(14) may sue the person who made it, as upon a collateral undertaking to guaranty the payment of the bill, if it has the stamp proper for such an undertaking.

A person who accepts for honour, is only liable if the original drawee does not pay. (14)

And to charge such acceptor, there must be a presentment for payment to such original drawee. (14)

And if the acceptor for honour pay, he is (15)

unless the defendant would become his surety; and that the defendant, in order to guaranty Irving's credit, wrote this acceptance on the bill. Lord Ellenborough said, that this was neither an acceptance by the drawee, nor by a person for the honour of the drawer: but that it was a collateral undertaking that the bill should be paid, and ought to have been declared upon as such. Nonsuit.

It seems, however, that after an acceptance supra protest for the honour of one party, there may be a similar acceptance for the honour of another. Beawes, § 72. 2d ed. p. 422.

(14) Hoare v. Cazenove, 16 East. 391. A foreign bill was drawn on Penn & Hanbury; they refused acceptance, and it was protested for non-acceptance. Defendant accepted it for the honour of the first indorsers; but did not pay action inde, defence, that it had not been presented for payment when due to Penn & Hanbury, nor protested for non-payment by them ; and on case and time to consider, the court held ́such payment and protest essential, because they considered defendant's acceptance as conditional if Penn & Hanbury did not pay; and Penn & Hanbury might have funds when the bill became due, though they had none before.

(15) Beawes, § 47. 49. 2d. ed. p. 422. and see ex parte Wackerbarth, 5 Ves. 574. The acceptor of a bill having become bankrupt, and the holders having protested it for better security,

entitled to have recourse for repayment to the person for whose honour he made the acceptance, and to all other parties who are liable to that person.

An acceptance of this description is not made on a foreign bill until after a (16) protest (either for non-acceptance, or (where the acceptor absconds or becomes bankrupt) for want of better security), and from this circumstance it is called an acceptance supra protest.

If a bill is drawn on several partners, an acceptance by one, though in his own name only, will bind (17) all; but if drawn on several persons not connected in partnership, an acceptance by one will bind him, but him (17) only.

And if an acceptance by one of several partners be a fraud on the others; or if the one has no authority to bind the others by accepting bills;

Christen and Bowen accepted it for the honour of the drawers; and having paid it, now claimed to be entitled to dividends out of the bankrupt's estate. The chancellor said, that he had spoken to persons in trade on the subject, and that the result was, that the person accepting for the honour of the drawer had a right to come upon the acceptor. He said, however, that the justice of the case required that they should go in the first place against the drawer, if the acceptor had no effects, and directed an inquiry to be made whether the original acceptor or Christen and Bowen had effects of the drawers in hand.

(16) Beawes, 2d ed. p. 421. Marius, p. 21. See Evans on Bills of Exchange, p. 35.

(17) See ante, p. 44. note (17).

a person who is (18) privy to such fraud, or who (18) has received notice of such want of authority, cannot, by taking such acceptance, acquire a right to sue the partnership.

On a bill drawn upon a man by the description of servant, a general acceptance will (19) bind him personally.

An acceptance after the bill is drawn may be made even after (20) the time appointed for its payment.

In such case an acceptance to pay according to the tenor, will (21) be considered as a general acceptance to pay upon demand.

Upon the acceptance of a bill payable at a given time after sight, if the words of acceptance and

(18) See ante, c. 2. p. 45. to 50.

(19) See Thomas v. Bishop, ante, p. 57. n. (38.)

(20) Jackson v. Piggot, Lord Raym. 364. Salk. 127. Carth. 450. 12 Mod. 212. In an action against the acceptor of a bill, the declaration stated, that it was dated 25th March, 1696, payable one month after date, and that in April, 1697, it was shewn to the defendant, and he promised to pay it according to its tenor and effect; after verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved in arrest of judgment, that the promise was void, because as the day of payment was past at the time of the acceptance, it was impossible to pay the bill according to its tenor and effect; but it was answered for the plaintiff, that it amounted to a promise to pay generally; and of that opinion was the court, and they accordingly gave judgment for the plaintiff.

Mutford v. Walcot, Lord Raym. 574. Salk. 129. 12 Mod.410. Com. 75. is precisely to the same effect.

(21) Vide Jackson v. Piggott, and Mutford v. Walcot, supra.

the date are in one hand-writing, and the drawee's name under it in the drawee's, the presumption is that the words of acceptance and the date were either upon the bill when he signed his name, or put there afterwards with his consent, because that is the usual course. (22)

A written acceptance is either made upon the bill or (23) elsewhere.

On a written acceptance by the drawee, his name need not appear; and any words written by him the bill, not putting a direct negative upon its request, as, accepted," (24) " presented," "seen," (24) "the day of the month," or a

upon

66

Action

(22) Glossop v. Jacob, 4 Campb. 227. 1 Stark. 70. against acceptor on bill payable sixty days after sight; the acceptance was, "Accepted, 25th October, 1814. B. Jacob." The signature only was Jacob's; whose the other words were did not appear: but it was proved to be usual for a clerk to write " accepted," and the date, and for the drawee then to subscribe his name; and Lord Ellenborough, on objection, said he should leave it to the jury to presume the words were written with defendant's privity when he accepted the bill, unless defendant could give some other date to the transaction. The jury presumed accordingly, and verdict for plaintiff.

(23) Vide Pillans v. Van Mierop, Mason v. Hunt, Powell v. Monnier, and Pierson v. Dunlop, ante, p. 132, 133, 134.

(24) Anon. Comb. 401. per Holt, C. J. If the drawee underwrites a bill "presented such a day, or only the day of the month," it is such an acknowledgment of the bill as amounts to an acceptance; and this was declared by the jury to be the common practice.

Powell v. Monnier, 1 Atk. 611. A bill was sent by the post to the drawee for acceptance; he entered it in his bill-book

(25) direction to a third person to pay it, is primâ facie a complete acceptance.

It has indeed been said, (26) that an express refusal to accept, written on a bill, is an acceptance; but this is not the case, unless it is accompanied with a conduct which shows an intent to create a belief that it is accepted.

On a written acceptance on the bill by any other person than the drawee, it should seem essential that his name should appear.

it;

A promise to accept an existing bill, if made

(which was his practice with all bills he received whether he meant to accept them or not), wrote upon it the number of the entry, and kept it ten days; on the tenth he wrote upon it the day of the month, and returned it, saying he could not accept and per Lord Hardwicke, "It has been said to be the custom of merchants, that if a man underwrites any thing, be it what it may, it amounts to an acceptance; but if there were nothing more than this in the case, I should think it of little avail to charge the defendant;" but he decided that a letter the drawee had written, amounted to an acceptance. Vide ante, p. 134.

(25) Moor v. Whitby, B. R. Tr. 10 Geo. 3. Bull. ni. pri. 270. A bill drawn by Newton on Whitby, was presented for acceptance, and Whitby wrote upon it, "Mr. Jackson, please to pay this note, and place it to Mr. Newton's account. R. Whitby." It was insisted that this was no acceptance, but merely a direction to Jackson to pay it out of a particular fund, and if there was no fund there was to be no payment; sed per cur. this is a direction to Jackson to pay the money, and it signifies not to what account it is to be placed; that is between Jackson and Whitby only, this is clearly an acceptance.

(26) In Ann. 75. is this note: "Underwriting or indorsing a bill thus, ' I will not accept this bill,' is held by the custom of