Page images
PDF
EPUB

becomes due, and in case of refusal, to give due notice of dishonour, within a reasonable time, to the indorser (s). The general rule seems to be, with respect to persons living in the same town, that the notice shall be given so as to be received in the course of the next day (t), and with regard to such as live at different places, that it shall be sent by the next post. "It is," said Abbott, C. J., in Williams v. Smith, 2 B. & Ald. 500, "of the greatest importance to commerce that some plain and precise rule should be laid down to guide persons in all cases as to the time within which notices of the dishonours of bills should be given. That time I have always understood to be the departure of the post on the day following that in which the party receives the intelligence of the dishonour. If instead of that rule we were to say that the party must give notice by the next practicable post, we should raise in many cases difficult questions of fact, and should, according to the peculiar local situations of parties, give them more or less facility in complying with the rule. But no dispute can arise from adopting the rule which I have stated." A country banker, with whom a bill of exchange made payable in London is deposited, is considered as a distinct holder, and has an entire day after receiving notice of its dishonour to transmit the same to his customer, so that notice by the next day's post, though it be not the next post, will be time enough (u). It is not necessary to make any demand on the drawer of a bill (x).

The notice must contain an intimation that payment has been refused by the acceptor; for a letter merely containing a demand of payment has been held not to be a sufficient notice (y). So a letter from the holder to indorser, threatening legal measures unless bill be paid, has been decided by the House of Lords, confirming the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, not to amount to notice of dishonour by the acceptor (2). In delivering the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber in Solarte v. Palmer, Tindal, C. J., said, "The notice of dishonour, which is commonly substituted in this country in the place of a formal protest (such formal protest being essential in other countries to enable the plaintiff to recover), most certainly does not require all the precision and formality which accompanied the regular protest, for which it has been substituted. But it should, at least, inform the party to whom it is addressed, either in express terms or by necessary implication, that the bill has been dishonoured, and that the holder looks to him for payment of the amount. Looking at this notice, we think no such intimation is conveyed in terms, or is necessarily to be inferred

(s) Rushton v. Aspinall, Dougl. 679. (t) Tindal v. Brown, 1 T. R. 167; Haynes v. Birks, 3 B. & P. 599.

(u) Darbishire v. Parker, 6 East, 3; Langdale v. Trimmer, 15 East, 291.

(x) Heylyn v. Adamson, 2 Burr. 678.

(y) Hartley v. Case, 4 B. & C. 339. (z) Solarte v. Palmer, 1 B. N. C. 194; 5 M. & Sc. 1; 2 Cl. & F. 93; 8 Bli. N. R. 874. In Everard v. Watson, 1 E. & B. 101, Campbell, C. J., expressed his regret

at the decision in Solarte v. Palmer.

from its contents." With reference, however, to the words "necessary implication" used in the above judgment, Parke, B., in a subsequent case observed, "it seems to me enough if it appear by reasonable intendment, and would be inferred by any man of business that the bill had been presented to the acceptor and not paid by him (a). So a notice of dishonour is insufficient, if it merely state that the bill has not been paid when due (b). But the holder of a bill of exchange need not in terms inform the party to whom he gives notice of dishonour that he looks to him for payment (c).

If a bill be accepted, payable at a particular place, proof of a demand at that place was held sufficient, without proof of notice to the acceptor of non-payment (d). Where the residence of the indorser is unknown to the holder, if due diligence be used in discovering the place of residence, and notice is given as soon as that is discovered, it is sufficient (e). The indorsee of a bill dishonoured by the acceptor, being ignorant of the place of residence of one of the indorsers, employed an attorney to give notice to him and the other prior indorsers; the attorney, having received information of the indorser's residence, on the following day, consulted his client, and on the third day gave notice of dishonour; it was held sufficient (f).

As the rule requiring notice is introduced for the benefit of the party to whom such notice is given, of course it may be waived by that party. Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se introducto. In some cases the rule is dispensed with, as where the drawer has not any effects in the hands of the acceptor; for then the drawer is presumed to have notice that the bill will not be paid; besides, not having any effects to withdraw from the hands of the acceptor, he cannot sustain any injury from the want of notice (g). But if a bill be drawn for the accommodation, not of the drawer, but of the acceptor, as the drawer might sue the acceptor he is entitled to notice (h). Where a bill was drawn for the accommodation of an indorsee, and neither such indorsee nor the drawer had any effects in the hands of the acceptor, it was held that a subsequent indorsee, in order to recover against the drawer, was bound to give him notice; for the drawer had a remedy over against his immediate indorsee (i). Formerly it was held that the circumstance of (a) Hedger v. Steavenson, 2 M. & W. 799.

(b) Mier v. Brown, 11 M. & W. 372, recognizing Furze v. Sharwood, 2 Q. B. 388, and King v. Bickley, 2 Q. B. 419; 2 G. & D. 116.

(c) Furze v. Sharwood, 2 Q. B. 388. In the recent cases of Armstrong v. Christiani, 17 L. J., C. P. 181; S C. 5 C. B. 687, and Everard v. Watson, 1 E. & B. 801, all the authorities on this point were cited and considered. See also Paul v. Joel, 27 L. J., Exch. 380.

(d) Edwards v. Dick, 4 B. & A. 212. (e) Bateman v. Joseph, 12 East, 433; Buxton v. Jones, 1 M. & Gr. 83, and ante, p. 375.

(f) Firth v. Thrush, 8 B. & C. 387; Allen v. Edmundson, 17 L. J., Exch. 294. (g) See ante, p. 400.

(h) Cory v. Scott, 3 B. & Ald. 619; Sleigh v. Sleigh, 19 L. J., Exch. 345; S. C. 5 Exch. R. 514.

(i) Cory v. Scott, supra (overruling Walwyn v. St. Quintin, 1 B. & P. 652); Norton v. Pickering, 8 B. & C. 610.

the indorser having effects in the hands of the acceptor would not entitle the drawer to notice, if the drawer has not any effects in the hands of the acceptor. A notice of dishonour is not required in the case of a promissory note indorsed by defendant, but not made payable to order, the note having been dishonoured by the maker (k).

From the circumstance of part payment of a bill without any objection to the want of notice or a promise to pay the amount thereof, a jury may be directed to presume that notice was regularly given (1).

Protest. In addition to notice of dishonour, it is necessary for the holder, in the case of a foreign bill, to protest it for non-payment: but where there has been a promise of payment, after the bill became due, such promise supersedes the necessity of proving protest (m). It is not necessary in the case of a promissory note (n). Where the drawer of a foreign bill of exchange, at the time of the drawing, was in a foreign country, but returned home before it became due, at which time it was dishonoured and protested, but notice of the dishonour only, and not of the protest, was left at the drawer's house; it was held, that this was sufficient (0). And it has since been decided that in all cases it is sufficient to inform the drawer that the bill has been protested for nonpayment, without sending him a copy of the protest (p). It appears from a passage, extracted from the case of Tassell v. Lewis, Lord Raym. 743, that this protest ought to be made on the last day of grace. This strictness, however, is not observed in practice. The modern usage is for the notary to make a minute on the bill, consisting of his initial, the day, month and year when payment was refused, and charges for making the minute. This minute, which is called noting, is unknown in the law as distinguished from the protest. The notary, having made his minute, draws up the protest at his leisure. In Buller's Nisi Prius, p. 272, it is said "That the use of noting is, that it should be done the very day of refusal, and the protest may be drawn any day after by the notary, and be dated on the day the noting was made." The practice certainly is as here stated; but in Chaters v. Bell, 4 Esp. N. P. C. 48, a question was raised, whether the protest ought not to be drawn on the day on which the bill is dishonoured; and it was contended, that the mere noting the bill on that day, and drawing the protest on a subsequent day, was insufficient. Lord Kenyon was of opinion that it was sufficient (q); and a new trial having been granted, Lord Ellenborough agreed in opinion with

(k) Plimley v. Westley, 2 B. N. C. 249. (1) Horford v. Wilson, 1 Taunt. 12; Hicks v. Duke of Beaufort, 4 B. N. C. 229; and see Bronnell v. Bonney, 1 Q. B. 39.

(m) Gibbon v. Coggan, 2 Campb. 188.

[ocr errors]

(n) Bonar v. Mitchell, 5 Exch. R. 415; S. C. 19 L. J., Exch. 302.

(0) Robins v. Gibson, 1 M. & S. 288. (p) Goodman v. Harvey, 4 A. & E. 870. (q) Acc. Geralopulo v. Wieler, 10 C. B. 690; S. C. 20 L. J., C. P. 105.

Lord Kenyon. A case was then reserved for the opinion of the court; and after argument, the court, conceiving the question to be of great importance, directed it to be turned into a special verdict. But the sum in dispute being very small, and the parties unwilling to incur the expense of a special verdict, the recommendation of the court was not attended to, and the case was not mentioned again.

The protest must be stamped (r). The protest for non-payment on inland bills of exchange is regulated by the statute 9 & 10 Will. III. c. 17; for at common law a protest was not required on such bills; and the power of protesting given by this statute is attended with very few advantages; so that it is not very frequently exercised.

Doubts having arisen as to the place in which it is requisite to protest for non-payment of bills of exchange, which on the presentment for acceptance to the drawees should not have been accepted, such bills being made payable at a place other than the place mentioned therein to be the residence of the drawees, it was for the removal of such doubts enacted, by stat. 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 98, that all bills of exchange wherein the drawers shall have expressed that such bills are to be payable in any place other than the place by them therein mentioned to be the residence of the drawees, and which shall not on the presentment for acceptance thereof be accepted, shall or may be, without further presentment to the drawees, protested for non-payment in the place in which such bills shall have been by the drawers expressed to be payable, unless the amount owing upon such bills shall have been paid to the holders on the day on which such bills would have become payable had the same been duly accepted.

Bills of exchange had been occasionally accepted supra protest for honour, or had a reference thereon in case of need; doubts having arisen as to the day on which it was requisite to present for payment such bills to the acceptors for honour, or referees, by stat. 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 58, s. 1, it was declared and enacted, that it shall not be necessary to present such bills to such acceptors for honour, or to such referees, until the day following the day on which such bills shall become due; and if the place of address on such bill, or such acceptance for honour, or such referee, shall be in any city, town, or place, other than in the city, &c. where such bill shall be therein made payable, then it shall not be necessary to forward such bill for payment until the day following the day on which such bill shall become due; and by sect. 2, if the day following the day on which such bill shall become due shall be Sunday, Good Friday, or a fast or thanksgiving, then the day following such Sunday, &c. will be sufficient.

(r) 55 Geo. III. c. 184, Sched. Protest.

Non-payment of Checks.-The holder of a check is not bound to give notice of its dishonour to the drawer, for the purpose of charging the person from whom he received it. It is sufficient, if he presents it with due diligence to the bankers on whom it is drawn, and gives due notice of its dishonour to those against whom he seeks his remedy. If a banker in London receives a check, by the general post, one day, and presents it for payment the next day, he will be considered as having used due diligence (s). "The result of the cases, from Rickford v. Ridge, to Boddington v. Schlencker (t), is, that the party receiving a check has till the following day to present it, where there are the ordinary means of doing so" (u). "The presentment should not be delayed beyond the next day" (x).

Where a check drawn by a customer on a banker, for a sum of money described in the body of the check in words and figures, was afterwards altered by the holder, who substituted a larger sum for that mentioned, but in such a manner that no person in the ordinary course of business could observe it, and the banker paid to the holder this larger sum; it was held, that the banker could not charge the customer for anything beyond the sum for which the check was originally drawn (y). A customer of a banker delivered to his wife certain printed checks signed by himself, but with blanks for the sums, requesting his wife to fill the blanks up according to the exigency of his business; and she caused one to be filled up with the words, fifty pounds, two shillings, the fifty being commenced with a small letter and placed in the middle of the line and the figures, 50l. 2s., being placed at a considerable distance from the printed £. In this state the wife delivered the check to her husband's clerk to receive the amount; instead of which he inserted at the beginning of the line in which the word fifty was written, the words three hundred and, and the figure 3 between the £ and the 501. The bankers having paid the 350l. 2s.; it was held, that the loss must fall on the customer; for it was the fault of the customer, who ought to have selected for the care of such a check a person conversant with business as well as trustworthy, who would have guarded against fraud in the mode of filling up the check (z). A post dated check is absolutely void, and cannot be received in evidence for any purpose (a).

With respect to the payment of crossed checks, the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 25, s. 1, enacts, that "in every case where a draft on any banker made payable to bearer, or to order on demand, bears across its face an addition in written or stamped letters, of the name of any banker, or of the words and Company,' in full or abbreviated,

(s) Rickford v. Ridge, 2 Campb. 537. (t) 4 B. & Ad. 752, ante, p. 402. (u) Per Tindal, C. J., in Moule v. Brown, 4 B. N. C. 268.

(x) Per Park, J., S. C., p. 269.
(y) Hall v. Fuller, 5 B. & C. 750.
(z) Young v. Grote, 4 Bingh. 253.
(a) Serle v. Norton, 9 M. & W. 309.

« EelmineJätka »