making it cannot be complied with or performed without the payment of money, is a bill or note.

(5)

Thus an order or promise to (4) deliver, or that I. S. shall receive money, or to be (6) accountable or (7) responsible for it to him or order, is a good bill or note.

But a mere (8) acknowledgment of a debt without any promise to pay, is not a bill or note.

A note was (9) in these words, "borrowed of 1. S. £50, which I promise not to pay:" and per Lord Macclesfield, the word not shall be rejected, for a man shall never say, I am a cheat and have defrauded.

An order to pay money will be a bill, though instead of the ordinary direction to the drawers, the word at is prefixed to their names. (10)

"bonds and notes, for which £400 were paid him on account of Col. "Synge, and that Sir Andrew delivered me Major Graham's receipt and bill on me for £10, which £10 and £15 58. balance due to Sir "Andrew I am still indebted, and do promise to pay," and upon demurrer to the declaration, the court held it a note within the statute. (4) D. acc. Lord Raym. 1397.

(5) D. 8 Mod. 364.

(6) Morris v. Lea, Lord Raym, 1396. Str. 629. 8 Mod. 326. Plaintiff sued as indorsee upon a note by which the defendant promised to be accountable to A or order for £100, value received; and after verdict for the plaintiff it was insisted in arrest of judgment, that this was not a negotiable note; sed per cur., no precise words are necessary to be used in a bill or note: Deliver such a sum makes a good bill; by receiving the value the defendant becomes a debtor, and when he promises to be accountable for it to A, it is the same as a promise to pay to A, and it is the stronger, because it is to be accountable to A or order, and it would be an odd construction to expound the word accountable, to give an account, when there may be several indorsees. Judgment for plaintiff.

(7) D. 8 Mod. 364.

(8) Fisher v. Leslie, 1 Esp. N. P. C. 426. An unstamped slip of paper with "I. O. U. eight guineas," written upon it, and signed by the defendant, was offered in evidence under the money counts, and objected to as being either a promissory note, or a receipt, and therefore requiring a stamp; but Lord Kenyon held that it was neither a promissory note nor a receipt, and received it in evidence. But see Guy v. Harris, sittings after Easter Term, 1800, cor. Lord Eldon, C. J. contra, Chitty 243. n.

(9) Cited per Lord Mansfield in Russell v. Langstaffe. B. R. M. 21 Geo III. and in Peach v. Kay, sittings after Tr. 1781, and per Lord Hardwicke, 2 Atk. 32.

(10) Shuttleworth v. Stephens, 1 Campb. 407. In an action against defendant as drawer of a bill, the instrument was in this form: "Two

Especially if from fraud it is written in such a manner as to be intended to escape observation, and to make the instrument pass as a bill. (11)

The order may be addressed to the person making it, in other words, a man may draw upon himself; but in legal operation it is rather a note than a bill. (12)

[The order in a bill of exchange to the drawee, is not revoked by the death of the drawer. (a)]

months after date pay to the order of J. J. £78 11s. value received, T. S. at Messrs. John Morson and Co." Lord Ellenborough held this was properly declared on as a bill of exchange, and the plaintiff had a verdict.

(11) Allan v. Mawson, 4 Campb. 115. In an action against defendant as drawer of a bill, the insrument was as follows. "Two months after date pay L. H. or order £40, value received, G. M. Jno. Perring and Co's." The at was in very small letters in the hook of the S. Plaintiff presented it for acceptance, and on refusal brought this action within the two months: the question was, whether plaintiff was intitled to treat this as a bill of exchange, and Gibbs, C. J. thought he would have been on the authority of Shuttleworth v. Stephens, 1 Campb. 407. had the word at been distinctly written; but he left it to the jury whether it was not fraudulently written to escape detection, and to induce a belief that the instrument was a bill, the jury thought it was, and found for plaintiff.

(12) Starke v. Cheeseman, Tr. 11 W. III. Carth. 509. Christopher Cheeseman being in Virginia, drew upon Christopher Cheeseman in Ratcliffe, which in truth was himself; and an action being brought against him upon the bill, he suffered judgment by default, without taking any objection on this ground, though he did upon others, and the plaintiff had judgment.

Dehers v. Harriot, Tr. 2 W. and M. 1 Show. 163. A drew a bill payable by himself in Dublin; an action was afterwards brought thereon, and the plaintiff recovered.

Robinson v. Bland, Burr. 1077. The defendant being at Paris drew a bill for £672 on himself in London; the consideration was partly money lost at play in Paris, and partly money lent at the time and place of play, and upon that ground a case was reserved for the opinion of the court; but no objection was made that the defendant drew the bill upon himself.

Joselyn v. Laserre, Fort. 282. A man may draw a bill upon himself.

See also Mar. 3.

[(a) Abbot, the master of a vessel at London bound for Boston, and having on board goods consigned to Perkins, drew a bill in favour of one of his (Abbot's) creditors upon Perkins, for the amount of freight to be paid by him. Abbot died, and his estate was insolvent, and after his death, which was known to Perkins, he accepted and paid the bill. Abbot's administrator then sued Perkins for the amount of freight; but the court held that "the draft was an assignment of the money that "might become due for the freight," and that "Abbot's death was not "a revocation of the request on the drawee to accept." Cutts v. Perkins, 12 Mass. R. 206.]

Sect. 3.-Bills and notes must be for the payment of money only; an order or promise to pay money and do some other act is not a bill or (13) note.

And they must be for the payment of money in specie: (a) an order or (14) promise to pay money in good East India Bonds, or in cash, or Bank of England Notes, (15) is not a bill or note.

(13) Martin v. Chauntry, Str. 1271, on error from the court of Common Pleas, the court of King's Bench held that a note to deliver up horses and a wharf, and pay money at a particular day, was not a note within the statute, and reversed the judgment which had considered it as such.

[(a) A note payable in chattels is not a promissory note under the statute. Jerome v. Whitney, 7 Johns. R. 321; Thomas v. Roosa, 7 Johns. R. 461.

Booth drew an order on Manks in favour of Atkinson for £1642 sterling, payable in the goods of Booth or the proceeds thereof, the Court held that this was not a bill of exchange, because it was not payable in money, and said, "besides it was in the alternative, and payable "on a contingency, and out of a particular fund." Atkinson v. Manks, 1 Cowen, 691.]

(14) Anon. Buller's Ni. Pr. 272. a written promise to pay £300 to B or order, in three good East India Bonds, was held not to be a note within the statute.

(15) Ex parte Imeson, Hil. 1815. Case from Chancery, on the question, whether a country bank was debtor to the holder of certain of their notes, which he had taken from third persons, not from the bank; the notes were for payment some of five guineas, some of one guinea “ in cash "or Bank of England notes;" and after argument the court held the bank not debtor to this holder, for these notes were not within the statute, because a delivery of bank notes, which might be of less value than cash, would satisfy them, and they were not absolutely and at all events for payment of money in specie.

Rex v. Wilcox, Easter, 1808. Indictment for forging and uttering a promissory note; the note was to "pay the bearer on demand one guinea "in cash or Bank of England notes;" it was issued by the Pontefract bank. A case was reserved for the consideration of the twelve judges, on the question, whether this was a note within the statute; and a majority of them held it was not; and upon a representation to the crown, the prisoner was pardoned.

[Fales was sued as indorser of a note. The declaration was on a cash note. The note produced in evidence contained the words [Foreign Bills] in brackets at the foot of it. A majority of the Court held that the evidence did not support the declaration, and that such a note was not negotiable, because the import of the words, foreign bills, is not cash, "but something different from cash." Parker J. thought that these words did not destroy the negotiable quality of the paper, because it was not the intention of the parties to affect its transferable quality by them. Jones v. Fales 4 Mass R. 245.

In a subsequent case in an action against the endorser of a promisssory note payable in foreign money, the defendant's counsel objected that the

And they must be for a specific amount.

A bill or note

for a given sum, and for whatever else may be due to the payce, is not, even between the original parties, a bill or note. (16)

Nor is it good for the sum it specifies. (16)

But an order of promise to pay so many "pound" instead of “pounds” is a bill or note. (17)

Negotiable bills or notes made in England for less than (18)

note was not negotiable and so that an action could not be maintained by an endorsee in this form. "But the court held the declaration good." Sanger v. Stimpson, 8 Mass. Rep. 260. The grounds of this decision do not appear in the report. Perhaps the court did not consider the note as negotiable, but merely that this was the proper form of declaring by an endorsee against the endorser of a note not negotiable. Parsons C. J. in an earlier case said, that by the common law of the commonwealth "all notes for merchandize may be sued by the promisee against the promiser, and when endorsed by the endorsee against the endorser, who may declare in the same manner, as he might if the notes were negotiable." Jones v. Fales, 4 Mass. R. 245.

The Supreme Court of New York have taken a different view of this subject.-Count on a promissory note "payable in York State bills or "specie." Demurrer. Per Curiam. "The count is good. The note "therein stated is a negotiable note under the statute; and being de"clared to be payable in York State bills or specie, is the same thing as "being made payable in lawful current money of the state; for the "bills mentioned mean bank paper, which is here, in conformity with "common usage and cominun understanding regarded as cash.” Keith v. Jones, 9 Johns. R. 120.

So in a subsequent case, in an action against the endorser of a note payable "in bank notes current in the city of New York." Woodworth J. delivered the opinion of the Court. "The court will take notice that notes current in the city of New York are of cash value throughout the State; and are distinguished by these words from other bank notes which are received at a discount. From authority I cannot perceive any objection to the note in question. It would have been a note under the statute if payable in bank notes generally; consequently it is valid, as such, when confined to a species of bank paper of known cash value." Judah v. Harris, 19 Johns. R. 144.]

66

(16) Smith v. Nightingale, 2 Stark. 375. Defendant gave Eastling this note, "I promise to pay James Eastling, my head carter, £65, with "lawful interest for the same, three months after date, with all other sums that may be due to him." Eastling's administratrix sued thereon; Lord Ellenborough thought it no note, even for the £65, but an agreement, and it not having an agreement stamp, he nonsuited the plaintiff. (17) Rex v. Post, Pasch. 1806. Prisoner altered a note for one pound into a note for ten, by substituting ten for one before the word "Pound" in the body of the note, and also in the corner. It was urged that a note for payment of ten pound was not a money note. reserved, the judges were clear that it was, and that a capital conviction of the prisoner for forgery was right.

(18) By 48 Geo. III. c. 88. § 2.

On a case

twenty shillings are void; and all negotiable bills or notes made in England (except Bank of England notes, and notes payable to the bearer on demand), for twenty shillings and less than (19) five pounds, unless made conformably with certain regulations, are also void; and the person issuing or negotiating them (20) liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, nor less than five.

These regulations are, that they specify the name and place of abode of the person to whom or to whose order they are made payable; that they be attested by one subscribing witness; that they bear date at or before the time when they are issued; and be made payable within twenty-one days after the date.

But all notes payable to bearer, issued by the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, are (21) good and valid in law, notwithstanding their being for the payment of less than £5. And the act of the 17th Geo. III., so far as it relates either to the making void of promissory notes, or draughts, or undertakings in writing payable on demand to the bearer thereof, for any sum of money less than £5 in the whole, or to the restraining the publishing or uttering and negotiating of any such notes, draughts, or undertakings, was, during the late war, (22) suspended until six months after the ratification of a definitive treaty of peace; and the stamp-act now in force, 55 G. III. c. 184., which imposes stamps on such notes, implies that they are to be considered as valid.

Sect. 4.-A bill or note must purport that the money mentioned in it shall be payable absolutely and at all events; if it purports to make the payment depend on any uncertainty

(19) By 17 Geo. III. c. 30. § 1. made perpetual by 27 Geo. III. c. 16. (20) By 48 Geo. III. c. 88. § 3. where the bill or note is for less than twenty shillings; and by 17 Geo. III. c. 30. § 2. where such bills or notes as fall within that Act, are not made conformably with the regulations there prescribed.

(21) By 37 Geo. III. c. 28.

(22) By 37 Geo. III. c. 32. and 45 Geo. III. c. 25.