Foreign and CAP. III. PRESENTMENT, ACCEPTANCE, DISHONOUR, NOTING AND ONE important branch of the practice of a notary Bills of exchange are either foreign or inland, which, as will be shown afterwards, makes an important difference with respect to the mode of accepting, the noting, and protesting of them; they are called foreign when drawn by a merchant or other person residing abroad upon another in England", or drawn in, but payable out of Great Britain; and bills drawn in Scotland or Ireland(3) upon England, are in most respects considered as foreign bills, but are not exempted from stamp duties; and they are called inland when drawn in, or dated at any place in England, Wales, or (1) 2 Black. Com. 467. Bayley on Bills, 4 Edn. 22. (2) Stamp Act, 55th George III, c. 184. (3) Mahoney v. Ashlin and another, 2 Barn. and Adol. 478. the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed", and also payable here; or when drawn in Scotland or Ireland, upon places within each of them respectively(2). It is clearly ascertained that the use of inland bills began in this country long after that of foreign ones, and according to Holt, C. J. actions upon such bills began within his memory(3). ance. If a bill of exchange be drawn, payable on a cer- Presentment tain future day, or at a certain period after date, it for Acceptis not necessary to present it for acceptance"), but Bills Payable payment may be demanded (without a previous after Date. presentment for acceptance) when due(); but if the holder choose to present it, and it should be refused, he is bound to give due notice of the dishonour to the drawer and indorsers, without waiting until it falls due, or they will be discharged from liability on the bill, except to a subsequent indorsee, for value, not acquainted (1) Statute 9th and 10th William III, c. 17, sec. 1. (2) Per Littledale J. and per Parke J. in Mahoney v. Ashlin and another, 2 Barn. and Adol. 478. (3) Buller v. Cripps, 6 Mod. R. 30. (4) Per Bayley, J. in Sebag v. Abitbol, 4 Maule and Sel. 462. and see Philpott v. Bryant, 3 Carrington and Payne, N.P. 244, before Park, J. (5) Per Dallas, J. and per Gibbs, C. J. in O'Keefe v. Dunn, 6 Taunt. 305. (6) Roscow v. Hardy, 12 East, 434. G After Sight. with the circumstance"); but after due notice of non-acceptance, they may be immediately sued. If, however, such a bill be presented and accepted, the holder obtains the additional security of the drawee, therefore it is obviously the most prudent course to present it for acceptance. It was stated on the trial of Johnson and others v. Collings(3), in the year 1800, that at that time it was not the practice at Bristol to accept bills payable after date; it is probable that since that period the practice there, may have become assimilated to that of other places. If a bill be drawn, payable at a certain period after sight, it is necessary that it should be presented for acceptance, in order to fix the day of sight, from which the period is to run, and consequently the time when it will become due. Such bills as are payable on demand, as we shall afterwards see, and promissory notes("), are never presented for acceptance; checks upon bankers, however, are occasionally accepted by bankers, (1) O'Keefe v. Dunn, 6 Taunt. 305, S. C. (in error) 5 Maule and Sel. 282. (2) Ballingalls v. Gloster, 3 East, 481, per Dallas J. in O'Keefe v. Dunn and another, 6 Taunt. 305, S. C. (in error) 5 Maule and Sel. 282, and see Allan v. Mawson, 4 Camp. 115. (3) 1 East, 98. (4) It is supposed that Promissory Notes are never made in England payable after sight, but if they were, it would of course be necessary to present them for acceptance. when their customers consider that when accepted, they would be more satisfactory to any persons, to whom the checks are intended to be paid away. Holder of a The holder of a bill, whether foreign or inland, Conduct to be if payable after sight, may put it into circulation pursued by the before acceptance"); but if he does not pay it Bill payable away, he is bound to present it within a reasonable after sight. time, and the jury will have to consider whether, looking at the situation and interests of both the drawer and holder, there has been unreasonable delay on the part of the holder in forwarding the bill for acceptance, or in putting it into circulation(2); if any unnecessary delay occur on the part of the holder in presenting it, the drawer and indorsers will be discharged, a circumstance which shows the propriety of causing an immediate presentment to be made. In Fry v. Hill, a delay until the fourth day to present for acceptance an inland bill on London, payable after sight, and given within twenty miles of it, was held not unreasonable. In Mellish v. Rawdon), the plaintiff purchased a bill drawn by the defendant upon a person at Rio de Janeiro, (1) Per Gibbs, C. J. in Goupy v. Harden, 7 Taunt. 159, and see Fry v. Hill, 7 Taunt. 397, and per Buller, J. in Muilman v. D'Eguino, 2 Hen. Black. 565. (2) Goupy v. Harden, 7 Taunt. 162, Fry v. Hill, 7 Taunt. 397, Mellish v. Rawdon, 9 Bing. 416, Shute v. Robins, Moody and Mal. 133, and S.C. 3 Carrington and Payne, N. P. 80 Muilman v. D'Eguino Supra. (3) 7 Taunt. 397. (4) 9 Bing. 416. payable at sixty days after sight, and the exchange falling after the purchase, the plaintiff kept the bill nearly five months, and then sold it again; and the drawee having failed, the plaintiff sued the drawer, and the jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, the Court refused to disturb it. In Shute and others v. Robins and others", which was an action by the indorsees against the indorsers of a bill of exchange drawn by a banker at Plymouth, upon a banker in London, payable after sight, and a delay of four days occurred on the part of the plaintiffs in presenting it for acceptance, which it was contended discharged the defendants, the jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiffs. In Straker v. Graham and another(2), tried at the Liverpool Autumn Assizes, in 1838, before Mr. Justice Williams, which was an action of indebitatus assumpsit by the owner of the brig Loyalist, to recover £176 6s 6d for freight, and £36 10s 10d for general average, per the brig Loyalist, which had been hired by a memorandum of charter by the defendants, who (though, as it afterwards appeared, they were only agents for Slade Biddle and Company, of Poole) chartered the vessel in their own names, for a voyage to a port in Conception Bay, Newfoundland, and she (1) 3 Carrington and Payne, Rep. 80. (2) This Case had not been reported in any other Work at the time of this Treatise going to the press. See also Tapley v. Martin, 4 Term Rep. 457. |