Sect. 1. Of presentment for acceptance; and 1st, when necessary. When a bill is drawn payable within a specified time after sight, it is necessary, in order to fix the period when it is to be paid, to present it to the drawee for acceptance'; but in other cases it is not incumbent on the holder to present the bill before it is due❜; and in Bristol, it is said, that the practice is not to present for acceptance or to accept. It is however certainly most advisable in all cases to endeavour to get the bill accepted, as by that means the holder obtains the additional security of the drawee, and the bill consequently becomes more negotiable: and if the drawee refuse to accept, the drawer and indorser may immediately be sued. And it is said, that it is incumbent on the bearer of a bill, when he is but the mere agent of the person entitled to it, and on the payee, when he is directed by the drawer to do so, to present it for acceptance as soon as possible, because it is only by acceptance that the person on whom the bill is drawn becomes debtor, and responsible to the holder; and if Per Eyre, C. J. in Muilman v. D'Eguino, 2 Hen. Bla. 565. but if a bill be on an insufficient stamp, no presentment seems necessary, ante, 75. 2 Per Gibbs, C. J. in O'Keefe v. Dunn, 1 Marsh. 616,621.-6 Taunt. 305. S. C. and ante, 162, n. 1.—Bayl. 100.-1 Selw. 4th ed. 310, 1. Goodall v. Dolley, 1 T. R. 713.-Blesard v. Hirst, Burr. 2670. Per. Lord Ellenborough, in Orr v. Maginnis, 7 East. 362.—acc. Mar. 46. Com. Dig. tit. Merchant, F. 6, semb. contra. The 7th Section of the 3d and 4th Anne, c. 9. enacts, that if the holder do not take his due course to obtain payment by endeavouring to get the bill accepted and paid, and make his protest for-non-acceptance or non-payment, the taking the bill shall be considered a payment; but the statute does not appear to require a presentment for acceptance when it would be unnecessary at common law. Molloy, B. 2. C. 10. sec. 16. If a bill is drawn upon a merchant in London, payable to J. S. at double usance, J. S. is not bound, in strictness of law, to procure an acceptance, but only to tender the bill when the money is due. Beawes, pl. 266, p. 453. There is no obligation to procure acceptance of a bill payable at a day certain as the time goes on, whether accepted or not; but it is otherwise with bills payable at so many days sight. See also Marius, 12, 13. 3 Johnson v. Collins, 1 East. 99. * Mar. 48.-Poth. pl. 143. Mar. 4th ed. 12.-Beawes, pl. 266.-Claxton v. Swift, 2 Show. 496.-Selw. Ni. Pri. 4th ed. 311. Ballingalls v. Gloster, 3 East. 181.-Allan v. Morson, 4 Campb. 115, post. sentment for ac cessary. the affairs of the drawer should be deranged, an agent 1st. When prewho has neglected to present the bill for acceptance, ceptance is ne might be answerable in damages and interest to the person who employed him. If a person be holder of a bill which is not addressed to any particular individual, but is accompanied with a letter of advice, mentioning the person on whom the bill is drawn, it is said that the bill should be presented to the person mentioned in the letter of advice, who may thereupon accept the bill, and that if he refuse to do so, it may be protested for non-acceptance 2. In cases where it would otherwise be necessary to present a bill for acceptance, the holder may, as will be seen hereafter, excuse his neglect to do so, by proving that the drawer or other person insisting on the want of it as a defence, had no effects in the hands of the drawee, or had given no consideration for the bill 3. time presentment With respect to the time when bills payable after 2dly, At what sight should be presented for acceptance, it has been should be made observed that the only rule which can be applied to all for acceptance. cases of bills of exchange, whether foreign or inland, and whether payable at sight, or at so many days after sight, or in any other manner, is, that due diligence must be used; and, as the drawer may sustain a loss by the holder's keeping it any great length of time, it is advisable in all cases to present it as soon as possible '. In the case of a foreign bill payable after sight, it has been decided, that it is no laches to put it into circulation before acceptance, and to keep it in circulation without acceptance, as long as the convenience. of the successive holders requires; and it has even been laid down, that if a bill drawn at three days sight. Poth. pl. 128-Mar. 46. 2 Mar. 142, 3. De Berdt n. Atkinson, 2 Hen. Bla. 336. et post. Per Buller, J. in Muilman v. D'Eguino, 2 Hen. Bla. 569.-. See also Selw. N. P. 4th ed. 310.-Bayl. 100, 1, 2. 'Poth. pl. 143. 2dly, At what time presentment should be made for acceptance. were kept out in that way for a year, this would not be laches; and if a bill is payable in India sixty days after sight, it is not necessarily laches to omit presenting it for acceptance for twenty-six days after its arrival. But if, instead of putting it into circulation the holder were to lock it up for any length of time, this would be deemed laches'. 'Muilman v. D'Eguino, 2 Hen. Bla. 565. In debt on bond, conditioned to pay certain bills drawn on India at sixty days after sight, in case they should be returned protested, defendant pleaded that they were not presented for acceptance within a reasonable time after the drawing. It appeared that they were drawn the 5th of March, 1793; that they were indorsed on that day by defendant to plaintiffs, who procured them for a house at Paris; that plaintiffs sent immediate advice to the house at Paris, and, on receiving their directions, on the 30th of April sent them to India, where they arrived on the Sd of October. On the 5th of October the holder wrote to the drawee, whe was from home, desiring him to accept the bills, and on the 17th of October he sent an answer of refusal; some of the bills were thereupon protested the 29th of October, and the rest the 18th of November. Eyre, C. J. left the case to the jury, but told them that he thought the bills had been sent to India in time, as they were put up here for negotiation, and were therefore liable to be delayed, and that they were presented in India in time after their arrival. The jury found for the plaintiff, and on a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial and cause shewn, the court was satisfied with the verdict, and plaintiff had judgment. Eyre, C. J. said "it is not necessary to lay down any new rule as to bills of exchange, payable at sight, or within a given time afterwards; if it were, I should feel great anxiety not to clog the negotiation of bills circumstanced like these. It would be a very serious and difficult thing to say, that a person buying a foreign bill, in the way these were bought, should be obliged to transmit it by the first opportunity to the place of its destination. There would also be a great difficulty in saying at what time such a bill should be presented for acceptance; the courts have been very cautious in fixing any time for presenting for acceptance an inland bill, payable at a certain period after sight, and it seems to me more necessary to be cautious with respect to a foreign bill payable in that manner. I think, indeed, the holder is bound to present the bill in a reasonable time, in order that the period may commence from which the payment is to take place, but the question what is reasonable time, must depend on the particular circumstances of the case; and it must always be for the jury to determine, whether any laches are imputable to the plaintiff.-Per Buller, J. the only rule I know of, which can be applied to the case of bills of exchange, is, that due diligence must be used. Due diligence is the only thing to be looked at, whether the bill be foreign or inland; and whether it be payable at sight, or at so many days after, or any other manner. But I think a rule may be thus far laid down as to laches with regard to bills payable at sight or a certain time after sight, namely, that they ought to be put in circulation; and if a bill drawn at three days sight were kept out in that way for a year, I cannot say that there would be laches; but if, instead of putting it in circulation, the holder were to lock it up for any length of time, I should say that he The holder of an inland bill payable after sight is 2dly, At what not bound instantly to transmit the bill for acceptance, should be made would be guilty of laches, but further than this no rule can be laid down. Per Heath, J. no rule can be laid down as to the time for presenting bills payable at sight, or at a given time afterwards. In the French ordinances of 1673, in Postlethwaite and Marius, it is said, that a bill payable at sight or at will is the same thing.-See also Bayl. 100, 1. 2. Goupy and another v. Harden and others, 7 Taunt. 159.-2 Marsh. 454.-1 Holt, C. N. P. 342. S. C. Indorsee of two bills of exchange drawn in London, 12th of May, 1815, upon Gould and Co. of Lisbon, at thirty days after sight, payable to defendants, and by them indorsed in London, and transmitted by them to the plaintiffs in Paris, and afterwards indorsed by the plaintiffs to Ricci and Sons, who further negotiated them. It was proved that the drawees paid their bills to the 30th June, 1815, but the bills were not presented to them for ac ceptance until the 22d August in the same year, when they were refused, and protested for non-acceptance. In this action against the defendants as such indorsers, it was objected that there had been laches in not presenting the bills for acceptance; that the bills were payable at thirty days sight. If they had been sent to Gould and Co. with due diligence, and he had refused to accept upon notice of the dishonour to the defendants, they might have recovered against the house of De Franca and Co. the drawers, who continued solvent more than two months from the date of the bills, but instead of transmitting the bills in the ordinary way to Lisbon, they are sent in general circulation, and the defendants hear nothing of the transaction till five months after the indorsement. Per Gibbs, C. J. on the trial, "The distinction is between bills payable at a certain number of days after date, and bills payable at a certain number of days after sight. In the former, the holder is bound to use all due diligence, and to present such bill at its maturity; but in the latter case, he has a right to put the bill into circulation before he presents it, and then of course it is uncertain when it will be presented to the drawee. It is to the prejudice of the holder if he delays to do it, and he loses his money and his interest." There are dicta that it ought to be done in a reasonable time." Verdict for the plaintiffs. Goupy v. Harden, 7 Taunt. 162. Same case on a motion by defendant to set aside the verdict. Per Gibbs, C. J. “If these bills had been locked up and not sent into circulation, the case would have been widely different. I know dicta may be found, that a bill payable at sight, must be presented within a reasonable time; but this very question occurred in this court in the case of Muilman p. D'Eguino, 2 Hen. Bla. 565. Bills were sent out to India, and one question was whether they were presented for acceptance within a reasonable time in India, and it was held that they were; but the main question was, whether they were delayed too long in Europe before they were sent out." Upon the last point, Eyre, C. J. says, "There would be great difficulty in saying at what time such a bill should be presented for acceptance. The courts have been very cautious in fixing any time for an inland bill payable at a certain period after sight, to be presented for acceptance; and it seems to me more necessary to be cautious with respect to a foreign bill payable in that manner. I do not see how the courts can lay down any precise rule on the subject." Heath, J. says, "No rule can be laid down as to the time for presenting bills payable at sight or a given time after." The jury have found that these bills were presented in a reasonable time, but the law prescribes only P time presentment for acceptance. 2dly, At what time presentment should be made for acceptance. he that they must be presented at some time. Buller, J. is still stronger, and lays down the rule only that the bill must be put into circulation. In the present instance these bills were put into circulation, and they passed through Paris and Genoa. He proceeds to say, if they are circulated the parties are known to the world, and their credit is looked to; and if a bill, drawn at three days sight, were kept out in that way for a year, I cannot say that there would be laches." But, if instead of putting it into circulation the holder were to lock it up for any length of time, I should say that he was guilty of laches, I am therefore clearly of opinion that the parties were not guilty of laches, in putting this bill into circulation before it was presented for acceptance." 1 Fry v. Hill, 7 Taunt. 397. This was an action for goods sold and delivered, and upon the trial before Parke, J. at the sittings after Michaelmas term, 1817, it appeared that the defendant having occasion to pay the plaintiff £134. 18s. for goods, early on Friday the 9th of the month, the defendants bankers on his account as to £134. 18s. (parcel) and receiving from the plaintiff the difference in cash, delivered at Windsor to the plaintiff's servant, a bill, to which the defendant was no party, drawn by themselves upon their corresponding banker in London, at one month after sight, for £140. The bill was presented for acceptance on the 13th of the same mouth, and the country bankers having failed on that same day, acceptance was refused. Shepherd, Solicitor-General, contended, that as well by this course of dealing which the plaintiff himself had elected, as by his Jaches in presenting the bill, he had made the bill his own, and was paid for the goods. The jury, however, under the direction of Parke, J. who relied on Goupy v. Harden, ante, 209, found a verdict for the plaintiff. The Solicitor General now moved to set it aside, and enter a nonsuit, renewing the same objections. He insisted that it was the duty of the plaintiff, receiving a bill payable at a certain time after sight, to present it for acceptance, as soon as he conveniently could: If the plaintiff had forwarded this bill for acceptance on the Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Monday, he would thereby have enabled the defendant to withdraw his funds from his bankers hands. The necessity is more urgent to present for acceptance a bill payable after sight, than a bill payable after date, because, by deferring it, the holder protracts the period of that payment, whereby the drawer proposes to withdraw his effects from the hands of the drawee. Secondly, it was for the plaintiff's own convenience of remittance, that, instead of taking a check for the sum which the defendant proposed to pay, he had commuted it for a bill, and this was strongly evinced by his taking a bill not for £134. 18s. but for £140. paying the difference, and therein blending his own property with this payment, whereby he had rendered the bill completely his own, and was paid for his goods. Gibbs, C. J. The defendant's argument on the first point, would go to the extent, that the holder of a bill payable after sight is bound to transmit it for acceptance, without putting it into circulation at all. But even if it were a case in which it was required to give instant notice, it has been repeatedly determined that the holder of a bill is not bound to send it on the same day that he receives it; and there |