Dishonour. Act. sented at a reasonable time; I think eight in the evening was in this case a reasonable hour." Patteson, J. "The question to be considered is, whether the bill was presented at the place appointed within a reasonable time, not whether any person was there to receive it; I think the bill in this case was presented at a reasonable hour." There can be no mistake in the language used by the Court in that case. The rule is there clearly laid down; it is well known, and appears to give general satisfaction, and according to that decision, it is confined to bankers, and admits of no exception in favour of any other trade or business. In Butterworth v. Lord Despencer("), Lord Ellenborough, C. J. stated, "A presentment of the note at the house, was a request there to pay A Refusal may the note, and the non-payment of it, is a refusal be a Negative at the house. A refusal need not be an affirmative act; the not paying which is only a negative act, or shutting the door is a refusal." The act 9th and 10th William 3rd, c. 17, uses the words “refusal or neglect" of due payment; and the act 3rd and 4th Anne, c. 9, contains the expression, "and not paid before the expiration of three days," &c. though only as applied to inland bills. It is a common rule of law that when a person enters into a contract, he has to the last minute of the day, on which he undertook to do or pay it, and by analogy to that, the question has been (1) 3 Maule and Sel. 150. Acceptor of the agitated, whether the acceptor of an inland bill, Dishonour. or maker of a note, has the whole day to pay it in"; but however that may be, it does not appear Effect of a that any such suggested right is ever claimed by the Tender by the acceptors in this country, and the only difference amount before worth noticing, which it could make to the holder Twelve o'clock is, that it might oblige him to bear out of his own the Bill has pocket, the expence of noting, if the acceptor or become due. maker should tender the amount of the bill or note at night, when Notice of Dis at a later hour, on the same day; but if he once If he refuse refuse payment, the holder is then justified, if payment, so disposed, in treating it as dishonoured, and honour may be giving notice of dishonour on the same day to given on the the other parties(2); yet, if the acceptor subsequently on the same day make payment, the payment is good, and the notice of dishonour is of no avail(9). It is perhaps superfluous to mention, that a bill, whether foreign or inland, is always presented (1) Lord Kenyon, in Leftley v. Mills, 4 Term Rep. 170, appears to have thought, that the Acceptor had until the last moment of the last day of grace, to pay the Bill. (2) Burbridge v. Manners, 3 Camp. Ni. Pri. Cases, 193, which was an action brought upon a Promissory Note. (3) See Hartley v. Case, 1 Carrington and Payne, 555–6, where the refusal was only a qualified one; per Abbott, C. J. "I think the notice of dishonour given on the day on which the Bill is payable will be good or bad, as the Acceptor may or may not afterwards pay the Bill. If he does not afterwards pay it, the notice is good; and if he does, it of course comes to nothing." See S. C. 4 Barn. and Cress. 339. same day. Dishonour. when due for payment in England, on behalf of the holder, if the drawee, or acceptor (if accepted) can be found, and there is any chance of obtaining payment, prior to its being sent to a notary's office to be noted or protested: such prior presentment, however, though usual and convenient, is not in fact necessary, because there is not because there is not any need of two presentments for payment. Bill lost, or not If a bill or note should be lost, payment must forthcoming. nevertheless be demanded when it becomes due, and a copy, or such particulars of it as can be had, should be presented instead of the original, (or the second or third of exchange would perhaps be used in such a case); and it has occasionally occurred, when in consequence of special or peculiar circumstances(2) a bill did not happen to be in this country when at maturity, and the drawer or indorsers resided abroad, that the second or third of exchange has been presented in lieu of it(3). (1) Dehers v. Harriott, Trinity Term, 3rd William and Mary, 1 Shower, 163. (2) In the case of a Bill accepted, but afterwards protested for better security, it may be necessary, according to the laws and usages of some Foreign Countries, to send the Bill abroad with the Protest, for better security immediately, for the purpose of attachment, or of proceeding against the Drawer or Indorsers residing there. (3) Instances have occurred in the Author's practice of the second of exchange, being protested under peculiar circumstances for nonpayment, when the Bill became due in the absence of the first of exchange, which had originally been in the Holder's hands. If a foreign bill should not be paid at maturity, Protest on then by the law merchant, it is necessary to have to have non-payment of a Foreign it protested by a notary, for non-payment; and it Bill. is presented either by a notary or by his clerk, (most commonly by his clerk,) and it is then noted, and a protest is prepared, signed by the notary, and passed under his official seal, in the same mode as is before described in the case of non-acceptance(). A bill drawn in Ireland upon England comes within the above rule, and requires a protest if dishonoured"); and on the same principle it is considered necessary, and it is the custom to protest bills drawn in Scotland, or the Isle of Man, upon England, when they are dishonoured on non-acceptance, or on non-payment. The bill is frequently noted for non-payment on one day, and the protest drawn up on some subsequent one, and dated as of the true date of the dishonour, a mode of proceeding which is considered correct; by the merchants and traders, and is sometimes found very convenient. Mode of The mode of making the presentment for pay- Protest on ment, in ordinary cases, and of presenting, or non-payment. attempting to present bills, in extraordinary or presenting or special cases, has been already fully explained(3), attempting to (1) Vide Supra, Chapter 3, p. 69, and Appendix. (2) Chaters v. Bell and another, 4 Espinasse's Rep. 48. (3) Vide Supra in this Chapter p. 105, 114, 116, 117, and Chapter 3, p. 48, 49, 70. present the Bill. Special Protest where the Holder has omitted to get the Bill pro tested when it became due. and it is not considered necessary to repeat it here. Instances have occasionally occurred, when owing to neglect or other causes, the bill has not been sent to the notary until some days had elapsed after it had become due, and the holder and drawee have appeared at the notary's office, and the drawee has admitted the fact of presentment, and the want of funds; in that case the notary has certified the facts in the protest, and concluded in the usual form, "Wherefore I, the said notary, at the request aforesaid, have protested," &c. &c. Sometimes such a protest has stated, if the facts warranted it, that the drawee declared, that it would not have been paid, if presented on the day when it became due. Such a protest in a foreign Court, where alone it could be evidence, might probably be received as proof of the facts stated therein; and the effect would depend on such other circumstances, as might be given in evidence, on the trial of any question between contending parties. The observations before made, respecting the necessity of a protest on non-payment, of a foreign bill, must, however, be taken with this qualification; if a bill has been previously presented for acceptance, and refused, and protested for non-acceptance, it is not obligatory upon the holder to present the bill again when due, or to protest it for non-payment", except as before (1) Per Lord Ellenborough in De la Torre v. Barclay & another, |