of all who become parties subsequently to that per- Sect. 5. Of ac son'. ceptance supra protest. made. The drawee, though he may not choose to accept 1st. By whom on account of him in whose favour he is advised the bill is drawn, may nevertheless accept for the account and honour of the drawer, or in case he do not choose to accept on account of the drawer, he may accept for the honour of the indorser; in which latter case he should immediately send the protest on which he made the acceptance to the indorser. It is said, that if the holder be dissatisfied with the acceptance supra protest, and insist on a simple acceptance, and protest the bill for want of it, the acceptor should renounce the acceptance he had made, and should insist that it be cancelled 3. When the drawee will not accept the bill, any other person may, after refusal by him, and after protest, accept it for the honour of the bill, or of the drawer, or of any particular indorser; and even a bill previously accepted supra protest, may be accepted by another person supra protest, in honour of some particular person 7. No one, however, should accept a bill under protest for non-acceptance for the honour of the drawer, before he has ascertained from the drawee his reason for suffering the bill to be protested; but if the acceptance be in honour of the indorser, such inquiry is unnecessary 8 It is said, that the holder of a bill must receive an acceptance supra protest, if offered by a responsible person, it being of no importance to him, whether it 'Hussey v. Jacob, Ld. Raym. 88.-Lewin v. Brunetti, Lutw. 899. Beawes, pl. 34.-Poth. pl. 112, 13, 14.-Bayl. 45. 2 Beawes, pl. 33, 4. see ante, 289. 3 Beawes, pl. 37. Id. pl. 38.-Hussey v. Jacob, Ld. Raym. 88. ' Mar. 125, 6, 7, 8.-Lewin v. Brunetti, Lutw. 896. 899.-Carth, 129. S. C. observed upon in Hoare v. Cazenove, 16 East. 391. 6 Beawes, pl. 38. 42.-Jackson v. Hudson, 2 Campb. 448. 7 Beawes, pl. 42. 'Beawes, pl. 46. 2dly. Of the mode of accept be accepted simply, or under a protest, as the acceptor pays the charges, unless he had orders from the remitter not to admit of such an acceptance'. But this dictum seems to be erroneous, for it has been adjudged that the holder need not acquiesce in any case There cannot be a series of acceptors of the same bill; it must either be accepted by the drawee, or failing him, by some one for the honour of the drawer 3. The method of accepting supra protest is said to be ing supra protest. as follows: the acceptor must personally appear before a notary public with witnesses, and declare that he accepts such protested bill in honour of the drawer or indorser, and that he will satisfy the same at the appointed time; and then he must subscribe the bill with his own hand, thus-" accepted supra protest, in honour of J. B.," or, as is more usual, accepts S. P." A general acceptance supra protest is considered as made for the honour of the drawer, unless otherwise expressed. Such acceptance, however, may be so worded, that though it be intended for the honour of the drawer, yet it may equally bind the indorser; but in this case, notice of such acceptance must be sent to the latter'. The holder should always take care to have the bill protested for nonacceptance before the acceptance for honour is made, as otherwise, it is said, the drawer might allege that he did not draw on the person making the acceptance". 3dly. Of the liability of the acceptor supra protest. An acceptance supra protest is as obligatory on the acceptor, as if no protest had intervened, it being immaterial to the holder of a bill, on whose account 2 Beawes, pl. 27, 36. Mitford v. Walcot, 12 Mod. 410.-Ld. Raym. 575. S. C. et vide Beawes, pl. 37.-Gregory v. Walcot, Com. 76.-Pillans v. Mierop, 3 Burr. 1672, 4. 3 Jackson v. Hudson, 2 Campb. 447.-Ante, 216. Beawes, pl. 38. Beawes, pl. 39. · Marius, 68. 125, 6, 7. ceptance supra it is accepted. If the acceptance were for the honour Sect. 5. Of acof the bill, or of the drawer, the acceptor is liable to protest. all the indorsees, as well as the holder: if in honour of a particular indorser, then to all subsequent indorsees. The acceptance supra protest, however, is only a conditional engagement, and to render such acceptor absolutely liable, the bill must be duly presented for payment to the drawee, and protested case of refusal. in right of such A person accepting a bill supra protest, either for 4thly. Of the the honour of a drawer or of an indorser, although acceptor. without his order or knowledge, has, as it is said, his redress and remedy against such person, and to all other persons who are liable to that person, who must indemnify him from any damage he may have sustained, the same as if he had acted entirely by his direction'. He who accepts a bill in honour of the 1 Beawes, pl. 35. 45. - Mutford v. Walcot, Lord Raym. 575.12 Mod. 410. S. C.-Gregory v. Walcot, Com. 76.-Pillans v. Mierop, Burr. 1672. 4.-Bayl. 42. n. b. * Hoare and another v. Cazenove and another, 16 East. 391. This was an action on a set of foreign bills of exchange drawn at Hambro', on Penn and Hanbury in London, at one hundred and thirty days after date; the bills were presented to Messrs. P. and H. for acceptance, and refused, and protest duly made for non-acceptance; the bills were afterwards accepted by the defendant under protest for the honour of the first indorsers. When the bill became due, it was not presented to the drawees for payment, nor protested for non-payment. The defendants refused to pay the bill, in consequence of orders from the first indorsers. At the trial the plaintiff had a verdict subject to the opinion of the court on the above case; and after two arguments, and time taken to consider, the court were of opinion, that a presentment to the original drawees for payment, and a protest for nonpayment by them, was essential, as a previous requisite to maintaining an action against an acceptor, for the honour of a first indorser, and ordered the postea to the defendants. Lord Ellenborough said, "the reason of the thing, as well as the strict law of the case, seems to render a second resort to the drawee proper, when the unaccepted bill still remains with the holder, for effects often reach the drawee, who has refused acceptance in the first instance, out of which the bill may and would be satisfied, if presented to him again, when the period of payment had arrived; and the drawer is entitled to the chance of the benefit to arise from such second demand, or, at any rate, to the benefit of that evidence which the protest affords; that the demand has been made duly without effect, as far as such evidence may be available to him for purposes of ulterior resort." 3 Beawes, pl. 47.-Smith v. Nissen, 1 T. R. 269.—Bayl. 73, 4.et vide post, of payment supra protest. Sect. 5. Of acceptance supra protest. drawer only, has no remedy against any of the indorsers, because he accepts merely on the behalf of the drawer; but the acceptor for the honour of the drawer of a bill already accepted by the drawee, but protested by the holder for better security, may, when he has paid the bill, sue the drawer or drawee, though in the case of a bankruptcy of these parties, if the first acceptance were for the accommodation of the drawer, a court of equity will compel the acceptor supra protest first to resort to the drawer's estate. An acceptor for the honour of an indorser, has no claim upon any party to the bill subsequent to him for whose honour he accepted; but the indorser, for whose honour he accepted, and all the prior parties, the drawer included, are obliged to make satisfaction to the acceptor 2. 'Ex parte Wackerbarth, 5 Ves. jun. 574. The acceptor of a bill having become bankrupt, and the holders having protested it for better security, Christian and Bowen accepted it for the honour of the drawers, and having paid it, now claimed to be entitled to dividends under the bankrupt's estate. The Chancellor said, he had spoken to persons in trade upon the subject, and the result was, that the person accepting for the honour of the drawer, had a right to come upon the acceptor. He said, however, that the justice of the case required, that they should go in the first place against the drawer, if the acceptor had no effects, and directed an enquiry to be made, whether the original acceptor, or Christian and Bowen, had effect of the drawer's in hand. 2 Beawes, pl. 49. 35. 44. 3. 24. Poth. pl. 113.- Molloy, B. 2. c. 10. CHAPTER VI. OF PRESENTMENT OF A BILL, &c. FOR PAYMENT-OF It would be extremely prejudicial to commerce, if the Sect. 1.—Of pre sentment for pay 1st. When pre sary. holder of a bill or note, were suffered to give longer ment; and credit to the drawee than the instrument directs, and sentment is necesafterwards, in default of payment by the drawee, to resort to the drawer or indorsers, at a time when perhaps the accounts between them and the persons liable to them may have been adjusted, or those persons may have become insolvent ; and the common law detests negligence and laches. On this principle, it is settled, that the holder of a bill must present it to the drawee for payment at the time when due, when a time of payment is specified; and when no time is expressed, within a reasonable period after receipt of the bill; and that if he neglect to do so, he shall not afterwards resort to the drawer or indorsers, whose implied contracts are only to pay in default of the drawee, and not immediate or absolute, and who are always presumed to have sustained damage by the holder's laches. An acceptor supra protest, we have seen, is also within this rule; and if a bill be accepted, or note made payable a certain time after sight, a presentment is obviously essential, in order to complete the right to payment. And whenever it is incumbent on the holder to present a bill or note for payment at a 'Allen v. Dockwra, 1 Salk. 127.-Collins v. Butler, Stra. 1087. Bul. Ni. Pri. 470.-2 Bla. Com. 470. * Per curiam, in Chamberlyn v. Delarive, 2 Wils. 354. Poth. pl. 129.-Cowley v. Dunlop, 7 T. R. 581, 2. Heylyn v. Adamson, 2 Burr. 669.-Cowley v. Dunlop, 7 T. R. 581, 2. acc.-Cooper v. Le Blanc, Rep. Temp. Hardw. 295. semb. contra. Ante, 313. Holmes v. Kerrison, 2 Taunt. 323. |