A bill drawn by bankers in the country on their correspondents in London, payable after sight, was indorsed to the traveller of the plaintiffs. He transmitted it to the plaintiffs after the interval of a week, and they, two days afterwards, transmitted it for acceptance. Before it was presented to the drawees the drawer had become bankrupt; the drawees, consequently, refused to accept. Had the bill been sent by the traveller to the plaintiffs, his employers, as soon as he received it, they would have been able to get it accepted before the bankruptcy. "This is," says Lord Tenterden, "a mixed question of law and fact; and, in expressing my own opinion, I do not wish at all to withdraw the case from the jury. Whatever strictness may be required with respect to common bills of exchange, payable after sight, it does not seem unreasonable to treat bills of this nature, drawn by bankers on their correspondents, as not requiring immediate presentment, but as being retainable by the holders for the purpose of using them, within a moderate time (for indefinite delay, of course, cannot be allowed), as part of the circulating medium of the country." The jury concurred with his lordship, that the delay was not unreasonable.(e) Where the purchaser of a bill on Rio Janeiro, at sixty days' sight, the exchange being against him, kept it nearly five months, and the drawee failed before presentment, it was held that the delay was not un(e) Shute v. Robins, 1 M. & M. 133; 3 C. & P. 80 (14 E. C. L. R.), s. c. Dumont v. Pope, 7 Blackford 367. An order for money not drawn on time is payable on presentment and must be presented within a reasonable time, and if not paid the payee may have the draft protested and sue the drawer at once: Gallagher v. Raleigh, 7 Indiana 1. That a draft or check must be presented within a reasonable time, see Veazie Bank v. Winn, 40 Maine 60; Hooker v. Franklin, 2 Bonsall 500; East River Bank v. Godney, 4 E. D. Smith 582; Wesk v. Mad River Valley Bank, 8 Ohio (N. S.) 301; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Allen, 11 Michigan 501; Vantrot v. McCullough, 2 Hilton 272. An order by the secretary on the treasurer of a private corporation must be presented within a reasonable time: English v. Trustees, 6 Indiana 438. Laches of the holder in presenting a check will not discharge the drawer unless he is injured thereby: Morrison v. McCartney, 30 Missouri 153.

What is a reasonable time within which a draft must be presented to the drawee depends upon the circumstances of the case: Knott v. Venable, 42 Alabama 186; Fugitt v. Nixon, 44 Missouri 295; Salisbury v. Renick, Ibid. 554; Walsh v. Dart, 23 Wisc. 334.

As to due diligence in making demand or giving notice, see Gawtry v. Doan, 51 New York 84; Mount v. Bank, 37 Iowa 457; Herbert v. Servin, 41 New Jersey (Law) 225; Bank v. Adams, 11 S. C. 452.

reasonable. "The bill," says Tindal, C. J., "must be forwarded within a reasonable time under all the circumstances of the case, and there must be no unreasonable or improper delay. Whether there has been, in any particular case, reasonable diligence used, or whether unreasonable delay has occurred, is a mixed question of law and fact, to *be decided by the jury, acting under [*184] the direction of the judge, upon the particular circumstances of each case."(ƒ)

But where a bill, payable after sight, was drawn in duplicate on the 12th of August, in Newfoundland, and not presented for acceptance in London till November 16, and no circumstances were proved to excuse the delay, it was held unreasonable, (g) the court laying some stress on the fact that the bill was drawn in sets.

When the day on which a bill or note would otherwise be presented for acceptance is a bank holiday it is sufficient to present it on the morrow.(h)

Presentment should be made during the usual hours of business.(i)1

The holder may, however, put the bill into circulation without presenting it. "If a bill drawn at three days' sight," says Mr. Justice Buller, "be kept out in circulation for a year, I cannot say that there would be laches; but if, instead of putting it into circulation, the holder were to lock it up for any length of time, I should say that he would be guilty of laches."() "But this cannot mean," says Tindal, C. J., "that keeping it in hand for any time, however short, would make him guilty of laches. It can

(ƒ) Mellish v. Rawdon, 9 Bing. 416 (23 E. C. L. R.) ; 2 M. & Sc. 570, s. c. (g) Straker v. Graham, 4 M. & W. 721.

(h) 34 Vict. c. 17. The bank holidays in England are Easter Monday, Whit Monday, first Monday in August, 26th December (if a week day), otherwise the 27th: 38 Vict. c. 13, s. 2.

(i) Mar. 112; Parker v. Gordon, 7 East 385; 6 Esp. 41, s. c.; Leftley v. Bailey, 4 T. R. 170. In America it is held that business hours (except in the case of bankers) range through the whole day, down to the hours of rest in the evening. See Byles on Bills, 6th American edition, p. 285. (j) Muilman v. D'Eguino, 2 H. Bl. 565.

1 Business hours, except in the case of banks, range through the whole day, down to the hours of rest in the evening: Cayuga Bank v. Hunt, 2 Hill 635; Nehon v. Fotteral, 7 Leigh 179; Reed v. Wilson, 41 New Jersey (Law) 29.

never be required of him instantly on receipt of it, under all disadvantages, to put it into circulation. To hold the purchaser bound. by such an obligation would impede, if not altogether destroy, the market for buying and selling foreign bills, to the great injury, no less than to the inconvenience, of the drawer himself."(k) Two bills, one for 4007., the other for 500l., were drawn from Lisbon, on May 12, at thirty days after sight, indorsed to G. at Paris, and by G. to R. at Genoa, and by R. indorsed over. They were not presented for acceptance till 22d August. The jury found, and the court concurred, that the bills were, *under the circumstances, presented within a reasonable time. (1)

[*185]

Illness or other reasonable cause not attributable to the misconduct of the holder will excuse. But the holder must present, even should the drawer have desired the drawee not to accept,(m) though, as we shall see, the drawer in that case need have no notice of nonacceptance.1

The presentment must be made either to the drawee himself or to his authorized agent. The holder's servant called at the drawee's residence and showed the bill to some person in the drawee's tanyard, who refused to accept it; but the witness did not know the drawee's person, nor could he swear that the person to whom he offered the bill was he or represented himself to be so. Lord Ellenborough: "The evidence here offered proves no demand on the drawee, and is, therefore, insufficient."(n)

When the bill is presented it is reasonable that the drawee should be allowed some time to deliberate whether he will accept or no. It seems that he may demand twenty-four hours for this purpose (and

(k) Mellish v. Rawdon, 9 Bing. 416 (23 E. C. L. R.); 2 M. & Sc. 570, s. c. (7) Goupy v. Arden, 7 Taunt. 160 (2 E. C. L. R.); 2 Marsh. 454, s. c. In America it is held that though put into circulation it must still be presented within a reasonable time: Byles on Bills, 6th American edition, p. 283. (m) Hill v. Heap, D. & R., N. P. C. 57.

(n) Cheek v. Roper, 5 Esp. 175.

1One partner may waive the presentment of a bill drawn by the partnership without special authority: Bank v. Lonergan's Adm., 21 Missouri 46. When the words "acceptance waived" are embodied in a bill, the ordinary proceedings on acceptance are dispensed with and merged into those of payment or non-payment: Webb v. Mears, 9 Wright 222.

that the holder will be justified in leaving the bill with him for that period), at least, if the post do not go out in the interim,(0) or unless, in the interim, he either accepts or declares his resolution not to accept.(p) If more than twenty-four hours be given the holder ought to inform the antecedent parties of it.(q)1

If the owner of a bill who leaves it for acceptance by his negli gence enable a stranger to give such a description of it as to obtain it from the drawee without negligence on the drawee's part, the owner cannot maintain trover for it against the drawee.(r)

In case the bill is directed to the drawee at a particular place, it is to be considered as dishonored if the drawee *has ab[*186] sconded. (8)2 But, if he have merely changed his residence, or if the bill is not directed to him at any particular place, it is incumbent on the holder to use due diligence to find him out. And due diligence is a question of fact for the jury.(t) If the drawee be dead the holder should inquire after his personal representative, and, provided he live within a reasonable distance, present the bill to him.(u)

In an action against the drawer for non-acceptance, it is not suffi cient to allege mere non-acceptance; presentment for acceptance must be alleged.(x)

(0) Marius 15; Com. Dig. Merch. F. 6; Bellasis v. Hester, 1 Ld. Raym. 281. See the observations of Lord Cairns, Van Diemen's Bank v. Victoria Bank, L. R., 3 Pr. C. 526; 40 L. J., Pr. C. 8.

(p) Bayley 194, 6th ed.

(q) Ingram v. Foster, 2 Smith 242.

(r) Morrison v. Buchanan, 6 C. & P. 18 (25 E. C. L. R.).

(s) Anon., 1 Ld. Raym. 743.

(t) Collins v. Butler, 2 Stra. 1087; Bateman v. Joseph, 12 East 433. The general question is, did the parties use reasonable diligence, under the cir cumstances, for the purpose of getting the bill accepted and paid: Per L. J. Mellish, in Smith v. Bank of New South Wales, L. R., 41 L. J., Pr. C. 26. (u) Chitty, 9th ed. 357.

(x) Mercer v. Southwell, 2 Show. 180.

1 Drawee is entitled to twenty-four hours before acceptance or refusal: Case v. Burt, 15 Mich. 82.

2 Ratcliff v. Planters' Bank, 2 Sneed 425; Union Bank v. Fowlkes, Ibid. 555. Where the bill is addressed to the drawee at a particular house the presentment there is sufficient, unless the holder knows the true residence or place of business: Pierce v. Struthers, 3 Casey 249.

ACCEPTANCE, in its ordinary signification, is an engagement by the drawee to pay the bill when due,(a) in money.(b)

Before the acceptance the drawee is not liable to the holder.(c)1

*An instrument drawn by A. upon B., requiring him to pay to the order of C. a certain sum at a certain time

(a) Clark v. Cock, 4 East 72.

[*188]

(b) Russell v. Phillips, 19 L. J., Q. B. 297; 14 Q. B. 891 (68 E. C. L. R.),

S. C.

(c) See Frith v. Forbes, 31 L. J., Chan. 793; 32 L. J., Chan. 10, s. c.

The holder for value of a bill drawn in pursuance of a promise to accept by the drawee, and taken on the faith of such promise, may maintain an action in his own name against the drawee on his refusal to accept: Barney . Newcomb, 9 Cushing 46.