NOTE TO THE SEVENTH AMERICAN EDITION. THIS Edition, from the Thirteenth and last English Edition, is now presented to the American Profession. This treatise has won its way so entirely to public confidence, as an accurate and practical compendium of the law of Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, as evidenced by the demand constantly recurring for new editions, both in England and this country, that nothing further need be said in its favor. Much care has been bestowed upon the Editorial Department. The cases on the subject are so numerous in the American courts that the difficulty has been to avoid incumbering the work with crowded references. The Editor's effort has been to select and arrange the more important decisions, illustrative of the principles of the text, avoiding,-except in a few instances, in which it seemed important, for the sake of the Student, -any discussion of the grounds of the cases. In this respect, the character of the Notes has been made, as far as the ability of the Editor permitted, to conform to that of the text, which is remarkable for its succinctness and for its judicious selection of leading points and cases. It is evident that an attempt to do more-to make a library of the book-would have destroyed its symmetry and usefulness. DECEMBER, 1882. G. S. PREFACE TO THE THIRTEENTH EDITION. MANY of the old cases on Pleading and Practice have been retained in this Edition, as they afford an excellent guide to show what facts are material, and must be stated under the present system in order to support a case. For the additions and alterations in this Edition the Editor alone is responsible, although every sheet has passed under the eye of the Author. 1, PAPER BUILDINGS, TEMPLE, E.C. 11th February, 1879. MAURICE BARNARD BYLES. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. THERE is no vestige of the existence of bills of exchange* among the ancients, and the precise period of their introduction is somewhat controverted. It is, however, certain that they were in use in * Il n'y a aucun vestige de notre contrat de change, ni des lettres de change, dans le droit Romain. Ce n'est qu'il n'arrivât quelquefois chez les Romains, que l'on comptât pour quelqu'un une somme d'argent dans un lieu à une personne, qui se chargeoit de lui en faire compter autant dans un autre lieu. Ainsi nous voyons, dans les lettres de Cicéron à Atticus, que Cicéron voulant envoyer son fils faire ses études à Athènes, s'informe si pour épargner à son fils de porter lui-même à Athènes l'argent dont il y auroit besoin, on ne trouveroit pas quelque occasion de le compter, à Rome, à quelqu'un qui se chargeroit de le lui faire compter à Athènes.-Epist. ad Att. xii. 24; xv. 25. Mais cela n'étoit pas la négociation de lettres de change telle qu'elle a lieu parmi nous; cela se faisoit par de simples mandats. Cicéron chargeoit quelqu'un de ses amis de Rome qui avoit de l'argent à recevoir à Athènes, de faire tenir de l'argent à son fils à Athènes; et cet ami, pour exécuter le mandat de Cicéron, écrivoit à quelqu'un des débiteurs qu'il avoit à Athènes, et le chargeoit de compter une somme d'argent au fils de Cicéron. Au reste, on ne voit point qu'il se practiquât chez les Romains, comme parmi nous, un commerce de lettres de change: et nous trouvons au contraire, en la loi 4, ? 1, ff. de naut. Fæn., qui est de Papinien, que ceux qui prêtoient de l'argent à la grosse aventure aux marchands qui trafiquoient sur mer, envoyoient un de leurs esclaves pour recevoir de leur débiteur la somme prêtée lorsqu'il seroit arrivé au port où il devoit vendre ses marchandises; ce qui certainement n'aurait pas été nécessaire, si le commerce des lettres de change eût été en usage chez les Romains. Quelques auteurs ont prétendu que l'usage du contrat de change et des lettres de change est venu de la Lombardie, et que les Juifs, qui y étoient établis, en ont été les inventeurs: d'autres en attribuent l'invention aux Florentins, lorsqu'ayant été chassés de leur pays par la faction de Gibelins, ils s'établirent à Lyon et en d'autres villes. Il n'y a rien sur cela de certain, si ce n'est que les lettres de change étoient en usage dès le quatorzième siècle. C'est ce qui paroît par une loi de Venise de ce temps sur cette matière, rapportée par Nicholas de Passeribus, en son livre, De Script. Privat. lib. 3.— Pothier, Traité du Contrat de Change, Partie Prem.; Chap. 1, s. 1. the fourteenth century. Indeed, they are mentioned as "letteres d'eschange" in the English Statute Book (3 Ric. 2, c. 3), as early as the year 1379. Though we find in our English reports no decision relating to them earlier than the reign of James the First.* It is probable that a bill of exchange was, in its original, nothing more than a letter of credit from a merchant in one country, to his debtor, a merchant in another, requesting him to pay the debt to a third person, who carried the letter, and happening to be travelling to the place where the debtor resided. It was discovered by experience that this mode of making payments was extremely convenient to all parties:-to the creditor, for he could thus receive his debt without trouble, risk or expense-to the debtor, for the facility of payment was an equal accommodation to him, and perhaps drew after it facility of credit-to the bearer of the letter, who found himself in funds in a foreign country, without the danger and incumbrance of carrying specie. At first, perhaps, the letter contained many other things besides the order to give credit. But it was found that the original bearer might often, with advantage, transfer it to another. The letter was then disincumbered of all other matter; it was open and not sealed, and the paper on which it was written gradually shrank to the slip now in use. The assignee was, perhaps, desirous to know beforehand whether the party to whom it was addressed would pay it, and sometimes showed it to him for that purpose; his promise to pay was the origin of acceptances. These letters or bills, the representatives of debts due in a foreign country, were sometimes more, sometimes less, in demand; they became, by degrees, articles of traffic; and the present complicated and abstruse practice and theory of exchange was gradually formed. Upon their introduction into our country, other conveniences, as great as in international transactions, were found to attend them. They offered an easy and most effectual expedient for eluding the stubborn rule of the common law that a debt is not assignable; furnishing the assignee with an assignment binding on the original creditor, capable of being ratified by the debtor, perhaps guaranteed by a series of responsible sureties, and assignable still further, ad infinitum. Not only did these simple instruments transfer * Martin v. Boure, Cro. Jac. 6. |