Imágenes de páginas

So an order from the (38) owner of a ship to the freighter to pay money on account of freight is no bill, because the quantum due for freight may be open to litigation, but such an order from the freighter (39) is, because it is an admission that so much at least is due.

"son, dated as under, payable to us W. Bennett and S. M. (the "defendants) on J. and J. Williamson, which we promise to pay "unto the said J. and J. Williamson, with interest. As witness our hands this 26th day of August, 1802.

"August 26, 1 draught at 2 months £120

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Lord Ellenborough held that this was not a promissory note. And said there can be no doubt that the money was not payable immediately, and that it was not to be paid at all, unless the draughts were honoured. The plaintiffs were nonsuited.

(38) Banbury v. Lisset, Str. 1211. Gibson drew on the defendants in favour of the plaintiff " on account of freight of the "galley Veale, Edward Champion, and this order shall be your "sufficient discharge for the same." The action was brought against the defendants as acceptors, and they contended it was not a bill of exchange, because it was only payable out of a particular fund; and Lee, C. J. was of that opinion, but he left the point to the jury, who found for the defendants on another ground.

(39) Pierson v. Dunlop, Cowp. 571. M'Lintot freighted a ship of which Nichol was captain, and Pierson owner, and being unable to pay the freight, drew upon Dunlop and Co. in favour of Nichol on account of freight: Pierson afterwards sued Dunlop and Co. as acceptors, and though other objections were taken, it was never insisted that this was payable out of a particular fund.

And an order to pay money as (40) the drawer's quarter's half-pay by advance before the pay will be due, is a good bill, because it will be payable though the half-pay shall never become due.

So a note to pay a sum of money (41) being a portion of a value as under deposited in security for the payment hereof according to the receipt in my hands, or for value deposited and registered is a good note, because it is payable at all events.

(40) Macleod v. Snee, Lord Raym.1481. Str.762. 1Barnard. 12. Macleod was sued in the Common Pleas as acceptor of a bill of exchange drawn by Dundas and indorsed to the plaintiff, dated 25th of May, 1724, by which Dundas required him one month after date "to pay 97. 10s. as his (Dundas's) quarter's half-pay " from the 24th June, 1724, to 25th September following, by “advance,” and obtained judgment. Macleod brought a writ of error, and insisted that this was similar to the cases of Jocelin v. Laserre, and Jenney v. Herle, but the whole court was of a contrary opinion; for per cur. this bill was not payable upon a contingency, nor out of a particular fund, but is made payable at all events, and drawn upon the general credit of the drawer, and not out of the half-pay, for it is payable as soon as the quarter begins, and the half-pay was not to be due till three months afterwards.


(41) Haussoullier v. Hartsink, 7 Term. Rep. 733. The defendant issued two notes upon a deposit by one Richardson: one payable to J. S. or bearer, for 251. "being a portion of a "value as under deposited in security for payment hereof ac"cording to the receipt in our hands," and specifying the ticulars of the deposit: the other, payable to J.S. or order “for "value deposited and registered." The plaintiff discounted both notes, bona fide, and for a valuable consideration: and on a case reserved the court said they were clearly of opinion, that though as between the original parties to the transaction, the payment of the notes was to be carried to a particular account, yet the notes were payable at all events, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

So an order or promise to pay money when (42) J.S. shall come of age, specifying the day when that event is to happen, is a good bill or note, because it is payable though J. S. die in the interim.

And an order or promise (43) to pay within a limited time after a man's death is a good bill or note, because it must become payable at some time or other, though the exact period is uncertain and if a bill or note be made payable at ever so distant a day, if it be a day that must come, it is no objection to the bill or note (44).

So an order or (45) promise to pay within a

(42) Goss v. Nelson, Burr. 226. Action on a note payable to an infant "when he (the infant) shall come of age, to wit, 12th June, 1750;" and it was objected in arrest of judgment, that it was uncertain whether the money would ever have been payable, because the infant might have died under 21, but the court held it a good note, because it was payable at all events on the 12th June, 1750, though the infant should have died before that time.

On error

(43) Cooke v. Colehan, Str. 1217. Willes, 393. from the Common Pleas, the court held a note payable six weeks after the death of the defendant's father, a good negotiable note, because there was no contingency, whereby it might never become payable, but it was only uncertain as to the time, which is the case with all bills payable so many days after sight.

(44) Per Willes, Ch. J. in delivering judgment in Colehan v. Cooke, Willes's Rep. 394.

(45) Andrews v. Franklin, Str. 24. A note payable two months after a certain ship (in his majesty's service) should be paid off, was objected to, as depending upon a contingency which might never happen: but per cur. the paying off the ship is a thing of a public nature; judgment for the plaintiff. And in Evans v. Underwood, 1 Wils. 262. where an action was brought by

limited time after the payment of money due from government is a good bill or note, because it is morally certain that such payment will be made.

Sect. 5. It is not in general essential that a bill or note should be dated.

But negotiable bills or notes, except bank-notes, for between 20s. and 5l., if made in England, must. (46)

And notes payable to the bearer on demand must not have the dates printed. (47)

And giving false dates to evade the stamp duties upon draughts on bankers, or upon bills or notes not payable within two months after date, or sixty days after sight, will subject the party to a penalty of 100%. (48)

If a bill or note is dated forward, of a day not arrived, and any of the parties die before that day, such deaths will be no bar to the remedy of a bonâ fide holder. (49)

an indorsee against the maker upon a note payable on the receipt of the payee's wages from his majesty's ship the Suffolk, the court thought the case like that of Andrews v. Franklin, and after looking into that case are said to have given judgment for the plaintiff. Quære tamen, because it was uncertain, though the wages might be paid, whether the maker would receive them.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

So if a blank be left for the date, and that date is afterwards filled up, the manner of filling it up will furnish no ground of objection either to the original parties;

Or to the person who filled it up. (50)

Sect. 6. Bills and notes are either inland or foreign inland when made and payable within this kingdom; and foreign, when made or payable abroad.

It was once doubted whether notes would be intitled to the aid of 3 & 4 Ann. c. 9. unless they were made within this kingdom, (51) but there have been instances (52) (53) since in which actions have

(50) See Usher v. Dauncey, post.

(51) Carr v. Shaw, B, R. H. 39 Geo. 3. In an action on a promissory note made at Philadelphia, the first count of the declaration stated that the defendant, at Philadelphia, in parts beyond the seas, to wit, at London, &c. according to the form of the statute, &c. made his note in writing, &c. There were also the common money counts. The defendant demurred specially to the first count, and pleaded the general issue to the others. On the demurrer the court intimated a strong opinion that the statute did not apply to foreign notes, and advised the plaintiff to amend: but on the general issue Lord Kenyon said, the note, though not within the statute, is evidence to support any of the money counts, and the plaintiff had a verdict at Guildhall, 1st May, 1799.

N. The pleadings are entered as of Michaelmas Term, 39 G. 3. Roll. 1238.

(52) See Pollard v. Herries, 3 Bos. & Pull. 335, where the plaintiffs recovered upon notes made at Paris. See also Splitgerber v. Kohn, post.

« AnteriorContinuar »