wife, and that her indorsement did not transfer any interest to the plaintiff; consequently he was not entitled to recover on the special count: nor on the money counts, because no money had passed between the plaintiff and defendant. Where a promissory note is given to a married woman, the husband may sue on it, in his own name only'; and then a debt due to the maker from the wife dum sola cannot be set off. A promissory note made payable to a woman who is married at the time of the making, passes by the indorsement of the husband alone, during the coverture. Mason v. Morgan, 2 Ad. and Ell. 30. But if a promissory note is made payable to a married woman, and she indorses it for value in her own names, and the maker afterwards promises to pay it, in an action against him by the indorsee, it will be presumed, that the nominal payee had authority from her husband to indorse the note in that form, and the indorsement will be considered as vesting a legal title to the note in the plaintiff. So where the husband called on the defendant for payment of a debt due to the wife, and drew a bill, which was signed by his wife in his presence, at the request of, and accepted by, the defendant, and afterwards indorsed by the wife: the husband having obtained value from the plaintiffs, to whom he delivered the bill; it was holdent, that they might recover against the defendant, the acceptor, inasmuch as the indorsement was by the authority of the husband, and consequently the property passed to the plaintiffs. Bill of exchange payable to a woman dum sola-she afterwards marries, and then the bill becomes due and is dishonoured: the husband may sue in his own name without joining the wife, for the property in the bill and the right of transfer is vested by the marriage in the husband, and as he might have indorsed it in his own name, so he may sue in his own name without a formal indorsement; for a bill of exchange differs in this respect from other choses in action, that the right of action is vested in the indorsee, who may sue in his own name". Agent.-Bills of exchange may be drawn, accepted, or indorsed, by means of the agent or attorney of the party. An agent or attorney for this purpose may be constituted by parol. In such case the principal is said to draw, accept, or r Burrough v. Moss, 10 B. and C. t Prestwick and another v. Marshall, 558. 8 Cotes v. Davis, 1 Campb. 485. 7 bingh. 565. u M'Neilage v. Holloway, 1 B. and A. indorse, by procuration. Agents should be cautious how they accept bills directed to them personally, and not to their principals, although such direction describe them in their official characters; for in such case, if they accept in their own name, they will become personally responsible, as appears from the following case :-The plaintiff was indorsee of a bill of exchange, drawn from Scotland upon the defendant in these words, "At thirty days' sight pay to J. S. or order 2001. value received of him, and place the same to account of the York Buildings' Company, as per advice from Charles Mildmay. To Mr. Humphrey Bishop, cashier of the York Buildings' Company, at their house in Winchester Street, London. Accepted per H. Bishop." The bill not having been paid, an action was brought against defendant upon his acceptance at the trial he proved, that the letter of advice was addressed to the company; and that, the bill having been brought to their house, defendant was ordered to accept it, which he did in the same manner as he had accepted other bills. Page, J. directed the jury to find for the plaintiff, which they did accordingly. On motion for a new trial, the court held the direction right; "for the bill on the face of it imported to be drawn on the defendant, and it was accepted by him generally, and not as servant to the company, to whose account he had no right to charge it until actual payment by himself. And this being an action by an indorsee, it would be of dangerous consequence to trade, to admit evidence arising from extrinsic circumstances as the letter of advice. And this differed widely from the case of a bill addressed to the master, and underwritten by the servant: where undoubtedly the servant would not be liable, but his acceptance would be considered as the act of the master. A bill of exchange is a contract by the custom of merchants, and the whole of that contract must appear in writing. In this case there was nothing in writing to bind the company, nor could any action be maintained against them upon the bill: for the addition of cashier to defendant's name was only to denote the person with certainty; the direction to whose account to place it was for the use of the drawee only." Judgment for the plaintiff. One who covenants for himself, his heirs, &c. under his own hand and seal, for the act of another, shall be personally bound by his covenant, though he describe himself in the deed as covenanting for and on the part and behalf of such other person. Appleton v. Binks, 5 East, 148. Where the defendant, in the absence of his brother, who was liable to give the plaintiff a bill for goods supplied, signed it in his x Thomas v. Bishop, Str. 955. Ca. Temp. Hardw. 1. S. C. own name; it was holden, that he was personally liable, the debt of a third person being a sufficient consideration for which a third person may bind himself by bill, and the consideration need not be such as would enable the plaintiff to sue on a special contract. Sowerby v. Butcher, 2 Cr. & M. 368. But where A. entered into and signed an agreement as agent of B., and B. shortly afterwards signed it with the words "I hereby sanction this agreement, and approve of A.'s having signed it on my behalf," it was holden, that A. was not personally liable. Spittle v. Lavender, 2 Brod. and Bingh. 452. An agent to a country bank, to whom the plaintiff sent a sum of money in order to procure a bill upon London, drew, in his own name, for the amount upon the firm in London, the two firms being the same: it was holdeny that the agent was liable as drawer, although plaintiff knew that he was agent, and supposed that the bill was drawn by him as such, and on account of the country bank, to which the agent paid over the money. A power of attorney, authorising an agent to demand, sue for, recover, and receive, by all lawful ways and means whatsoever, all monies, debts, dues, whatsoever, and to give sufficient discharges, does not authorise him to indorse bills for his principal. Partners. By the custom of Englanda where there are joint traders, and one of them accepts a bill drawn on them for himself and partner, such acceptance binds all the partners, if it concerns the trade; otherwise, if it concerns the acceptor only, in a separate and distinct interest. If a bill of exchange is drawn upon a firm, and one of the partners accept it in his own name, this acceptance binds the partnership. So if A., B., and C. are in partnership, and A. draws a promissory note, by which he promises individually to pay the money, and which he signs with his own name only, but prefixing to his signature "for. A., B., and C." this binds the whole partnership. Where there are several partners it is competent to either of them, by his indorsement, in the name of the firm, to pass their interest in the bill; and such indorsement made by one partner for the satisfaction of his separate debt, cannot be questioned in an action by the indorsee against the acceptor, without shewing that the in y Leadbitter v. Farrow, 5 M. and S. 345. c Lord Galway v. Matthew, 1 Campb. 403. z Murray v. the East India Company, d Swan v. Steel, 7 East 210, recog 5 B. and A. 204. a Pinkney v. Hall, Salk. 126. b Mason v. Rumsey, 1 Campb. 384. nized in Vere v. Ashby, 10 B. and C. 296. Arden v. Sharpe and another, 2 Esp. N. P. C. 524. Wells v. Masterman, 2 Esp. N. P. C. 731. dorsement was at the time unknown to or unauthorised by the other partnere. But if a creditor of one of the partners collude with him to take security for his individual debt, out of the partnership funds, knowing at the time that it is without the consent of the other partners, it is fraudulent and void; but if it be taken bond fide without such knowledge at the time, no subsequently acquired knowledge of the misconduct of the partner, in giving such security, can disaffirm the act. If a bill is sent into circulation after the dissolution of a partnership, all the partners must join in the indorsement, and one by putting the partnership name thereon cannot bind the rest; for the moment the partnership ceases, the partners become distinct persons; from that time they are tenants in common of the partnership property undisposed of. In like manner, after a secret act of bankruptcy committed by one of two partners, the other cannot, by an indorsement in the name of the firm, transfer the property in a bill which belonged to the firm before the bankruptcy; for the partnership having ceased to exist, the solvent partner is to be considered as tenant in common with the assignees of the bankrupt partner, and the property in the bill can only be transferred by their respective indorsements. Indorsee v. defendant as one of the drawers of a bill of exchange, the other drawers having become bankrupts. The bill was drawn in the firm of "James King and Co." under which firm the defendant and his partners had traded. It appeared that there were other partnerships carried on under the same firm, in which the other drawers were concerned, but in which the defendant had no share. The defendant offered to shew that this bill was not drawn on account of the partnership in which he was concerned, but on account of one of the others, and that he knew nothing of it. Lord Kenyon, C. J. was of opinion that the defendant was nevertheless liable; he had traded with the other persons under that firm, any persons taking bills under it, though without his knowledge, had a right to look to him for payment. Baker v. Charlton, Peake's N. P. C. 80. e Ridley v. Taylor, 13 East, 175. f Abel v. Sutton, 3 Esp. N. P. C. 108. Kenyon, C. J. g Ramsbottom v. Lewis, 1 Campb. 279. III. Of the Requisites in a Bill of Exchange, and herein of the Stamp, Date and Consideration. In order to prevent any mistake in the manner of penning this instrument (although to constitute a bill of exchange there is not any precise form required,) a foreign and inland bill of exchange are subjoined in the proper form; Foreign Bill. London, 1st January, 1837. Stamp. Exchange for 10,000 Livres Tournoises. At two usances (or "at sight." or "-after date") pay this my first bill of exchange (second and third of the same tenor and date not paid,) to Messrs. or order, ("or bearer,") ten thousand Livres Tournoises, value received of them, and place the same to account as per advice from JAMES OATLAND. Stamp. London, 1st January, 1837. At sight (or "on demand," "at after sight," "at after date,") pay to Mr days or order ("or bearer") one hundred pounds for value received. |