supra. Where a bill is accepted by an agent, the drawee being abroad, presentment to the agent must be proved. Philips v. Astling, 2 Taunt.. 206.

A bill, payable at a banker's, must be presented within banking hours; Parker v. Gordon, 7 East, 385; Elford v. Teed, 1 M. & S. 28; but, if presented after, and a servant at the banking-house returns for answer "no orders," it is sufficient; Garnett v. Woodcock, 6 M. & S. 44; Henry v. Lee, 2 Chitty, 124. Presentment at 8 p.m. at the private residence of a merchant is good. Barclay v. Bailey, 2 Camp. 527. So, at the place where the bill is made payable (not being the banker's) between 7 and 8 p.m., though no one be there. Wilkins v. Jadis, 2 B. & Ad. 188. Presentment to a banker's clerk at the clearing-house is a presentment at the banker's. Reynolds v. Chettle, 2 Camp. 596; Harris v. Packer, 3 Tyr. 370, n.

Where the bill is directed to a drawee by a certain address and accepted generally, it is enough to present it to an inmate of the house at such address, though the drawee has in the meantime removed. Buxton v. Jones, 1 M. & Gr. 83.

Presentment-proof of.] A part payment (Vaughan v. Fuller, Stra. 1246), or a promise to pay after the bill is due, is prima facie evidence, as an admission that the bill was duly presented. Lundie v. Robertson, 7 East, 231; Croxon v. Worthen, 5 M. & W. 5.

Presentment delayed or excused.-Statute.] By sect. 46 (1.), "Delay in making presentment for payment is excused when the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder" (vide sect. 2, ante, p. 340), and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentment must be made with reasonable diligence.

66

66

(2.) Presentment for payment is dispensed with,

"(a.) Where, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, presentment, as required by this Act, cannot be effected.

"The fact that the holder has reason to believe that the bill will, on presentment, be dishonoured, does not dispense with the necessity for presentment.

"(b.) Where the drawee is a fictitious person.

"(c.) As regards the drawer where the drawee or acceptor is not bound,

as between himself and the drawer, to accept or pay the bill, and the drawer has no reason to believe that the bill would be paid if presented.

“(d.) As regards an indorser, where the bill was accepted or made for the accommodation of that indorser, and he has no reason to expect that the bill would be paid if presented.

"(e.) By waiver of presentment, express or implied."

Dishonour by non-payment.-Statute.] honoured by non-payment

Sect. 47. "(1.) A bill is dis

"(a.) When it is duly presented for payment and payment is refused or cannot be obtained; or

"(b.) When presentment is excused and the bill is overdue and unpaid. (2.) Subject to the provisions of this Act, when a bill is dishonoured by non-payment, an immediate right of recourse against the drawer and indorsers accrues to the holder."

Vide sects. 65 to 68, post, pp. 379, 380, as to acceptance and payment for honour.

VOL. I.

BB

Notice of dishonour and effect of non-notice.-Statute.] Sect. 48. "Subject to the provisions of this Act" (vide sect. 50, post, pp. 372, 376, 377), when a bill has been dishonoured by non-acceptance or by non-payment, notice of dishonour must be given to the drawer and each indorser, and any drawer or indorser to whom such notice is not given is discharged; Provided that—

"(1.) Where a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, and notice of dishonour is not given, the rights of a holder in due course" (vide sect. 29, ante, p. 343), "subsequent to the omission, shall not be prejudiced by the omission.

"(2.) Where a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, and due notice of dishonour is given, it shall not be necessary to give notice of a subsequent dishonour by non-payment unless the bill shall in the meantime have been accepted."

Notice of dishonour-when sufficient. Statute.] Sect. 49. "Notice of dishonour, in order to be valid and effectual, must be given in accordance with the following rules:

"(5.) The notice may be given in writing or by personal communication, and may be given in any terms which sufficiently identify the bill, and intimate that the bill has been dishonoured by nonacceptance or non-payment.

"(6.) The return of a dishonoured bill to the drawer or an indorser is, in point of form, deemed a sufficient notice of dishonour. “(7.) A written notice need not be signed, and an insufficient written notice may be supplemented and validated by verbal communication. A misdescription of the bill shall not vitiate the notice unless the party to whom the notice is given is in fact misled thereby."

Notice of dishonour-when sufficient.] Proof of knowledge of dishonour is not equivalent to proof of notice. See Burgh v. Legge, 5 M. & W. 418; and Solarte v. Palmer, 7 Bing. 530; 1 N. C. 194, D. P.

Repeated calls at the drawer's house without effect are not evidence of notice, but may excuse notice altogether, and should be pleaded in excuse. Allen v. Edmundson, 2 Exch. 719.

If the presentment and notice of dishonour, as proved, be sufficient, the allegations in the statement of claim will be amended by the judge at the trial to meet the facts proved; as where the presentment for payment was stated to have been to the acceptor, and notice of dishonour to the defendant, the judge may amend, by stating the death of the acceptor, that the defendant was his executor, and a presentment to the defendant for payment; Caunt v. Thompson, 7 C. B. 400; or, the claim may be amended by alleging a waiver of notice; Killby v. Rochussen, 18 C. B., N. S. 357; Cordery v. Colville, 14 C. B., N. S. 374; 32 L. J., C. P. 210, cited post, p. 377.

By whom notice should be given.—Statute.] By sect. 49, "(1.) The notice must be given by or on behalf of the holder" (see sect. 2, ante, p. 340), "or by or on behalf of an indorser who, at the time of giving it, is himself liable on the bill.

(2.) Notice of dishonour may be given by an agent either in his own name or in the name of any party entitled to give notice, whether that party be his principal or not.

(3.) Where the notice is given by or on behalf of the holder, it enures for the benefit of all subsequent holders and all prior indorsers who have a right of recourse against the party to whom it is given.

"(4.) Where notice is given by or on behalf of an indorser entitled to give notice as herein before provided, it enures for the benefit of the holder and all indorsers subsequent to the party to whom notice is given."

"(13.) Where a bill when dishonoured is in the hands of an agent, he may either himself give notice to the parties liable on the bill, or he may give notice to his principal."

By whom notice should be given.] A bill was drawn by A., indorsed by him to B., and by him to plaintiff, in whose hands it was dishonoured; plaintiff's attorney gave notice of dishonour to A. in due time, either for plaintiff or B., but by mistake stated he applied for payment on behalf of B. (from whom he had no authority), and it was held that the notice was sufficient notwithstanding the misrepresentation. Harrison v. Ruscoe, 15 M. & W. 231. And, after a bill has in fact been dishonoured, an unequivocal notice that it has been dishonoured is good, if given by a party to the bill, though he had at the time no certain knowledge of the fact. Jennings v. Roberts, 4 E. & B. 615; 24 L. J., Q. B. 102. A notice by the holder's solicitor, not stating on whose behalf the notice is given, is sufficient. Woodthorpe v. Lawes, 2 M. & W. 109.

To whom notice should be given-Statute.] By sect. 49, "(8.) Where notice of dishonour is required to be given to any person, it may be given either to the party himself, or to his agent in that behalf.

"(9.) Where the drawer or indorser is dead, and the party giving notice knows it, the notice must be given to a personal representative if such there be, and with the exercise of reasonable diligence he can be found.

(10.) Where the drawer or indorser is bankrupt, notice may be given either to the party himself or to the trustee.

"(11.) Where there are two or more drawers or indorsers who are not partners, notice must be given to each of them, unless one of them has authority to receive such notice for the others.

"(13.) Where a bill when dishonoured is in the hands of an agent, he may either himself give notice to the parties liable on the bill, or he may give notice to his principal. If he give notice to his principal, he must do so within the same time as if he were the holder, and the principal upon receipt of such notice has himself the same time for giving notice as if the agent had been an independent holder."

By sub-sects. (3, 4), ante, pp. 370, 371, notice given by the holder or indorser enures for the benefit of other persons having remedies on the bill.

To whom notice should be given.] Where the drawers are in partnership, a notice to one is notice to all; and therefore where a bill is drawn by a firm upon one of that firm, and dishonoured, notice of the dishonour need not be given to the firm. Porthouse v. Parker, 1 Camp. 82. But, it seems that notice to a member of a public company or quasi-corporation is not notice to the company. Steward v. Dunn, 12 M. & W. 664, per Parke, R.; Powles v. Page, 3 C. B. 16. The indorser of a dishonoured bill was abroad, but had a house in England, and the bill was shown to his wife there, and payment demanded, and she was also informed of the non-payment: held sufficient. Cromwell v. Hynson, 2 Esp. 511; Housego v. Cowne, 2 M. & W. 348. Where a substituted bill has been given and dishonoured, and the plaintiff sues on the first bill, he need not prove notice of the dishonour of the substituted bill, the defendant being no party to it. Bishop v. Rowe, 3 M. & S. 362. Presentation at the banking

house where a bill is made payable "in need" by the indorsee is not notice of dishonour to the indorsers. Ex pte. Prange, L. R., 1 Eq. 1.

Time within which notice must be given-Statute.] By sect. 49, "(12.) The notice may be given as soon as the bill is dishonoured, and must be given within a reasonable time thereafter.

"In the absence of special circumstances notice is not deemed to have been given within a reasonable time unless

"(a) Where the person giving and the person to receive notice reside in the same place, the notice is given or sent off in time to reach the latter on the day after the dishonour of the bill.

"(b) Where the person giving and the person to receive notice reside in different places, the notice is sent off on the day after the dishonour of the bill, if there be a post at a convenient hour on that day, and if there be no such post on that day, then by the next post thereafter."

(13.) ante, p. 371, regulates the time within which notice must be given by an agent in whose hands a bill of exchange is dishonoured.

"(14.) Where a party to a bill receives due notice of dishonour, he has, after the receipt of such notice, the same period of time for giving notice to antecedent parties that the holder has after the dishonour."

Sect. 50. "(1.) Delay in giving notice of dishonour is excused where the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the party giving notice, and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate, the notice must be given with reasonable diligence."

By sect. 49 (15), post, p. 373, delay caused by miscarriage in the post office is excused.

By sect. 92, "Where, by this Act, the time limited for doing any act or thing is less than three days, in reckoning time, non-business days are excluded.

"Non-business days for the purposes of this Act mean

(a.) Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day:

(b.) A bank holiday under the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, or Acts amending it:

"(c.) A day appointed by Royal proclamation as a public fast or thanks

giving day.

Any other day is a business day."

By sect. 72 (3), ante, p. 345, the necessity for and sufficiency of a notice of dishonour are determined by the law of the place where the bill is dishonoured.

As to excuse for delay under sect. 50 (1), ante, p. 372, on the ground that the holder does not know the address of the drawer or indorser, vide post, pp. 378, 379. As to what are holidays under the Bank Holidays Acts, vide ante, p. 351.

Time within which notice must be given.] The principle when there are several indorsements is that each indorser has his own day to give notice, but, the holder has not as many days to give notice to the drawer, or prior indorser, as there are intermediate indorsers. He can sue the drawer upon a notice given by the last indorser only if each and every prior indorser has in due time given notice of dishonour to the next preceding indorser. A single default breaks the chain of notices and disqualifies the holder from suing any indorser prior to the defective link, unless a direct and immediate notice has been given by the plaintiff to the person sued. Rowe v. Tipper, 13 C. B. 249; 22 L. J., C. P. 135; Turner

v. Leech, 4 B. & A. 451; Marsh v. Maxwell, 2 Camp. 210, n. Where the holder employs a solicitor to ascertain the residence of a prior indorser, the latter has, after he has received it, a day before giving notice of dishonour. Firth v. Thrush, 8 B. & C. 387. When a bill has passed through several branch banks of the same establishment, each is to be considered as a separate party, so as to be entitled to the usual time for giving notice of dishonour, though the bill may have passed by delivery without indorsement. Clode v. Bayley, 12 M. & W. 51. So, where, in the ordinary course of business, it has passed through several independent banks. Prideaux v. Criddle, L. R., 4 Q. B. 455. It may be observed that the decision of Kindersley, V.-C., in Ex pte. Prange, L. R., 1 Eq. 1, is hardly consistent with the above cases.

If the notice of dishonour, sent to the drawer of a bill, arrive too late through misdirection, it is for the jury to say whether the holder used "due diligence" to find the drawer's address; Siggers v. Brown, 1 M. & Rob. 520; and, if the delay arose from the bill having been sent to a wrong person through a mistake caused by the indistinctness of the drawer's writing on the bill, he is not discharged. Hewitt v. Thomson, Id. 543.

Notice, proof of, by admission.] Admission of liability is evidence of notice; as, by a promise to pay; for this admits everything done to entitle the plaintiff to sue; Lundie v. Robertson, 7 East, 231; Croxon v. Worthen, 5 M. & W. 5; even though it is proved or admitted that notice was not in fact given. Killby v. Rochussen, 18 C. B., N. S. 357. So, a declaration by the defendant made to a party to, but not the holder of the bill, of his intention to pay the bill, "and not to avail himself of the informality of notice," is evidence of due notice. Brownell v. Bonney, 1 Q. B. 39. So, where defendant knew that the bill was unpaid, and only objected to pay it on the ground of fraud in the holder, Lord Tenterden, C. J., held this evidence of due notice. Wilkins v. Jadis, 1 M. & Rob. 41. A promise to pay, though conditional as to the mode of payment, is sufficient. Campbell v. Webster, 2 C. B. 258. So, where the drawer of a foreign bill, on being told it was dishonoured, said that his affairs are deranged, but that he would be glad to pay it as soon as his accounts with his agents are cleared, this is sufficient proof of a protest having been duly made. Gibbon v. Coggon, 2 Camp. 188; Greenway v. Hindley, 4 Camp. 52. Where the plaintiff gave in evidence an agreement made between the prior indorser and the defendant (the drawer), after the bill became due, reciting, that the defendant had drawn the bill in question, that it was overdue and ought to be in the hands of the prior indorser, and it was agreed that the latter should take the money due to him upon the bill by instalments; this agreement was held to dispense with other proof of notice of dishonour. Gunson v. Metz, 1 B. & C. 193. But, a mere offer, upon being arrested, to give another bill, was no evidence of notice. Cuming v. French, 2 Camp. 106, n. The drawer of a bill, being applied to for payment, said, "If the acceptor does not pay, I must; but exhaust all your influence with the acceptor first;" the drawer afterwards directed the applicant to raise the money on the lives of himself and the acceptor; it was held that this admission, though evidence, was not to be taken as conclusive of the defendant's having received, or waived, notice of dishonour of the bill. Hicks v. Beaufort, Dk. of, 4 N. C. 229.

Notice, proof of delivery of.] By sect. 49, "(15.) Where a notice of dishonour is duly addressed and posted, the sender is deemed to have given