in

Herrn "). The holder of the bill is obliged to follow the direction, if the first drawee should be absent or refuse.

The Words "Put it to Account,"

99

66

Although it is common to use the words, at the end of the bill," and put it to my account,' or "to your account," or "and put it to the account of A. B.," or "put it to account as per advice" or as advised by," these words are not essential, but are used only as a matter of convenience. If the drawer should be indebted to the drawee, he would say, "and put it to my account"; if, on the other hand, the drawee should be indebted to the drawer, he would say, "and put it to your account"; and if the bill were drawn on account of a third person, he would say, “ and put it to the account of A. B."

Statement of Advice.

If the bill concludes with the words "as per advice," then the drawee is not obliged to accept or pay, without receiving further directions or advice, and if he do so, he does it at his own peril. If the bill conclude with the words, "without advice," or "with or without advice," then the drawee may accept or pay without being further instructed by the drawer. But the words may be altogether omitted, without impairing the validity of the bill.

The Competency and Capacity of Parties.

We may generally state, that all persons who are legally capable of entering into any other contract are capable of becoming parties to a bill, or in other words, all persons of full age and sound mind, both males and females, may draw, hold, indorse, and accept bills.

Partners.

In regard to partners, the signature of the firm must be put to the bill, either in case of indorsement, drawing, or accepting; and each partner has complete authority to use it; and when so used, the bill is deemed to be on partnership account, unless it appear on the face of the bill, or it can be proved that the party taking it had full knowledge that the bill was drawn, indorsed, or accepted, not for partnership, but individual purposes.

Agents.

Agents, if empowered for the purpose, either expressly or tacitly, may bind their principals to the full extent that their principals might do for themselves, provided that they do not exceed the scope of their authorty. But if agents would bind their principals, they must draw, indorse, or accept the bills in the name of their principals, and not in their own name. The most proper way of doing this, is in the following form, supposing A. Green to be the principal, and B. White, the agent:

“ A. Green,

by B. White, his Agent."

A number of other forms may be used; care should be taken, how. ever, by the agent, if he means to exempt himself from personal responsibility, to use clear and explicit words to show that intention, and to express on the contract the quality in which he acts; otherwise he does not bind the party who employs him, but binds himself. A great many lawsuits have arisen in consequence of an indistinct and loose way of stating the quality in which a person signs a bill, and different decisions in different States have been the consequence.

The following forms, used by agents, have been adjudged as binding the principal in cases of negotiable paper:

A note made in these words: "I promise to pay," etc., and signed, "Pro Wm. Gill, J. S. Colburn." Gill was held liable as principal, and not Colburn, the agent. Long v. Colburn, 11 Mass. 97.

"I, the subscriber, Treasurer of the Dorchester Turnpike Corporation, promise," etc. Signed, "Gardner L. Chandler, Treasurer of the Dorchester Turnpike Corporation." The corporation was held liable. Mann v. Chandler, 9 Mass. R. 335.

A bill drawn on Darling, "Agent of the Commission Company," and accepted thus: "Accepted, Noyes Darling, Agent C. C." The company was held liable, and not the agent. Shelton v. Darling, 2 Conn. R. 435.

It is understood in all these cases that the agent has sufficient authority from his principal to draw or accept bills, or make notes. If the agent, however, has no authority, then the agent himself is liable on the instrument. See Ballou v. Talbot, 16 Mass. 461; Rossiter v. Rossiter 8 Wend. 494.

Payment in Money.

A bill of exchange must be for the payment of money, but it matters not what denomination the money specified has, whether it is called dollars, francs, pounds sterling, Marc Banco, or any other currency, because the value of each kind can be ascertained.

In England negotiable paper must be for the payment of money in specie, and not in bank-notes, and it may be said that the same rule obtains generally in the United States of America, although there are some cases in some States which have extended this rule. (Kent's Comm. Lect. 44, pp. 45 and 46.)

Hence an order to pay money "in good East India bonds," or to pay "in cash or Bank of England notes," or "in foreign bills," or "in goods," is not a negotiable bill.

In New York it has been held that a note payable "in York State bills or specie," was a negotiable paper. (Keith v. Jones, 9 Johns. R. 120.) So also a note "payable in bank-notes current in the city of New York "; and the court remarked, that it would have been a note under the statute if payable in bank-notes generally. (Judah v. Harris, 19 Johns. R. 144.)

But a note payable "in Pennsylvania paper currency, or New York, to be current in the State of Pennsylvania or the State of New York," was held in New York not to be a note for the payment of money, withia

the statute, because the court say that they may take notice, officially, of their own bank paper being regarded as cash, but not of the value of the paper currency of other States. Leiber v. Goodrich, 5 Cowen, 136. A note made payable in New York in Canada money, is not a negotiable promissory note within the statute. Thompson v. Sloan, 23 Wendell, 71.

In Pennsylvania it was held that a note payable to A. B. or order "in bank-notes of the chartered banks of Pennsylvania," was not a negotiable note. M'Cormick v. Trotter, 10 Serg. & Rawle, 94.

In New York it was held that a check, drawn' in that State, upon a bank in Mississippi, payable in current notes, is not negotiable. Little v. The Phœnix Bank, 7 Hill's R. 359.

A note payable to the bearer in goods is not negotiable. Clark v. King, 2 Mass. 524. Nor a note payable in “ foreign bills." Jones v.

Fales, 4 Mass. 245.

It is not necessary that the sum payable should be expressed in words • it is sufficient, if it be in figures. But it is necessary that the order be for d specific amount.

A bill or note for a given sum, "and for whatever else may be due to the payee," is not, even between the original parties, a bill or note. (Bayley on Bills, p. 12.)

So an order for $1,000, " or what might be due after deducting all advances and expenses," is not negotiable. Cushman v. Haynes, 20 Pick.

132.

Payable absolutely.

A bill must also be payable absolutely and at all events, and the pay ment must not be made to depend on any uncertainty or contingency, or it will not be considered a bill of exchange.

66

66

66

"at

Thus a bill drawn payable "provided the terms mentioned in certain letters shall be complied with "; or out of rents"; or 66 on the sale of “when the drawer shall come of age"; or produce when sold"; or thirty days after the ship A. shall arrive at B."; or when the drawer shall marry ; or "when freight becomes due "; or "if the money be not paid at a certain day by a third party"; or provided a certain act is done or not done"; or 66 on the balance of account between the parties"; or provided, at the maturity of the bill, I am living"; or when certain carriages are sold by payee ";- in all these and similar cases the instrument is not considered a bill of exchange. (Bayley on Bills, pp. 14-17, and Story on Bills, $ 46.)

66

66

But where payment only seemingly depends upon a contingency, but in reality is certain and at all events, although the particular time when it will arrive is uncertain, it will be a good bill of exchange in law; e. g. a bill payable at the death of the drawer or of another person, or at a fixed time afterwards.

A note payable "provided the ship Mary arrives," etc. "free from capture and condemnation," is not negotiable. Coolidge v. Ruggles,

15 Mass. 387.

CHAPTER III.

PRESENTMENT OF BILLS FOR ACCEPTANCE.

Contract of the Holder.

THE person who receives a bill or note thereby contracts with every other party to the bill or note who would be entitled to bring an action on paying it, to present it in proper time to the drawee for acceptance when acceptance is necessary, and to the acceptor for payment when the bill shall have arrived at its maturity and be payable; to allow no extra time for payment to the acceptor; and to give notice in a reasonable time, and without delay, to every such person, of a failure in procuring a proper acceptance or payment. Any default or neglect in any of these respects will discharge every such person from responsibility on account of a non-acceptance or non-payment; and will make it operate generally as a satisfaction of any debt, demand, or value for which it was given. (Greenleaf on Evidence, Vol. II. § 175; Wallace v. McConnell, 13 Peters's R. 136; Story on Bills, § 227.)

When Necessary.

If a bill is payable at sight, or in so many days after sight or after demand, or upon any other contingency, or after a certain event, a presentment of the bill to the drawee for acceptance must be made, in order to fix the period of payment. But if the bill is payable on demand, or payable at a certain number of days after date, or after any other certain event, it need not be presented merely for acceptance, but only for payment; but if it be presented for acceptance, and acceptance be refused, the holder must give notice of the dishonor, in the same manner as if the bill were payable at sight or after sight. (Story on Bills, § 112, 227, 228.) It is, however, usual and advisable to present a bill drawn payable a certain number of days after date, for acceptance.

By whom to be presented.

The presentment for acceptance must be made by the holder or his agent. If the bill is presented by one not authorized to hold the bill, the drawee may not be bound to accept it; but if he does accept it, it is available to the holder.

A presentment by any person in possession of a bill or note bonâ fide is sufficient, and no letter of attorney or other writing from the proprietor of the bill or note is necessary to give an authority to another person to make a presentment. (Freeman v. Boynton, 7 Mass. R. 483; Bank of Utica v. Smith, 18 Johns. R. 230.)

And a person's having a bill or note in his possession on the day and at the place of payment is presumptive evidence of authority to demand payment. (Agnew v. Bank of Gettysburg, 2 Har. & Gill, 478.)

To whom to be presented.

The bill must be presented to the drawee, or his authorized agent. If it is drawn on partners, a presentment to one of them is sufficient; but if drawn on several persons not partners, it has been said that it should be presented to each; and if one of the drawees should refuse to accept, the holder would not be bound to take the acceptance of the others alone. (Story on Bills, § 229.)

The death, bankruptcy, insolvency, or absconding of the drawee will not absolve or excuse the holder from presenting the bill. If he is dead, it should be presented to his personal representatives, his executor or administrator, if any there be, and if not, at his last domicile; and if he has absconded, it should be presented at his last domicile or place of business. (Chitty and Hulme on Bills, pp. 279, 280; Groton v. Dalheim, 6 Greenl. 476.) If the holder, upon presentment, should ascertain that the drawee is a married woman, or a person under age or otherwise incapable of contracting, he is not bound to take their acceptance, but may treat the bill as dishonored. (Chitty on Bills, ch. 7, p. 310.)

Time of Presentment.

As regards the time within which a bill ought to be presented for ac ceptance, no definite rule can be laid down, and the law says only, that it must be presented within a reasonable time; but what this reasonable time is, depends upon the peculiar circumstances of each case. If the holder keeps a bill, payable at sight, or payable a certain number of days after sight, in his own possession for an unreasonable time, he makes the bill his own, and loses his right of claim upon the drawer and indorsers. But if the bill (whether it be foreign or domestic) is kept in circulation, and not held by any one holder an unreasonable time, no particular time can be assigned in which it ought to be presented.

It is not necessary to send a bill, payable after sight, by the most direct route to the place where it is payable, when it is the common course of trade to send such bills by an indirect route. Thus, where a bill of exchange was drawn in Havana upon London, payable at sixty days after sight, it was held that the holder need not send it directly to London, but might send it to the United States for sale, such being the common course of trade. (Wallace v. Agry, 4 Mason, 336.) So, where a bill was drawn at New Orleans on Liverpool, it was held, that it might be sent to New York first for sale, that being the usual course of business. (Bolton v. Harrod, 9 Martin, 326.)

But if the holder of a foreign bill carry it to the place where it is payable, he ought to present it for acceptance without delay. (Fernandez v. Lewis, 1 McCord, 322.

But if a bill, payable after sight, is negotiated, and thus sent to different places before it is presented for acceptance, the courts have held this delay allowable. (Goupy v. Harden, 7 Taunt. 159; Gowan v. Jackson, 20 Johns. R. 176.)

A presentment for acceptance or a demand of payment must also be