If a deed be first executed, and then written or filled up, the deed is void;(w) but it is otherwise with a bill of exchange. For, if a stamped paper be signed, leaving blanks for the date, sum, time when payable, and name of the drawee, the drawer will be chargeable for any sum afterwards inserted within the amount warranted by the stamp. It is a letter of credit for an indefinite but not unlimited sum.(x)

By the 17 Geo. 3, c. 30, in every negotiable bill, note, or draft, under 51., the signature of the drawer or maker, must be attested by one subscribing witness at the least. And though, in all other cases a subscribing witness is unnecessary, yet if there be one, he must be called; but if he cannot prove it, other evidence is then admissible.(y) So, if he purposely keep out of the way, or diligent search have been made for him without effect.(z)

[*66]

If a question arises whether a party signing a note, *be the same person who has done some other act, as for example, made a payment on account of the note, the attesting witness must be called.(a)

A bill of exchange, being in its original, a letter, should be properly addressed to the drawee. But where a bill was made payable "at No. 1, Wilmot Street, opposite the Lamb, Bethnal Green, London," without mentioning the drawee's name, and the defendant accepted it, he was not allowed to make the objection.(b) But a bill cannot be addressed to one man and accepted by another.(c) A bill directed to A., or in his absence to B., being accepted by A., may be declared on without taking notice of B.(d) If the word at precede the drawee's name, whether inserted ignorantly or fraudulently, the instrument is still a bill of exchange. (e) A bill may be directed to

(w) Com. Dig. Fait, (A.) 1.

Snaith v. Min

(x) Collis v. Emett, 1 H. Bl. 313; Russell v. Langstaffe, 2 Doug. 496 ; gay, 1 M. & S. 87; Leslie v. Hastings, 1 M. & R. 119; Molloy v. Delves, 7 Bing. 428;

5 M. & P. 275; 4 C. & P. 492, S. C.

(y) Lemon v. Deane, 2 Camp. 636, n.

(2) Burt v. Walker, 4 B. & Ald. 697.

(a) Wilde v. Porter, 3 N. & M. 585.

(b) Gray v. Milner, 8 Taunt. 639; 3 Moore, 90, S. C.

(c) Davis v. Clark, 13 L. J. 305, Q. B.; 6 Q. B. 16, S. C.

(d) Anon. 12 Mod. 447.

(e) Shuttleworth v. Stephens, 1 Camp. 407; Rex v. Hunter, R. & R. C. C. 511; Allan v. Mawson, 4 Camp. 115.

the drawer himself, though it is, in that case, rather a note than a bill. (ƒ)(1)

If the drawer intends that the bill should be payable at a particular place, he may insert such a direction. Without the words, "only and not elsewhere," appended to such direction, the acceptance will be general, within 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 78,(g) so as to charge the acceptor. The drawer himself cannot be charged, unless the bill have been presented at the place where the drawer himself made it payable.(h) This statute does not apply to promissory notes; and, therefore, if any place of payment be mentioned in the body of a note, it is part of the contract. The place of payment must be described in the declaration, and a presentment there is essential, in order to charge the maker or any other party.(i) But, where the place of payment is merely stated in a memorandum at the foot or in the margin of the note, by way of direction, it need not be noticed [*67] in pleading, and presentment there is not essential.(k)

(ƒ) Block v. Bell, 1 Mood. & Rob. 149; Starke v. Cheesman, Carth. 509 ; Dehers v. Harriott, 1 Show. 163; Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1077; Jocelyn v. Laserre, Fort. 282; see Davis v. Clarke, 6 Q. B. Rep. 16.

(9) Selby v. Eden, 3 Bing. 611; 11 Moore, 511, S. C.; Fayle v. Bird, 6 B. & C. 531; 9 Dowl. & R. 639.

(k) Gibb v. Mather, in error, 8 Bing. 214; 1 M. & Scott, 387, S. C.; 2 C. & J. 254, S. C.; Hodge v. Fillis, 3 Camp. 463.

(i) Sanderson v. Bowes, 14 East, 500; Roche v. Campbell, 3 Camp. 247.

(k) Price v. Mitchel, 4 Camp. 200; Exon v. Russell, 4 M. & Sel. 506; Williams v. Waring, 10 B. & C. 2; 5 M. & Ry. 9, S. C. But in Hardy v. Woodruffe, 2 Stark. 319, in and Sproule. Legg, 3 Stark. 156. Lord Tenderden held that the note might be described as made payable at a place mentioned in the memorandum only.

(1) It is not necessary to constitute a bill of exchange, that there should be three distinct parties to it. A bill drawn by a party upon himself is a bill of exchange in the hands of an indorsee. Randolph v. Parish, 9 Porter, 76.

A general request in writing to pay money to the drawer's own order, is a bill of exchange which the drawer may make payable to himself by indorsement and notice to the acceptor before it is due. Rice v. Hogan, 8 Dana, 133.

It is not necessary that the various parties to a negotiable instrument should be different persons in order to render it a

bill of exchange. Wildes v. Savage, 1 Story, 22. An order drawn by the president of a corporation on the treasurer, payable on demand, may be declared on when dishonoured as a bill of exchange. Wetumpka & Coosa Railroad v. Bingham, 5 Alabama, 657. Hasey v. White Pigeon Beet Sugar Co., 1 Doug. 193. Such a bill is the same, in legal effect, as a promissory note; it imports a promise to pay on demand, and an action may be maintained upon it without proof of a demand of payment from the treasurer of the corporation. Ibid.

But where the whole note was printed (except the names, dates, and sum,) and a place of payment was also printed at the bottom of the note, Lord Ellenborough held that a special presentment at this particular place was necessary.() If the drawer of a bill makes it payable at his own house, that circumstance is evidence of its being an accommodation bill.(m)

The 7 Geo. 4, c. 6, s. 10, enacts, that every promissory note under 201., payable to bearer on demand, must be made payable at the place where issued, but may be made payable at other places also.

Bills or notes drawn by co-partnerships or corporations of more than six persons, must, by 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, specify the place of payment, and that place must not be in London, or within sixty-five miles thereof, unless in case of a bill for 501., and upwards, drawn payable at some period after date or sight.(n) But this restriction, as to making the bills payable in London, is now removed by 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 83, s. 2. And the restriction is further relaxed by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 32, s. 26.

Notes of the branches of the Bank of England are payable at the Bank in London; but none of their notes are payable at a branch bank, unless specially made payable at such branch.(0)

The direction to place to account is unnecessary.(p)

A bill is sometimes directed to be paid "as per advice;" sometimes" without further advice;" sometimes "with or without further advice;" and sometimes, and more commonly, without any of these words. In the first case, it is said the drawee is not justified in paying without further advice.(q)

(1) Trecothick v. Edwin, 1 Stark. 468.

(m) Sharp v. Bailey, 9 B. & C. 44; 4 Man. & Ry. 4, S. C.

(n) 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, s. 1.

(0) 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 98, s. 6, which they must now be; see p. 53.
(p) Laing v. Barclay, 1 B. & C. 398; 2 D. & R. 530, S. C.
(g) Chitty, 162, 9th ed.

*CHAPTER VII.

[ *68]

OF AMBIGUOUS, CONDITIONAL,(a) AND IRREGULAR INSTRUMENTS.

A NOTE cannot of course be made by a man to himself, without more. Neither can it be made to himself and another man.(b)

But a note made payable to the maker's order becomes, in legal effect, when indorsed in blank, a note payable to bearer ; (c) and when specially indorsed, a note payable to the indorsee's order.(d)

If an instrument be made in terms so ambigious that it is doubtful whether it be a bill of exchance or promissory note, the holder may treat it as either, at his election.(1) Thus, where *for goods

sold and delivered the defendant gave the plaintiff an instru- [ *69]

(a) As to the contracting words in promissory notes, see Chapter ii.

(b) See Moffatt v. Van Milligen, 2 Bos. & Pul. 124, n.; Mainwaring v. Newman, ibid. 120; and see Teague v. Hubbard, 8 B. & C. 345. Quære, whether a note promising to pay to the maker's order, or to the maker or order, be a note within the statute. Such a note was sued on in Richards v. Macey, 14 M. & W. 484. It should rather seem, when indorsed by the maker in blank, to be in legal effect a note payable to bearer. So decided by the Court of C. P. since these observations were written. Browne v. De Winton, 17 L. J. 281, C. P.; 6 C. B. 336, S. C.; see ante, Chapter iv.

(e) Brown v. De Winton, 17 L. J. 280, C. P.; 6 C. B. 336, S. C. (d) Gay v. Lander, 17 L. J. 287, C. P.; 6 C. B. 336, S. C.

(1) An indorsement on a bond, order ing the contents to be paid to order for value received is a good bill of exchange.

Bay v. Freazer, 1 Bay, 66. So of a request to pay a promissory note, written under the note by the promisor; and the

Three months after date, I promise to pay Mr. John Bury, or order, forty-four pounds, eleven shillings, and five pence, value received.

And Grutherot's name was written across the instrument as an acceptance, and Bury's name on the back as an indorsement, it was held that the plaintiff might treat the defendant Bury either as a drawer of a bill or maker of a note, and therefore was not bound to give him notice of dishonour.(e)

So where an instrument was in the following form :—

21st October, 1804. Two months after date, pay to the order of John Jenkins, £78 118., value received.

Lord Ellenborough held that it was properly a bill of exchange, but

(e) Edis v. Bury, 6 B. & C. 433; 39 Dowl. & R. 392; see Edwards v. Dick, 4 B. & Ald. 212; Block v. Bell, 1 M. & Rob. 149; see Dickenson v. Teague, 4 Tyrwh. 450; 1 C., M. & R, 241, S. C.