

When the acceptor uno flatu writes the words "accepted, payable at such a house," the word "accepted" is not to be taken to express the whole of the acceptor's contract, but the latter words are also to be taken as part of it, and are not to be construed distinctly as a direction or expansion of engagement.

If an acceptor promises to pay at his bankers' in London, and the holder calls upon him in Northumberland, the payment is not the same. He presumes that the demand is to be made at the bankers' in London; the funds are deposited there; and if he is liable to be called upon at both places, his liability is rendered more inconvenient. But if the acceptor is unexpectedly to meet the demand in a distinct place, the cost of the exchange and remittance backwards and forwards must be added. Rowe v. Young, 2 Bligh, 403-4, 6, 9.

If A and B enters into an agreement, whereby A undertakes to accept certain bills of exchange, on certain conditions, the question, whether under the particular circumstances of the transaction, A was bound to accept a particular bill, is a question of law, and not a matter of fact. Laing v. Barclay, 3 Stark. 38. [Abbott]

A & Co., merchants in London, undertook to accept bills of B, a merchant in Demerara, to a certain amount, at the usual date, to enable him to load certain vessels, upon having the invoices, bills of lading, and orders for insurances sent to them, and no irregularity appearing. B sent the invoices, bills of lading, and orders to insure the goods, on board two vessels, to a large amount, to A & Co. and drew upon them a bill for 5007., at six months after sight, which A & Co. refused to accept: Held, that inasmuch as the jury had not found that six months was an unusual date, it must be taken to be a usual date; and that B was not bound to specify to which cargo the bill was to be charged; for that, in the absence of any direction by him, A & Co. might charge it to either, at their election. Laing v. Barclay, 1 Law J. K.B. 135, s. c. 2 D. & R. 530, a. c. 1 B. & C. 398.

A sold goods to B, in E, at whose risk they were shipped for L, to be paid for by three sets of bills on C & Co. D was placed on board as a supercargo and joint trustee for A and B, to see that money was remitted to meet the bills, and then to give the bill of lading to B.

B afterwards, without the knowledge of A, effected an insurance of the cargo through C & Co.

C & Co., when apprising A that they had paid two sets of bills, informed him, that whether they should accept the third set depended upon B's account. The ship was taken, and the insurers paid for a total loss: Held, that no acceptance of the bills had been made by C & Co., and that they were not bound to pay the proceeds of the policy in discharge of the bills. Neale v. Reid, 1 Law J. K.B. 198, s. c. 1 B. & C. 657, s. c. 3 D. & R. 158.

The defendants had sent an agent and a sub-agent to Mexico, for the purpose of purchasing interests in the mines; and payments had been made, on behalf of the defendants, to carry on the transactions; and which payments were provided for by bills, drawn by the sub-agent on the defendants, and with their consent; and before they could be presented for acceptance, they had transferred their interests in the mines to a company, who would DIGEST, 1822-1828.

113

have provided for the bills; but one of the defendants requested their agent, who then acted for the company, that funds might be placed in the defendants' hands to take up the bills, stating, that it would be unpleasant to have bills drawn upon their firm paid by a third party; on which it was agreed, that the defendants should have the money for the purpose of paying the bills, which were left at the defen, dants' house for acceptance, but not accepted; and when the agent informed another of the defendants of that circumstance, he said, that they had the money, and that the bill ought to be paid: Held, that this amounted to a parol acceptance, and that the defendants were liable to pay the bills to an indorsee, although he had in ignorance protested these bills for non-acceptance. Fairlee v. Herring, 4 Law J. C.P. 204, s. c. 3 Bing. 625. See 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 78.

(I) ACCEPTOR.

If a bill of exchange be drawn payable to the order of the drawer, at a particular place, without being addressed to any person, and the defendant afterwards accept it: Held, that such bill need not have been directed to, or describe the defendant by name, for that by such acceptance he adopted the place of payment. Gray v. Milner, 8 Taunt. 735, s. c. 3 B. Mo. 90.

Where B accepts a bill for the honour of the drawer, on the refusal of A, the drawee, it must be presented again to A for payment at maturity, before B can be charged on his acceptance; even in the case of a bill payable after sight. Williams v. Germaine, 6 Law J. K.B. 90, s. c. 1 M. & R. 394.

An acceptor of a bill is not discharged by the bill not being presented for payment for three or four years after it becomes due; he is only discharged by payment of the bill, or by a distinct and direct agreement by the holder to discharge him. Far. quhar v. Southey, 2 C. & P. 497, s. c. 1 M. & M. 14. [Littledale]

(J) TRANSFER AND INDORSEMENT.

A bill of exchange, accepted, payable to (blank) or order, may be filled up and indorsed by a bond fide holder, and declared on in that form. Attwood v. Griffin, 1 R. & M. 425, s. c. 2 C. & P. 368. [Best]

A bill of exchange may pass by indorsement in pencil. Geary v. Physic, 4 Law J. K.B. 147, s. c. 5 B. & C. 234, s. c. 7 D. & R. 653.

If there be two indorsements on a bill by the same party, and an intermediate one-the presumption is, that the first indorsement was on the bill before it became due. Fryer v. Brown, 1 R. & M. 145, [Abbott]

If a bill of exchange be not presented by an indorsee for payment until a year after it is due, the law will raise a presumption that it was indorsed after it became due, and the indorsee will be affected by the same liabilities as the drawer. Lloyd v. Davis, 3 Law J. K.B. 38.

A foreign note is negotiable in England by indorsement, by virtue of the stat. 3 & 4 A. c. 9. Bentley v. Northhouse, 1 M. & M. 66. [Tenterden]

A bill payable to the order of the drawer, having been dishonoured by the acceptor, and paid by the drawer when due: Held, that the drawer might indorse it over a year and a half afterwards, and that

P

114

BILL OF EXCHANGE—(PRESENTment for Payment).

his indorsee might recover against the acceptor. Hubbard v. Jackson, 6 Law J. C.P. 4, s. c. 4 Bing. 390, s. c. 1 M. & P. 11, s. c. 3 C. & P. 134.

In such case, the acceptor cannot inquire into the state of the accounts between the indorsee and drawer, nor will the state of such accounts furnish him with any defence. Hubbard v. Jackson, 6 Law J. C.P. 4, s. c. 4 Bing. 390, s. c. 1 M. & P. 11, s. c. 3 C. & P. 134.

JS drew a bill on the defendant (which the latter accepted for the accommodation of the former,) and indorsed it to the plaintiff as his agent, in which character the plaintiff paid it away, on account of the drawer, for wine contracted to be purchased for him. Subsequently, the wine contract being rescinded, the holder of the bill refused to give it up, until he had been paid a sum of 150l. which he alleged to be due to him from the drawer. The plaintiff engaged to pay it, received the bill, and sued the defendant as the acceptor: Held, that he was not entitled to recover, although it was insisted that he had a lien on it to the amount he had promised to pay the holder, on its being delivered up to him. Hallett v. Dewis, 6 Law J. C.P. 32, s. c. 1 M. & P. 79.

(K) PRESENTMENT FOR PAYMENT.

(a) Time.

Presentment of a bill of exchange to the acceptor (a merchant) between eight and nine o'clock at night is sufficient. Triggs v. Newnham, 3 Law J. C.P. 119, s. c. 1 C. & P. 631, s. c. 10 B. Mo. 249.

Where a bill of exchange was presented for payment out of banking hours, it was holden sufficient; it appearing that there was a person stationed there for the purpose of returning answers, and who said there were no orders. Garnett v. Woodcock, 6 M. & S. 44.

By the 1 and 2 Geo. 4, c. 78, a bill payable at a banker's, but not payable" there only," is a general acceptance, and the holder is not bound to present it at any particular time or place. Therefore, where the acceptor had effects in his banker's hands at the time when the bill became due, and for three weeks afterwards, when the banker failed: It was holden, that the neglect to present did not discharge the acceptor. Turner v. Hayden, 4 B. & C. 1, s. c. 6 D. & R. 5.

(b) Place.

Before the statute 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 78, if a bill of exchange were accepted, payable at the house of P & Co. it was a qualified acceptance, restricting the place of payment; and the holder was bound to present the bill at that house for payment, in order to charge the acceptor of the bill. If he brought an action npon the bill against the acceptor, he must in his declaration have averred and on the trial have proved that he made such presentment; and for want of such averment, the declaration was held bad on demurrer. Rowe v. Young, 2 Bligh, 391, s. c. 2 B. & B. 165.

But since that statute, where, in an action by the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, payable to the order of the drawer in London, the declaration stated, that the defendant accepted it at London, whereby he became liable to pay: Held, that it was unnecessary to aver or prove a present

ment for payment to the acceptor in London, or an excuse for not presenting it there. Selby v. Eden, 4 Law J. C.P. 198, s. c. 3 Bing. 611.

Where the drawer of a bill has required payment at a particular place-semble, that by the acceptance of such a bill, the acceptor takes upon himself the obligation of going to the place in question and paying. But otherwise, where the acceptor expressly qualifies his own acceptance, by saying, that he will pay at such a place, and nowhere else: there, the drawer or holder must go to the place of payment, and make the demand. Hoyle v. Bird, 5 Law J. K.B. 217, s. c. 6 B. & C. 531.

If a bill of exchange be accepted, payable at the house of S, P & S, and be so declared upon, it is not necessary to aver a presentment to the acceptor, or to S, P & S; a presentment at the house being sufficient. Hawkey v. Borwick, 1 Y. & J. 376, s. c. 4 Bing. 135.

If a bill is accepted payable at a particular place, and the acceptor dies before it becomes due, it is sufficient, in an action against the drawer, to prove presentment at the specified place, and it is not necessary to shew presentment at the house of the deceased's representative. Philpott v. Bryant, 3 C. & P. 244. [Park]

(L) NOTICE OF DISHONOUR.
(a) When necessary.

Where the payment of a bill of exchange is guaranteed, the guarantor is liable if the principal becomes insolvent, although he has not received notice of the non-payment. Holbrow v. Wilkins, 2 D. & R. 59, s. c. 1 B. & C. 10.

A foreign bill of exchange was drawn in favour of a person, to be put to the account of a company of merchants.

The payee, at Birmingham, paid it into his bankers' at Birmingham, there to be sent for acceptance to the drawees, who resided in London. It was sent by them to their corresponding bankers in London, and presented for acceptance, but refused. No notice of the non-acceptance was given to the bankers at Birmingham or to the payees.

The Court held that the payee was entitled to recover on the bill, from the bankers at Birmingham, as much as was really due to him from the drawers, from that company of merchants. Van Wart v. Woolley, 3 Law J. K.B. 51, s. c. 3 B. & C. 439, s. c. 5 D & R. 374.

A bill of exchange drawn by a party on himself, is in the nature of a promissory note, and does not require notice of non-acceptance to the drawer. Roach v. Ostler, 6 Law J. K.B. 43, s. c. 1 M. & R. 120.

If the law be, that, although a bill is drawn generally, it may be accepted specially, it is the effect of the law to impose a duty upon the holder, of giving notice to the drawer and previous indorsers, if he intends to keep alive their liability. Rowe v. Young, 2 Bligh, 407.

(b) By and to whom.

Where the drawer of a bill of exchange had no effects in the hands of the acceptor from the time of drawing the bill, till it became due, but the acceptor had received from the drawer, prior to this bill on which the action was brought, acceptances of the

BILL OF EXCHANGE—(NOTICE OF DISHONOUR).

drawer, upon which he had raised money, some of which acceptances had been returned dishonoured, and others were outstanding: Held, that the drawer was entitled to notice of dishonour of the bill. Spooner v. Gardiner, 1 R. & M. 84. [Best]

(c) Form and Mode.

A notice of non-payment of a bill of exchange in the following form: "I give you notice, that a bill for, &c. drawn by you, &c. lies at, &c. dishonoured," is insufficient to sustain an action against the indorser, who was not the drawer as well as the indorser. Beauchamp v. Cash, 1 D. & R. N.P.C. 3. [Abbott]

The notice of dishonour of a bill of exchange by the acceptor, must contain definite information what the bill is-by whom, and when drawn-on what day it was due-and that it was presented and dishonoured or it is insufficient. Hartley v. Case, 3 Law J. K.B. 262, s. c. 4 B. & C. 339, s. c. 6 D. & R. 505, s. c. 1 C. & P. 556.

Where a bill was dated Manchester,-it was holden that a notice of dishonour directed to the drawer at Manchester was a sufficient notice of dishonour. Mann v. Moors, 1 R. & M. 249. [Abbott]

But in an action by indorsee against indorser, it was holden, that a letter containing a notice of dishonour directed to "Mr. Haynes, Bristol," was too general to raise a presumption that he received it; and proving it was put into the post-office, was insufficient. Walter v. Haynes, 1 R. & M. [Abbott]

Where a letter giving notice of the dishonour of a bill, stated, "I did not know until within these few days where you were to be found:" It was holden sufficient, because the words these few days were not to be taken to prove that the notice was not given on the next day after the defendant's abode was discovered. Kerby v. England, 2 C. & P. 300. [Abbott]

In an action on a bill of exchange (against the drawer), in order to prove that notice of the defalcation of the acceptor had been duly given, a clerk was called, who said that a letter containing such notice was written by one of the plaintiffs and copied by him (the witness) into a letter-book, and that all letters so copied were regularly sent to the post-office, but that he himself did not carry the letter in question to the post, it being the duty of another clerk so to do: Held, that this was not evidence to prove the letter sent. Hawkes v. Salter, 6 Law J. C.P. 180, s. c. 4 Bing. 715, s. c. 1 M. & P. 750.

(d) Time.

The traveller of the plaintiffs, resident in London, received a promissory note in payment of a debt due to his employers, from A, at Derby, and paid it away to B, without communicating to his employers the names of the party from whom he had received it. B paid it to C, in Bedfordshire, by whom it was transmitted to his bankers, and the note was dishonoured on the 3d of April. On the 5th, the plaintiffs received notice of the dishonour, and not knowing the parties to the bill, wrote to B for information, who being then at Edinburgh, did not receive the letter until the 10th, when notice was sent to the plaintiffs, who received it on the 14th. On that day the plaintiffs wrote to C for the note,

115

and received it on the 16th, and by that day's post gave notice to A, the original indorser: Held, that the plaintiffs were not guilty of laches, as they had used due diligence in ascertaining the address of the next party. Baldwin v. Richardson, 1 B. & C. 245, s. c. 2 D. & R. 285.

Quare-Whether a notice to the drawer is premature, if given on the same day the bill has been once presented and dishonoured." Hartley v. Case,

3 Law J. K.B. 262, s. c. 4 B. & C. 339, s. c. 6 D. & R. 505, s. c. 1 C. & P. 556.

Where there has been fair and reasonable diligence used to obtain the address of the party to be charged with notice, the holder is not bound by a nice calculation of days; but his whole conduct is to be considered, with reference to the question, whether he has used due diligence or not.

Accordingly, where a bill was drawn at Frome, indorsed by the defendant, whose address was not known, and the holder took the chance in August, when the bill became due, of writing to the defendant at Frome where the drawer lived; and on the 16th of October, (inquiries being made in the interim,) the plaintiff's attorney found out the address, saw the plaintiff, and received his instructions on the 17th, and wrote on the 18th: It was held, that this sufficiently proved the allegation of due notice. Frith v. Thrush, 6 Law J. K.B. 358, s. c. 8 B. & C. 387.

A party receiving notice of dishonour of a bill of exchange, need not give notice to the party above him till the next post after the day on which he himself receives the notice, although he might easily give it that day, and there is no post on the day following. Geill v. Jeremy, 1 M. & M. 61. [Tenterden]

A bill of exchange accepted payable at a banker's at N. became due, and was presented for payment there, on a Saturday, and dishonoured. The post from N, to the place where the drawer resided, left N at half-past nine in the morning: Held, that notice sent to the drawer by the post of Tuesday morning was in time. Hawkes v. Salter, 6 Law J. C.P. 180, s. c. 4 Bing. 715, s. c. 1 M. & P. 750.

If a letter, giving notice of the dishonour of a bill, is put into the two-penny post-office, in time to be delivered on the proper day, in the ordinary course of business, but, from some delay in the office, does not reach its destination till afterwards, such delay in the office will not prejudice the party by whom the notice was given.

If there are several indorsers of a bill, and the last indorsee and holder resorts in the first instance to the first of such indorsers, he is not entitled to as many days as there are indorsers to give notice of dishonour in, but must give it within the same time as he would have been obliged to do it in, if he had resorted at first to his own immediate indorser. Dobree v. Eastwood, 3 C. & P. 250. [Burrough]

(e) When waived.

In a declaration by the holders against the drawers of a bill of exchange, averring that the bill was presented, and dishonoured by the drawers, neither of these averments was proved: Held, that the omission of notice to the drawers was waived by proof of an order given by them to the acceptor not to pay the bill if presented, but otherwise, as to

« PreviousContinue »