Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

cording to the receipt in my hands, "or for value deposited and registered is a good note, because it is payable at all events.

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 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.

:

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. (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.

(43) Çooke v. Colehan, Str. 1217. Willes, 393. On error 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 C. 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 an endorsee against the maker upon a note pay able 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.

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 £5, 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)

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. (a)

(46) See ante, p. 8.

(47) 55 G. 3. c. 184. s. 18.
(48) 55 G. 3. c. 184. s. 12, 13.
(49) See Pasmore v. North, post.

(50) See Usher v. Dauncey, post.

[(a) A bill was drawn at Manchester (England) payable in London on a house in Boston (Mass.) and was accepted in the name of the Boston house by a member of the firm, who was then at Manchester, though his domicil was in Boston. In an action upon this bill in Massachusetts against the acceptors, the court held that "it must be considered as a foreign bill, having the same effect as if the payee had sent it to Boston, and it had been accepted here, payable in London." Grimshaw v. Bender, 6 Mass. R. 157.

In New York a bill drawn in one of the United States upon a person within the United States, though not in the same state with the drawer, has been considered as an inland bill; and therefore requiring no protest, since the statute of 9 and 10 W. III. requiring a protest on such bills is not adopted in that State. The case however turned upon another point. Miller v. Hackley, 5 Johns. R. 375.

In South Carolina it was held that a bill drawn in New York upon

[ocr errors]

It was once doubted whether notes would be intitled to the aid of 3 and 4 Ann. c. 9. unless they were made within this kingdom, (51) but there have been instances (52) (53) since in which actions have been brought upon such notes without exception, (a) and 48 G. 3. c. 149. s. 21. prohibited the negotiation or payment of such notes unless they were stamped, and this prohibition is still continued by 55 G. 3. c. 184. s. 29. as to notes payable to the bearer on demand.

And it is no objection to a bill or note that it was made by a British subject in an enemy's country in time of war, if

Charleston (S. C.) was a foreign bill, and therefore that a protest for non-acceptance was necessary in order to charge an endorser. Nott.J. delivered the opinion of the Court. "Sovereignty or jurisdiction over the "subject appears to be the criterion by which to determine the charac"ter of the instrument. It would seem correct, therefore, to consider "bills between the several States as foreign. They are usually sent "in sets. Exchange is allowed on them; and unless a protest is to be "received as evidence of non-acceptance, the difficulty of proving the "fact would very much obstruct that kind of intercourse between the "States. However they may have been considered in other States, "there has never been but one opinion on the subject in this State." Duncan v. Course, 1 S. Car. R. 100.

In Pennsylvania a bill drawn in one State upon a person residing in another, seems to have been considered a foreign bill. Lonsdale v. Brown, Whart. Dig. 85.]

(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.

[(a) Action by the endorsee against the maker of a promissory note made at Dundee in Scotland. It was contended that the endorsee could sue the maker, only when the note was made in England. Per Curiam. The words "This is within both the words and the spirit of the act. are all notes.' It is for the advancement of commerce that foreign as well as inland notes should be negotiable." Milne v. Graham, 1 Barn. & Cres. 192. S. C. 2 Dow. & Ryl. 293.]

it do not appear to have been made for any illegal purpose, and was made payable to a neutral. (53)

Or, if made by a British prisoner of war, if made payable or endorsed to an alien enemy. (54)

Inland bills and notes seldom consist of more than one part foreign bills in general consist of several.

The several parts of a bill are called a set.

Each part contains a condition that it shall be payable only so long as all the others remain unpaid in other respects all are of the same tenor.

This condition should be inserted in each part, and should in each mention every other part of the set, for if a man with an intention to make a set of three parts should omit the condition in the first, and make the second with a condition mentioning the first only, and in the third alone take notice of the other two (which, by the way, is the mode pointed out by (55) Molloy, (56) Malynes, and (57) Marius) he might perhaps in some cases be obliged to pay each; for it might be questionable if it would be any defence to an action on the second that he had paid the third, or to an action on the first that he had paid either of the others.

But an omission is not, perhaps, material, which upon the face of the condition must necessarily have arisen from a mistake, as if in the enumeration of the several parts one of the intermediate ones were to be omitted, for instance," Pay this my first of exchange, second and fourth not paid."

Where a bill consists of several parts, each ought to be delivered to the person in whose favor it is made, (unless one

(53) Houriet v. Morris, 3 Campb. 303. Payees against maker on note made at Paris in time of war: defendant was a British subject, plaintiffs neutral merchants in Switzerland: the note was given by defendant for watches bought by him in Paris of plaintiffs: it was objected that this was a trading in an enemy's country in time of war, and that a note founded on such trading was not valid: but Lord Ellenborough said, plaintiffs were not enemies, and might legally sell their goods in an enemy's country, and defendant did not appear to have bought them for any illegal purpose. Plaintiffs had a verdict. (54) See Antoine v. Morshead, and Daubuz v. Morshead, post. (55) Book 2. c. 10. s. 14.

(56) Book 3. c. 5. p. 261, 262.

(57) P. 7.

is forwarded to the drawee for acceptance,) otherwise there may be difficulties in negotiating the bill, or obtaining pay

ment.

Sect. 7.-A bill or note may fix a particular place for payment.

And where this is what is to be considered as part of a bill or note, it is a variance to omit stating it; (58)

And in an action against the maker of the note, or acceptor of the bill, may make it necessary to allege and prove presentment at that place. (59)

The place is considered part of the instrument where it is incorporated in the body of the bill or note; where it is detached from the body as a memorandum only, not.

Sect. 8.-Bills and notes are made payable to order, or to bearer, or to specified individuals.

A bill or note payable to J. S. or order, is payable to the order of J. S. and negotiable by endorsement. A bill or note payable to J. S. or bearer, is (60) payable to the bearer and negotiable by delivery; and in the latter case J. S. is a mere cypher.

[But a note saying "Due the bearer hereof" a certain

(58) Hodge v. Fillis. See post.

(59) Roche v. Campbell. See post.

[But the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in an action by the endorsee against the maker of a note payable at the Penobscot Bank, held that a plea that the holder of the note was not present at the time and place appointed for payment was bad; and said, "This is no bar to an action on a promise to pay money: and the issue tendered was therefore an immaterial one.” Ruggles v. Patten, 8 Mass. R. 480.]

The

(60) Grant v. Vaughan, Burr. 1516. Vaughan gave Bicknell a draught upon his banker payable "to ship Fortune or bearer." draught came to the hands of Grant, who sued Vaughan upon it. The defendant contended that this draught was a mere authority to receive the money, and not negotiable, and that point and another being left to the jury, they found for the defendant; but upon an application for a new trial, and cause shewn, the court held clearly that it was negotiable, and a new trial was granted, in which the plaintiff recovered.

« AnteriorContinuar »