And now by 1 Geo. 4. c. 92. s. 3. his signature may be impressed by machinery.

The signature to a bill or note must import to bind at all events each person who signs it. A note signed A. B. or else C. D. is not as against C. D. binding as a note. (69)

If a person signs his name upon blank paper, stamped with a bill-stamp, and delivers it to another person to draw such bill as he may choose thereon, he (70) is the drawer of any bill such person shall draw thereon, to which the stamp is applicable.

Sect. 10. If there be a subscribing witness to a bill or note, the bill or note cannot be read in evidence unless such witness is produced, or his absence properly accounted for.

Mr. P. Williams, who argued for the prisoner, says the judges were divided, but the majority of the judges held it to be felony, and the prisoner was transported, not executed.

(69) Ferris v. Bond, ante, p. 13.

(70) Collis v. Emett, 1 H. Bl. 313. Emett signed his name upon a blank paper stamped with a shilling bill-stamp, (the highest stamp then in force for bills,) and delivered it to Livesay and Co. that thay might draw thereon such bill as they should please. They drew one for 15517. at three months' date, which was duly transferred to Collis and Co., and Collis and Co. sued Emett thereon. A special verdict was found, principally with a view to another point; the court held Emett answerable, and the plaintiffs had judgment. See Russell v. Langstaffe, post. Pasmore v. North, post. Usher v. Dauncey, post.

D

Sect. 11. It was for some time matter of controversy whether it was not necessary that a bill or note should import to be for value received, but it is now settled (71) that it need not.

But notes for coals in ships in the port of London must by 3 G. 2. c. 26. s. 7, 8. import to be for value received in coals, and a refusal to insert words to that effect, or taking a note without such words, subjects the buyer and master of the ship to a penalty of 100%. (72)

The note however is not, for want of those words, void. (73)

(71) White v. Ledwich, B. R. H. 25 G. III. A declaration upon a bill of exchange was demurred to, because it was not stated to have been given for value received, but the court said, it was a settled point, that it was not necessary, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. The same point is ruled in Macleod v. Snee, Lord Raym. 1481. See also Fort. 282. 8 Mod. 267. 1 Barnard. 88. Lutw. 889. 1 Mod. Ent. 310. 1 Show. 497. (72) By 3 G. 2. c. 26. s. 7. every contractor for coals on board any ship or vessel in the port of London, shall at the time of the delivery of such coals either pay for them in ready money, or for such part as shall not be so paid for, shall give his promissory note or notes for payment thereof, expressing therein the words "value received in coals ;" and by s. 8. all lightermen, or other buyers of or contractors for coals, who shall refuse to give their notes for coals to them respectively delivered, and shall refuse to insert the words "value received in coals," and every such master (i. e. master of a ship or vessel with coals in the port of London) who shall take any such note from any dealer in coals, in which note the words "value received in coals" are not expressly inserted, such lightermen, buyers of or contractors for coals, and masters, shall, for every such refusal or acceptance, respectively forfeit 1007.

(73) Per Holroyd J. 1 Stark. 463.

Sect. 12.

A memorandum on a bill or note before it is issued, may, in some instances, be considered as part of the bill or note, and control its operation.

As a memorandum, that if any dispute shall arise respecting the consideration, the bill or note shall be void. (74)

But a memorandum upon a note to state where it shall be payable, is not. (75)

Nor a memorandum of acceptance on a note payable after sight. (76)

(74) See Hartley v. Wilkinson, ante, p. 17.

(75) Exon v. Russell, 4 Maule, 505. At the bottom of a promissory note was written "At Messrs. Brown and Co.'s, bankers, London." In an action against the maker the declaration alleged that defendant made the note, and thereby promised to pay, &c. and made the same payable and to be paid at the house of certain persons described, as Messrs. Brown and Co.'s: there was no averment or proof of presentation at Brown and Co.'s; and on a rule nisi for a nonsuit for want of such proof, and cause shown, the court held that as the "At Messrs. Brown and Co.'s" was a memorandum only and no part of the note, it was a misdescription to state it as part of the legal effect of the note itself to make it payable there, and on that account the rule was made absolute.

(76) Splitgerber v.Kohn, 1 Stark. 125. Indorsee against maker on a note made in Prussia, and payable seven days after sight: in the margin were these words, " Accepted on myself, payable every where” [and these words were on the note when it issued]; it was urged that they altered the nature of the note, and should have been noticed in the declaration; but Lord Ellenborough said they constituted no part of the original instrument; they were merely an acknowledgment of a sight of the note; and though they were contemporaneous with the note, their effect was in point of law subsequent.

Nor is a memorandum by way of direction to the payee's executors, in case of his death. (77)

Nor a memorandum which cannot be read for want of an agreement stamp. (77)

Nor one which has an attesting witness, and cannot be read on account of his absence. (77)

Sect. 13. The act of drawing a bill implies an undertaking from the drawer to the payee, and every other person to whom the bill may after

(77) Stone v. Metcalfe, 1 Stark. 53. 4 Campb. 217. In an action by payee against maker on a note for 1000l. and interest, payable months after date, there appeared to be a memorandum indorsed upon the note, but that memorandum was attested by J. S.: it was urged for defendant that he had a right to have the memorandum read as well as the note: but per Lord Ellenborough, "Plaintiff is entitled to have the note "read, having proved defendant's hand-writing; but the in"dorsement may be an unconnected instrument." J. S. was then called, and proved the indorsement, which was as follows: "Although the within note is payable in months, my will and desire is that it shall not then be called in, and if defendant shall wish for further time, he shall have it without suit at law until three years after my decease:" it was urged that this indorsement made part of the note, and that neither of them could be read, because, taken together, they required an agreement-stamp. Sed per Lord Ellenborough: "I have on one side "a perfect note, and on the other that which, if stamped, might "have operated as a defeasance, but at which, for want of a stamp, I cannot look: but if the words were incorporated, are words of mere indulgence and favour. As to the

The W the case might be different." The plaintiff had a

Law

Chicago

executors,

Seo Library

of Chicago

Illinois

wards be transferred, that the drawee is a person capable of making himself responsible for its payment, that he shall, if applied to for the purpose, express in writing upon the bill an undertaking to pay it when it shall become payable, and that he shall then pay it and subjects the drawer on a failure in any of these particulars to an action at the suit of the payee or holder.

The making of a note is an express engagement to the payee, or person to whom it shall be transferred, to pay the money mentioned therein, according to its tenor.