Page images

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 bona 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 partnerships, 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. h Per cur. Lore Raym. 1397.

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.


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


in Paris, payable at

Inland Bill.


London, 1st January, 1837.


At sight (or “on demand," "at days after sight," "at after date,") pay to Mr or order for bearer") one hundred pounds for value received.


merchant in Bristol, payable at


An instrument which appears in common observation to be a bill of exchange may be treated as such, although words be introduced into it for the purpose of deception, which might make it a promissory note. With respect to these bills of excharge, the following rules must be observed: A bill of exchange must not purport to be payable out of a particular fund, which may or may not be productivek, or upon an event which may not happen; for it would perplex the commercial transactions of mankind, if paper securities were issued into the world incumbered with conditions and contingencies, and if the persons to whom they were offered in negociation were obliged to inquire at what time these uncertain events would probably be reduced to a certainty. The following cases will illustrate this position: An action was brought by payee against drawer of a written instrument in these words!:

out of

« Seven weeks after the date pay A. B. £ W. Stewards money as soon as you receive it."

It was objected “that it was payable out of a supposed fund at a future time, which was uncertain and might or might not happen.” The court gave judgment for the defendant; and de Grey, C. J. said, that the instrument or writing which constituted a good bill of exchange, according to the law, and custom of merchants, was not confined to any certain form of words, yet it must have some essential qualities, without which it was not a bill of exchange; it must carry with it a personal and certain credit given to the drawer, not confined to credit upon any thing or fund; that the payee or indorsee took it upon no particular event or contingency, except the failure of the general credit of the person drawing or negociating the same. So where the instrument declared on was, “ Pay A. B. one month after date £ on account of the freight of the Veale Galley.It was objected, that it was an order upon a particular fund and on this ground, Lee, C. J. ruled it not to be a bill of exchange. Banbury v. Lisset, Str. 1212. So where a bill was drawn by an officer upon his agent, requesting him to pay out of his growing subsistence, it was m holden not to be good be


i Allan v. Mawson, 4 Campb. 115. 1 Dawkes and another v. Ld. De LoGibbs, C. J.

raine, 3 Wils. 207. 2 BI. R. 782 k Jenny v. Herle, Lord Raym. 1362. S. C.

Stevens v. Hill, 5 Esp. N. P. C. m Josselyn v. Lacier, 10 Mod. 294, 247.

316. Fort. 281. S. C. MS. Serjt. Hill, vol. 32 p. 1.

as his

cause the fund was uncertain. So a request to J. S. to pay £

out of the monies in J. S.'s hands", belonging to the proprietors of the Devonshire mines was holden not to be a bill of exchange, because it was uncertain whether the fund would be sufficient to pay it. Per Cur. So an order to pay money out of the fifth payment when it should become due, and it should be allowed by the drawero. The same principle was recognized in the following case, although the instrument was holden to be a good bill of exchange. J. S. on the 25th of May, 1724, drew a bill on P J. N. and directed him, one month after date to pay A. B. or order £

quarter's half-pay, from 24th June, 1724, to 25th September following. The court were of opinion that this was a good bill of exchange, for it was not payable on a contingency nor out of a particular fund and was made payable at all events; and was drawn upon the general credit of the drawer, not out of the half-pay; for it was payable as soon as the quarter began for the half-pay mentioned in the bill, which was not to be due till three months after. The mention of the half-pay was only by way of direction to the drawee, how he should reimburse himself.

Of the Stamp.--A bill of exchange cannot be given in evidence!, nor is it in any manner available, unless it be duly stamped, that is, not only with a stamp of the proper value, but also with a stamp of a proper denomination, or the peculiar stamp appropriated to this species of instrument by the legislature.

Notice of dishonour of a bill not drawn on a proper stamp is not necessary"; for it is worth nothing.

The amount of the stamp duties on bills of exchange is at this time (1837) regulated by stat. 55 Geo. 3. c. 184. as follows:

n Jenny v. Herle, B. R. on error from p Mackleod v. Snee, Ld. Raym. 148).

C. B. Str. 591. and more fully re- Str. 762. and 11 Mod 400. Leach's. ported in 8 Mod. 265. Lord Raym. ed.

1361. and 11 Mod. 384. Leach's edit. q 1 Bos. and Pul. N. R. 30. o Haydock v. Lynch, on demurrer to r Cundy v. Marriott, 1 B. & Ad. 696.

declaration, Ld. Raym. 1563.

Inland bill of exchange, draft, or order, to the

bearer or to order, either on demand or otherwise, not exceeding two months after date or sixty days after sight, of any sum of money: (1)

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



Amounting to 40s, and not exceeding 51. 58.
Exceeding 51. 58.

201. Exceeding 201.

301. Exceeding 301.

501. Exceeding 501.

1001. Exceeding 1001.

2001. Exceeding 2001.

3001. Exceeding 3001.

5001. Exceeding 5001.

10001. Exceeding 10001.

20001. Exceeding 20001.

30001. Exceeding 30001.

Duty. £ 0 0 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 6 0 6 0 4 6 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 8 6 0 12 6 0 15 0 1 5 0

[ocr errors]

Inland bill of exchange, draft, or order, for the

payment to the bearer or to order, at any time exceeding two months after date, or sixty

days after sight, of any sum of money: Amounting to 40s. and not exceeding 51. 58. Exceeding 51. 58.

201. Exceeding 201.

301. Exceeding 301.

501. Exceeding 501.

1001. Exceeding 1001.

2001. Exceeding 2001.

3001. Exceeding 300l.

5002. Exceeding 10001.

20001. Exceeding 20001.

30001. Exceeding 30001.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(1) A bill payable to A. B. or order on demand is not a bill payable to bearer on demand, and therefore is within the second class of the schedule requiring the lower stamp. Exp. Robinson, 1 D. & Ch. 275, questioning the authority of Keates v. Whieldon, 8 B. and C. 7.

« EelmineJätka »