Page images
PDF
EPUB

§ 45.

(4) A bill is presented at the proper place : (a) Where a place of payment is specified in At what

place. the bill and the bill is there presented. The place of payment may be specified either by the drawer, or by the acceptor. If a bill is made payable at a bank in a town where there is a clearing-house, presentment through the clearing-house is deemed to be a presentment at the bank. If alternative places of payment are specified, presentment at either of such places is sufficient.

(6) Where no place of payment is specified,

but the address of the drawee or acceptor
is given in the bill, and the bill is there

presented.
(c) Where no place of payment is specified,

and no address given, and the bill is pre-
sented at the drawee's or acceptor's place
of business, if known, and if not, at his

ordinary residence if known.6
(d) In any other case, if presented to the

drawee or acceptor wherever he can be
found, or if presented at his last known

place of business or residence.?
(5) Where a bill is presented at the proper

place, and after the exercise of reasonable

3

| Gibb v. Mather (1832), 2 Cr. & J. 254 ; Walker v. Stetson (1869), 2 Amer. R. 405 ; German Exchange Law, Art. 42. 2 Saul v. Jones (1858), 28 L. J. Q. B. 37.

Reynolds v. Chettle (1811), 2 Camp. 595; Harris v. Parker (1833), 3 Tyr. 370. As to the practice of the clearing-house, see Boddington v. Schlencker (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 752.

4 Beeching v. Gower (1816), Holt N. P. C. 313 ; cf. Pollard v. Herries (1803), 3 B. & P. 335.

5 See Hine v. Allely (1833), 1 N. & M. 433 ; Buxton v. Jones (1840), 1 M. & Gr. 83.

6 See Sheil v. Britt (1823), 18 Mass. 412; Meyer v. Hibsher (1872), 47 New York R. at p. 270 ; Crosse v. Smith (1813), 1 M. & S. at p. 554. 7 See King v. Crowell (1873), 14 Amer. R. 560. C.

L

$ 45.

diligence no person authorized to pay or refuse payment can be found there, no further presentment to the drawee or acceptor is required.

ILLUSTRATIONS. 1. A bill is accepted “Payable at I, Duke Street, London.” The acceptor dies. Presentment at 1, Duke Street, is sufficient without making search for the acceptor's executor.

2. The acceptor of a bill accepts it payable at his banker's. The bill must be presented at the bank. A presentment to the acceptor personally is insufficient.2

3. A bill is addressed to “Mr. B., 1, Duke Street, London.” B. accepts it generally; The bill is presented at 1, Duke Street, and the house is found shut up. This is sufficient.3

4. A bill is addressed to “Mr. B., 1, Duke Street, London.” B. accepts it generally. The holder takes the bill to 1, Duke Street, and inquires for B. A woman living in the house informs him that B. has left. This is sufficient.*

5. A bill is accepted payable at a bank. When the bill matures the bank is the holder of the bill, but the acceptor has no assets there. This is sufficient. No personal demand on the acceptor is necessary. (6) Where a bill is drawn upon or accepted

by two or more persons who are not partners, and no place of payment is specified, presentment must be made to them all.

5

Two or more drawees.

This is probably declaratory, but the point was not clear. Of course, if one pays, or in refusing payment, acts as the agent of the others, that is enough.

(7) Where the drawee or acceptor of a bill is

[blocks in formation]

| Philpot v. Briant (1827), 3 C. & P. 244 ; cf. Wilkins v. Jadis (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 188.

2 Gibb v. Mather (1832), 2 Cr. & J. 254, Ex. Ch. ; Saul v. Jones (1858), 28 L. J. Q. B. 37.

3 Hine v. Alley (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 624; cf. Crosse v. Smith (1813), 1 M. & S. at p. 554.

4 Buxton v. Jones (1840), 1 M. & Gr. 83. 5 Bailey v. Porter (1845), 14 M. & W. 44.

6 Union Bank v. Willis (1844), 49 Massachus. R. 504 ; see Gates v. Beecher (1875), 60 New York R. 518, as to ex-partners; Britt v. Lawson (1878), 22 Hun, R. 123, New York, as to joint and several note.

dead, and no place of payment is specified, § 45.
presentment must be made to a personal
representative, if such there be, and with the
exercise of reasonable diligence he can be

found. This is declaratory. Compare sect. 41 (2) (a), as to presentment for acceptance, where different considerations apply, and a different rule is accordingly laid down. (8) Where authorized by agreement or usage Post offico.

a presentment through the post office is

sufficient. This gives effect to a recognised practice in England and the United States.?

The sufficiency of a presentment depends on whether Irregular reasonable diligence has been exercised or not. In presentment America the rule is the same as in England, though perhaps it is rather more laxly applied. See the authorities collected in the note to Berg v. Abbott. It has been held in America that if the payor has a known residence a presentment to him in the street is insufficient, unless he waive the irregularity and refuse payment on some other ground. It has also been held that where no place of payment is specified in a note all the parties may orally agree upon a place, and that a presentment there is sufficient to charge the indorser. If the payor cannot be found the question is whether due diligence has been used in the endeavour to find him and make presentment. See sect. 46 (2). Some of the foreign codes contain explicit provisions as to what is to be done in that case. German Exchange Law, Art. 91, provides that when a bill is not payable at a particular place it must be presented for

pay

1 Williams on Executors, 7th ed. p. 2003 ; cf. Caunt v. Thompson (1849), 7 C. B. 400 ; French Code, Art. 163.

? See Heywood v. Pickering (1874), L. R. 9 Q B. 428, at p. 432; Prideaux v. Criddle (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. at p. 461 ; Windham Bank v. Morton (1852), 22 Connecticut R. 214. 3 Berg v. Abbott (1877), 24 Amer. R. 158.

King v. Holmes (1849), 11 Pennsylv. R. 456. 5 Meyer v. Hibsher (1872), 47 New York R. 265.

4

[ocr errors]

ment at the office of the payor if he have one, and if not at his residence. If his office and residence are unknown, inquiry is to be made of the police, and the fact that search has been made for him is to be recorded in the protest. Art. 180 of the Netherlands Code provides that " in case the person by whom the bill is to be paid is utterly unknown, or not to be found, the protest must be made at the post office of the place indicated for payment, and if there be no post office, at the office of the magistrate of the place. The same course must be pursued when a bill has been made payable at another place than that where the drawer resides, and the domicile at which the payment must be made is not indicated.” See, too, s. 1748 of the Draft Code of New York.

Excuses for

46. (1) Delay in making presentment for delay or nonpresentment payment is excused when the delay is caused by for payment.

circumstances beyond the control of the holder, and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate presentment must be made with reasonable diligence.

ILLUSTRATIONS. 1. The holder of a bill dies suddenly just before it matures. The circumstances may be such as to excuse delay.?

2. Bill drawn in England, payable in Leghorn. At the time the bill matures Leghorn is besieged. The holder is not in Leghorn. This excuses delay.3

3. Bill presented for payment through the post (see sect. 45 (8)). It is sent off in time to reach the drawee on the day of maturity, but by mistake of the post-office is delayed some days. The delay is (probably) excused.

4. Bill drawn in England, payable in Paris. By a French moratory law, passed in consequence of war, the maturity of bills payable in Paris is postponed three months. The delay in making presentment is excused. 5

| Pothier, No. 144 ; Nouguier, $S 1107, 1108 ; Story, § 327 ; cf. Rothschild v. Currie (1841), 1 Q. B. at p. 47.

2 Ibid.
3 Patience v. Townley (1805), 2 Smith, 223.

4 Windham Bank v. Morton (1852), 22 Connecticut R. 214; Pier v. Heinrichschoffer (1877), 29 Amer. R. 501 ; cf. sect. 49 (15), post, p. 163.

Rouquette v. Overmann (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 525.

[ocr errors]

ment for

The cases do not clearly distinguish between excuses for

$ 46. non-presentment and excuses for delay in presentment, but when the question is one of reasonable diligence the distinction is an important one. If presentment is delayed at the request of the drawer or indorser sought to be charged, the delay is presumably excused.2 (2) Presentment for payment is dispensed Excuses for

non-present with, (a) Where, after the exercise of reasonable payment.

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 dis-
honoured, does not dispense with the neces-
sity for presentment.

ILLUSTRATIONS. 1. Bill drawn on B. is accepted by an agent. At the time the bill matures B. is abroad. This is no excuse, presentment should be made to the agent.3

2. B. makes a note “Payable at Guildford.” B. has no residence there. The bill is presented at two banks, and then treated as dishonoured. This is sufficient.

3. The drawer of a bill orders the acceptor not to pay it. The holder hears of this. Presentment is not dispensed with.

4. The acceptor of a bill informs the holder that he cannot, or will not, pay it when due. Presentment is not dispensed with.

5. The acceptor of a bill becomes bankrupt before it matures. Presentment is not excused.7

6. B. makes a note payable at “1, X. Street, London.” Before

1 Cf. Allen v. Edmundson (1848), 2 Rxch. at p. 724, notice of dishonour.

2 Lord Ward v. Oxford Railway Co. (1852), 2 De G. M. & G. 750.
3 Philips v. Astling (1809), 2 Taunt. 206.
4 Hardy v. Woodroofe (1818), 2 Stark. 319.

5 Hill v. Heap (1823), D. & R. N. P. C. 57; cf. Nicholson v. Gouthit (1796), 2 H. Bl. 609.

6 Baker v. Birch (1811), 3 Camp. 107; Ex parte Bignold (1836), 1 Deac. 712.

7 Esdaile v. Sowerby (1809), 11 East, at p. 117; Bowes v. Howe (1813), 5 Taunt. 30, Ex. Ch. ; Pothier, No. 147.

« PreviousContinue »