CHAPTER VIII. agreement. No mere oral agreement can have any effect at law in controlling the instrument, if contemporaneous with the making of it; for that would be to allow oral evidence to Effect of an oral vary a written contract (1). "Every bill or note," says Parke, J., "imports two things, value received, and an engagement to pay the amount on certain specified terms. Evidence is admissible to deny the receipt of value, but not to vary the engagement" (m). nature of an escrow. An instrument under seal may be delivered as an escrow Delivery in the that is to say, with a condition that it shall not operate as a deed, except in a certain event. An instrument under seal, which is to operate as an escrow, must be delivered, not to the obligee, but to a stranger, and regularly the condition should be expressed by apt words used at the time of the delivery (n). In analogy with a deed, it has been held that a written and signed simple contract may be delivered with an express parol condition precedent, that it is not to take effect except in a (1) Hoare v. Graham, 3 Camp. 57; Free v. Harkins, 8 Taunt. 92; 1 Moore, 28, S. C.; Woodbridge v. Spooner, 8 B. & Al. 233; 1 Ch. R. 661, S. C.; Moseley v. Hanford, 10 B. & C. 729; Foster v. Jolly, 1 C., M. & R. 703; 5 Tyr. 255, S. C.; Richards v. Thomas, 1 C., M. & R. 772; Holt v. Miers, 9 C, & P. 191; Besant v. Cross, 10 C. B. 895. (m) Abbott v. Hendricks, 1 M. & G. 795; Moseley v. Hanford, 10 B. & C. 729. "The cases," says Maule, J., "show that although a consideration is stated in the note, you may show that it was given for a different consideration or without any consideration at all." Abbott v. Hendricks, 1 M. & G. 791; 2 Scott, N. R. 183, S. C.; but see Ridout v. Bristow, 1 C. & J. 231; 1 Tyr. 84, S. C., and Edwards v. Jones, 2 M. & W. 414; 5 Dowl. 585; 7 C. & P. 633, S. C. In Pike v. Street, 1 Dans. & Lloyd, 159; 1 M. & M. 226, it was held a good defence to an action against the drawer that, at the time when the plaintiff discounted the bill, he verbally agreed, in the event of its being dishonoured, not to pro ceed against the drawer, who had indorsed the bill to him. An indorsement may, perhaps, be excepted from the rule in the text on account of its twofold operation, it being at once an express assignment to the indorsee of the right of action against the acceptor, and containing incorporated therewith an implied conditional promise on the part of the indorser to pay on the acceptor's default. This conditional promise may be varied by parol, so as to increase the indorser's liability. Phipson v. Kelner, 4 Camp. 285; Burgh v. Legge, 5 M. & W. 418; Brett v. Levett, 13 East, 214. It may therefore by analogy well be varied by parol so as to diminish his liability. See the numerous American authorities on the point, Byles on Bills, 5th American ed. 196. See also the Chapter on TRANSFER. (n) Sheppard's Touchstone, 58; see Murray v. Earl of Stair, 2 B. & C. 82, where the Court of King's Bench expressed an opinion that it was not indispensable that express words should be used at the time, but that the condition might be gathered from circumstances. CHAPTER VIII. Agreement to renew. Agreement on bill must be read. Pleading. certain event. And the instrument may be so delivered, not only to a stranger, but by one party to the other (o). And evidence of the parol condition is admissible not only when it is relied on as a condition, but also when an action is brought upon it as an agreement (p). When such a doctrine is extended to a bill of exchange or promissory note, it is obvious that it must not be applied to the injury of a holder for value without notice. An agreement to renew, without more, is an agreement to renew once only (9). But the apopil party ( A defendant has a right at the trial to call on the plaintiff to read any indorsements that may be on the bill (r)&& 4+ Though it be necessary that the agreement affecting the operation of the bill or note should be in writing, it is not necessary in pleading to aver that it is in writing (s). (0) Davis v. Jones, 17 C. B. 625; Pym v. Campbell, 6 E. & B. 370; Wallis v. Littell, C. B., M. T. 1861; 31 L. J. 101, C. P.; Lara v. Hacon, E. T., C. P. 1863; Rogers v. Hadley, 32 L. J., Ex. 241. In this last case parol evidence was held admissible to show that a contract signed and delivered was never intended to be the real contract between the parties. (p) Hindley v. Lacey, 34 L. J., C. P. 7. (q) Innes v. Munro, 1 Exch. 473. See as to an agreement to renew being used as a defence to an action, Flight v. Gray, 3 C. B., N. S. 320; Webb v. Spicer, 13 Q. B. 886, 894; Salmon v. Webb, H. L. Cas. 510. The point did not arise in Innes v. Munro. (r) Richards v. Frankum, 9 C. & P. 221. As to agreements by clerks in fraud of their employers, see Bosanquet v. Foster, 9 ̊C. & P. 659; Bosanquet v. Corser, 9 C. & P. 664. (s) Kearns v. Durell, 18 L. J., C. P. 28; 6 C. B. 596, S. C. See Gilbert v. Whitmarsh, 8 Q. B. 969; Austin v. Young, C. P., E. T. 1869. IN treating of the Stamp Laws as they affect bills and notes, let us first review the principal statutory enactments, and then the most important decisions of the Courts on this subject; postponing the consideration of the effect, under the Stamp Laws, of altering a bill or note, to a subsequent Chapter, which will show the effect of alteration, both at had common law and under the Stamp Acts. Im the year 1782 CHAPTER posed on bills Bills and notes were exempt from any stamp duty till When stamps acts, Flauly The duties imposed by the General Stamp Act on bills of exchange and promissory notes were, for the most part, " by the a And many of these Beats Stamp Acts are still in foot as to insinementy secuted or ach done before the 17 Jany 1871 when the Stamp Act 1870 " came into operation CHAPTER IX. repealed by the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 59, and the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 83, and new duties imposed, which are now as follows: DRAFT or ORDER for the payment of any sum of £ s. d. money to the bearer or to order, on demand (a) 0 0 1 INLAND BILL OF EXCHANGE, draft, or order for the Not exceeding 51. Exceeding 51. and not exceeding 101. 001 0 0 2 And where the same shall exceed 4,000l., then Inland bill, draft, or order for the payment of any Inland bill, draft, or order for the payment of any sum of money, weekly, monthly, or at any other (a) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 59; 21 Vict. 0 10 0 (b) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 83. from, or shall be indefinite-the same duty as on a bill payable to bearer or order, on demand (d). And the following instruments are to be deemed and taken to be (e) inland bills, drafts, or orders, for the payment of money, chargeable with stamp duty, viz. :— All drafts or orders for the payment of any sum of money, by a bill or promissory note, or for the delivery of any such bill or note, in payment or satisfaction of any sum of money, where such drafts or orders shall require the payment or delivery to be made to the bearer, or to order, or shall be delivered to the payee, or some person on his or her behalf. All receipts given by any banker or bankers, or other person or persons, for money received, which shall entitle, or be intended to entitle, the person or persons paying the money, or the bearer of such receipts, to receive the like sum from any third person or persons. (d) 55 Geo. 3, c. 184. These (e) 55 Geo. 3, c. 184. and the corresponding provisions relating to promissory notes were introduced to include such instruments as, being payable on a contingency or out of a particular fund, are not, strictly speaking, either bills or notes. See Chapter VII.; Firbank v. Bell, 1 B. & Ald. 39. Where A. having directed B. by letter to pay C. 1,500l. out of the proceeds of certain unsold goods of A. in B.'s hands, and B. in a letter to C. having agreed to do so (which letter was stamped with an agreement stamp), it was held, that as there was no agreement between A. and B., the first letter was inadmissible in evidence without a bill stamp. Ibid. So a letter desiring the correspondent of the writer to pay third persons or their order 6007. out of the first proceeds of a stock of gunpowder, and to charge the same to account, was held liable to a bill stamp, though it form part of a subsequent correspondence between the three houses. Butts v. Swann, 2 B. & B. 78; 4 Moore, 484, S. C. But unless the order specify a CHAPTER |