the person filling them up can make no objection on account of his previous death. (59)

And if a bill or note be post-dated (as in most cases it (60) may be) an indorsement before the date (61) will entitle the indorsee to sue the drawer

(59) Usher v. Dauncey, 4 Camp. 97. F. D. and three others were partners, and used to draw bills, with blanks for sums and date, to raise money: F. D. drew one 28th February to his own order, and indorsed it in blank, and died 15th March: 22d April the clerk to the surviving partners inserted as the date 27th Feb., and as the sum of 15741. and an agent of theirs got it dis. counted in an action thereon against the surviving partners, it was urged, that F. D.'s death countermanded all authority in the clerk to fill up a bill with his name to it, and that the bill was therefore void: but Lord Ellenborough thought the clerk's authority emanated from all the partners, and that when he filled up the bill on account of their survivors and for their use, he acted as their agent and bound them, and that the case was within the principles of Russel v. Langstaffe. The plaintiff had a verdict, and the court of king's bench refused to set it aside. (60) See ante, p. 21.

(61) Passmore v. North, 13 East. Rep. 517. The defendant, on the 4th of May, 1810, drew a bill for 2007. on Brook and Co., dated the 11th of May, 1810, payable to Totty or order, sixtyfive days after date. On the 5th of May, Totty indorsed this bill to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration; and on the same day died. After the 4th, and before the 11th of May, the defendant received effects of Totty's to the amount of about 130l. to answer this bill. On the 12th of May, the defendant advised the drawees of the bill having been drawn, and of Totty's death, and desired them not to accept or pay the bill. Acceptance and payment were accordingly refused: and this action was brought against the drawer. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court of king's bench, on a case reserved. The court, after adverting to the 17 G. 3. c. 30. as to bills for less than 57., and to the 48 G. 3.

or maker, although the indorser die before the date of the bill or note.

Upon the transfer of a bill drawn in sets, each part must be delivered to the person in whose favour the transfer is made; otherwise the same inconveniences may follow, which would ensue upon a neglect to deliver each of them to the payee.

The indorsement of a bill or note, implies an undertaking from the indorser to the person in whose favour it is made, and to every other person to whom the bill or note may afterwards be transferred, exactly similar to that which is implied by drawing a bill, except that in the case of a note, the stipulations with respect to the drawer's responsibility and undertaking do not apply; and a transfer by delivery only, if made on account of an antecedent debt, implies a similar undertaking from the person making it, to the person in whose favour it is made.

And a transfer by delivery, where the bill or note is sold, may imply that it is a genuine bill. (62)

c. 149. as to post-dating draughts upon bankers, held clearly, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the whole amount of the bill; and he had judgment accordingly.

(62) Jones v. Ryde, 5 Taunt. 488. 1 Marshall, 157. Defendant sold plaintiff a navy bill as and for a bill of 1800l., which it imported to be: it turned out that the bill was issued for 800/. only, and had afterwards been altered. Government paid the 800l. only, and plaintiff who had parted with the bill, paid his vendee the 10007. and called upon defendant to reimburse him;

K

defendant refused, and plaintiff sued him: it was urged for defendant, that both parties were equally innocent; but the court held, that as defendant took upon himself to sell as a bill for 18007. what in fact was a bill for 8007., the consideration pro tanto had failed, and plaintiff was entitled to recover it back. In Bruce v. Bruce, 1 Marshall, 165. the same point was. decided upon a victualling bill.

CAP. VI.

Sect. 1. Of the Acceptance of Bills or Notes.
By whom.

p. 139.

Drawee, p. 132.

for Honour, p. 136.

one of several Drawees not Partners,

one of several Partners, p. 139.

a Servant, p. 140.

When, p. 134. 140.

On the Bill, p. 134. 141.

Not on the Bill, p. 134. 142. to 148.

By keeping or destroying the Bill, p. 149.

Conditional or absolute, p. 135. 153. to 156.

According to or varying from the tenor, p. 135. 156. as to the Place, p. 157.

What Holder may require, 158.

Rejection of what shall be, 159.
Alteration of, p. 160.

Revocation of, p. 160. to 163.
Waiver of, p. 163.

by Indulgence to the Drawer or other Par ties, p. 166.

p. 167.

in Cases of Accommodation Acceptances,

THE doctrine of acceptances applies chiefly to bills; for a note may (1) in general be considered, on comparison with a bill, as accepted when it issues.

But on notes payable a limited time after sight, an acceptance is necessary to fix the time of their becoming due.

(1) D. acc. 2 Bl. Comm. 470.

An acceptance is an engagement to pay a bill according to the tenor of the acceptance, and a general acceptance is an engagement to pay according to the tenor of the bill.

This engagement is made by the drawee of the bill or some (2) other person, to the (3) drawer or

(2) Mutford v. Walcott, Lord Raym. 575. 12 Mod. 410. Com. 76. per Holt, C. J. "If A. draws a bill on B. and B. will not accept, and C. offers to accept for the honour of the drawer, the holder need not acquiesce, but if he does, C. is bound." And per Lord Mansfield and Yates, J. in Pillans v. Van Mierop, Burr. 1672, 1674. an acceptance for the honour of the drawer will bind the acceptor.

(3) Pillans and another v. Van Mierop, Burr. 1663. White drew on the plaintiffs at Rotterdam for 800l., and proposed to give them credit upon the defendant's house in London; the plaintiffs paid White's bill, and wrote to the defendants to know, "Whether they would accept such bills as they, the plaintiffs, should draw in about a month upon them for 800l. on White's credit." The defendants answered, that they would, but White having failed before the month elapsed, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs not to draw. The plaintiffs did however draw, and on the defendant's refusal to pay the bills, brought this action. The jury found a verdict for the defendants, but upon an application for a new trial, as upon a verdict against evidence, and two arguments upon it, the court was unanimous that the defendant's letter was a virtual acceptance of such bills as the plaintiff should draw to the amount of 800%. and the rule was made absolute. See Johnson v. Collings, post. p. 144.

Pierson v. Dunlop and others, Cowp. 571. M'Lintot drew upon the defendants in favour of Nicholl, and gave Nicholl a navy bill assigned to the Defendants as a security till the bill of exchange should be accepted; both bills were sent by Nicholl to the defendants, who said, the bill of exchange would not be accepted till the navy bill was paid, but they would receive the money on the navy bill; and they wrote to M'Lintot, saying his