« PreviousContinue »
not the holder indorse a bill, he is not a surety for the drawee or acceptor to the drawer; “such an indorsement creates no obligation to those who previously were parties to the bill, it is solely for the benefit of those who take subsequently. It is not a collateral engagement, but one on the bill, and it is for that reason and because the original bill has incident to it the capacity of an indorsement in the nature of an 'aval,' that such an indorsement requires no new stamp."
Nouguier, dealing with modern French law, defines an "aval une convention au moyen de laquelle un tiers, étranger à la lettre de change, se rend caution solidaire du paiement à l'echéance en faveur du tireur, de l'un des endosseurs ou de l'accepteur. Cet acte a recu le nom d'aval parce qu'il signifie faire valoir.” 2
If a person undertakes, for a commission, to indorse the bills of another person, the holder should apply for the indorsement within a reasonable time.3
57. Where a bill is dishonoured, the measure of damages, which shall be deemed to be liquidated damages, shall be as follows: (1) The holder may recover from any party
liable on the bill, and the drawer who has been compelled to pay the bill may recover from the acceptor, and an indorser who has been compelled to pay the bill may recover
Measure of damages against parties to dishonoured bill.
1 Steele v. M'Kinlay (1880), 5 App. Cas. 754 ; see also at p. 782, per Lord Watson, and his comments thereon in Macdonald v. Whitfield (1883), 8 App. Cas. 733, at p. 748.
? Vouguier, $S 821—840 ; French Code, Arts. 141, 142. See also Spanish Code, Arts. 475-478 ; Netherlands Code, Arts. 130—132 ; Italian Code, Arts. 274–276, which regulate avals for their different countries.
3 Payne v. Ives (1823), 3 D. & R. 664, discussed Goring v. Edmonds (1829), 6 Bing. 94, at p. 99.
4 See sect. 43, dishonour by non-acceptance ; sect. 47, dishonour by nonpayment.
This enables the damages given by this section to be recovered under Order XIV. ; London Bank v. Clancarty, (1892) 1 Q. B. 689, “ interest till payment or judgment”; Lawrence v. Wilcocks, (1892) 1 Q. B. 696, C. A., noting and interest till payment; Dando v. Boden, (1893) 1 Q. B. 318, “bank charges.” At common law the expenses of noting an inland bill could only be recovered as special damages (Rogers v. Hunt (1854), 10 Exch.
from the acceptor or from the drawer, or
(a) The amount of the bill :
sentment for payment if the bill is pay-
of the bill in any other case ::
cent. The sub-section though general in terms appears to apply
1 Re East of England Banking Co. (1868), L. R. 4 Ch. 14.
Lithgow v. Lyon (1805), Coop. Ch. Ca. 29 ; Laing v. Stone (1828), 2 M. & Ry. 562.
3 Foreign bill, not note ; see sect. 51 (2), ante, p. 171.
6 Harrison v. Dickson (1811), 3 Camp. 52, n. ; cf. Suse v. Pompe (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. at p. 566.
only to bills dishonoured at home. Bills dishonoured abroad fall exclusively under the next sub-section.
The sub-section, moreover, is not exhaustive; therefore when a foreign drawer has paid re-exchange, he may recover it from the English acceptor, and if he is liable for re-exchange, he may prove for it in bankruptcy against the acceptor's estate before actual payment..
In Ex parte Bank of Brazil, Chitty, J., held that where a bill protested for better security, had been accepted by a bank for the honour of the drawer, the bank could not recover the expenses of the acceptance for honour, and commission for so accepting. But this decision may perhaps be some day reconsidered by a court of appeal.3
(2) In the case of a bill which has been dis
honoured abroad, in lieu of the above damages, the holder may recover from the drawer, or an indorser, and the drawer or an indorser who has been compelled to pay the bill may recover from any party liable to him, the amount of the re-exchange with
interest thereon until the time of payment. It was formerly held that an English acceptor was not liable for re-exchange ;* but this rule, it appears, is no longer
4 law. “Re-exchange,” in its usual application, means the loss resulting from the dishonour of a bill in a country different to that in which it was drawn or indorsed. 6 The
i Re Commercial Bank of South Australia (1887), 36 Ch. D. 522.
? Ex parte Robarts, Re Gillespie (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 702 ; affirmed, with reduction of amount, 18 Q. B. D. 286, C. A. According to the judgment of Cave, J., the object of the section is to fix the amount which may be inserted in a specially-indorsed writ as liquidated damages, and not to deprive any party of special damages.
3 Ex parte Bank of Brazil, (1893) 2 Ch. 438.
4 Napier v. Schneider (1810), 12 East, 420 ; Woolsey v. Crawford (1810), 2 Camp. 445 ; Dawson v. Morgan (1829), 9 B. & C. at p. 620.
* Ex parte Robarts (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 702, affirmed 18 Q. B. D. 286, C. A. : Re General South American Co. (1877), 7 Ch. D. 637 ; Pothier, No. 117 : Story, $ 398 ; unless the cases be explained as resting on the special contract between drawer and drawee. This might reconcile the decisions, but does not appear to be the ground of decision.
6 Cf. Willans v. Ayers (1877), 3 App. Cas. at p. 146, P. C. ; and see § 57.
re-exchange is ascertained by proof of the sum for which a sight bill (drawn at the time and place of dishonour at the then rate of exchange on the place where the drawer or indorser sought to be charged resides) must be drawn in order to realise at the place of dishonour the amount of the dishonoured bill and the expenses consequent on its dishonour. The expenses consequent on dishonour are the expenses of protest, postage, customary commission and brokerage, and, when a re-draft is drawn, the price of the stamp:
The holder may recoup himself by drawing a sight bill for such sum on either the drawer or one of the indorsers. Such bill is called a "re-draft.” The indorser who pays a re-draft may in like manner draw upon an antecedent party. For example :-A., in England, draws a bill for 1001. on B. in Calcutta, payable there at a rate of exchange indorsed thereon. This entitles the holder to receive (say) Rupees 1000. The bill is dishonoured, and the expenses of protest, &c., come to Rs. 10. The holder is then entitled to Rs. 1010 in Calcutta. At the time of dishonour sight bills on England are at 5 p. c. discount. Accordingly a sight bill on England for 1061. 18. Od., would realize in Calcutta Rs. 1010. The holder may either draw a sight bill on A. for 1061. ls. Od., and thus recoup himself, or he may sue A. in England for 1051. and interest, and 11. 1s. Od. expenses.
A custom according to which the holder may recover either the sum he gave for the bill or the re-exchange, at his option, is invalid ; 3 but a custom according to which a fixed rate of damages is substituted for re-exchange is probably valid. In some countries a fixed rate is provided for by statute.
The term “re-exchange" is used to signify (1) the amount of a re-draft, (2) the loss on a particular trans
Mellish v. Simeon (1794), 2 H. Bl. 378 (cumulative re-exchange against drawer) ; Suse v. Pompe (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. 538, see at pp. 566, 567; French Code, Arts. 177-186.
| De Tastet v. Baring (1809), 11 East, at p. 269 ; Suse v. Pompe (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. at pp. 566, 567 ; German Exchange Law, Art. 50.
: Cf. Mellish v. Simeon (1794), 2 H. Bl. 378; Suse v. Pompe (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. at p. 565; French Code, Art. 178; German Exchange Law, Art. 53.
3 Suse v. Pompe (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. 538.
Tobago, for example ; see Ex parte Robarts (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 286,
Control over nterest.
action occasioned by the exchange being adverse, (3) the
covered as damages, such interest may, if
same rate as interest proper. For example, if a valid tender had been made interest might be withheld from date of tender.“
58. (1) Where the holder of a bill payable to bearer negotiates it by delivery without indorsing it, he is called a “transferor by delivery.”
See holder defined by section 2, ante, p. 5; bill payable to bearer by sect. 8 (3), ante, p. 24; and negotiation by sect. 31, ante, p. 102. When a bill is transferred by delivery, the transaction is frequently spoken of in the cases as a sale of the bill. In mercantile phraseology sale has a different meaning, see ante, p. 84.
Transferor by delivery and transferee.
1 Cf. Suse v. Pompe (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. at p. 566.
2 See rate reduced, Ward v. Morrison (1842), Car. & M. 136 ; and see per Cotton, L.J., in Webster v. British Empire Co. (1880), 15 Ch. D. at pp. 175, 176.
3 Keene v. Keene (1857), 3 C. B. N. S. 144 ; cf. Ackermann v. Ehren. sperger (1846), 16 M. & W. at p. 103; Laing v. Stone (1828), 2 M. & Ry. 562.
• Dent v. Dunn (1812), 3 Camp. 296 ; see further Murray v. East India Co. (1821), 5 B. & Ald. 204 (holder dead and no demand of payment made) ; Phillips v. Franklin (1820), Gow, 196 (bill payable at particular place, and no demand there proved); cf. Bann v. Dalzell (1828), M. & M. 228.