the presentment day, or Good Friday, upon which no money ought Sdly. Time when to be paid, the holder ought to present for payment should be made. upon the second day of grace, and in case it be not then paid, must treat the bill as dishonoured'. In other cases, a presentment before the third day of grace, being premature, would be a mere nullity'. Foreign bills, as has been already observed, are of usances. usually drawn payable at one, two, or more usances. The term usance is French, and signifies the time which it is the usage of the countries between which bills are drawn, to appoint for payment of them *. The length of the usance, or time which it includes, varies in different countries, from fourteen days to one, two, or even three months after the date of the bill. Double or treble usance is double or treble the usual time, and half usance is half that time: when it is necessary to divide a month upon an half usance, the division, notwithstanding the difference in the length of the month contains fifteen days 3. 1 39 & 40 Geo. 3. c. 42. Tassal v. Lewis, Lord Raym. 743.-Haynes v. Birks, 3 Bos. & ul. 599.-Kyd. 9.-Bayl. 109, 110.-Mar. 95, 96. Wiffen v. Roberts, 1 Esp. Rep. 262.-Bayl. 112. Poth. pl. 15.-Haynes v. Birks, 3 Bos. & Pul. 338.-Selw. N. P. 4th edit. 338, n. 50.-Bayl. 114. 6 Mar. 93.-Bayl. 114. Molloy, tit. Bills of Exchange, 2d. vol. 2d. book. c. 10.-Bayl. 114. Usance between Amsterdam and Italy, Spain, and Portugal, is Usance between Amsterdam and 2 calendar months*. Frankfort, Nuremburgh, Vien na, and other places in Ger many, on Hamburgh and Breslau, 14 days after sight, 2 usances 28 days, and half usance 7 days. exclusively of the day These usances are calculated of the date of the bill. At the expiration of the appointed usance the bill would be apparently due, but the custom of merchants has allowed the drawee further time, called days of grace, which are in general calculated as before mentioned, exclusively of the last day of usance; and on the last of these three days the bill should, in this country, be presented for payments. 'Poth. 15.-Bayl. 114. acc. Molloy. 84. contra. 2 Lutw. 885.-Bayl. 114. 3 Molloy. 84.-Kyd. 4, 5. 4 Mitford v. Walcot, 12 Mod. 410.-Bayl. 114. date, &c. when When bills, &c. are payable at one, two, or more Bills payable after months after date or sight, the mode of computing the due.' time when they become due, differs from the mode of computation in other cases. In general, when a deed or act of parliament mentions a month, it is construed to mean a lunar mouth, or twenty-eight days, unless otherwise expressed; but in the case of bills and notes, the rule is otherwise, and when a bill is inade payable at a month or months after date, the computation must in all cases be by calendar, and not by lunar months; thus when a bill is dated the 1st of January, and payable at one month after date, the month expires on the 1st of February 2, and with the addition of the days of grace, the bill is payable on the 4th of February, unless that day be a Sunday, and then on the 3d. When one month is longer than the succeeding one, it is said to be a rule not to go, in the computation, into a third month; thus, on a bill dated the 28th, 29th, 30th, or 31st January, and payable one month after date, the time expires on the 28th of February in common years, and in the three latter cases in leap year on the 29th. When the time is computed by days, the day on which the event happens is to be excluded *. When a bill purports to be payable so many days after sight, the days are computed from the day the bill was accepted, exclusively thereof, and not from the date of the bill, or the day the same came to hand, or was presented for acceptance; for the sight must appear in a legal way, which is either by the parties accepting the bill, or by protest for non-acceptances. 2 Bla. Com. 141.-Lacon v. Hooper, 6 T. R. 224.-Castle v. Burditt, 3 T. R. 623.-The King v. Adderley, Dougl. 464. As to lunar and calendar months, and how they are calculated, see Lang v. Gale, 1 M. & S. 111.-Watson v. Pears, 2 Campb. 294.-Cathcart . Hardy, 2 M. & S. 536. 2 Beawes, pl. 253.-Mar. 74, 90. 2d edit. p. 19, 24.-Bayl. 113. Mar. 75.-Kyd. 6. Bellasis v. Hester, Lord Raym. 280.-Bayl. 113. 'Campbell v. French, 6 T. R. 212.-Com. Dig. tit. Merchant, F.7. Bayl. 112. See Anonymous, Lutw. 1591. Bills at sight when duc. With respect to a bill payable at sight, though from the very language of the instrument it should seem that payment ought to be made immediately on presentment, this does not appear to be so settled. The decisions and the treatises differ on the question, whether or not days of grace are allowable. Pothier', enumerating the various kinds of bills, states that a bill. payable at sight, is payable as soon as the bearer presents it to the drawee; but in another part of his work, it appears that this opinion is founded on the words of a particular French ordinance, which cannot extend to bills payable in this country: however, he assigns as a reason that it would be inconvenient if a person who took a bill at sight, payable in a town through which he meant to travel, and the payment of which he stands in need of for the purpose of continuing his journey, should be obliged to wait till the expiration of the days of grace after he presented the bill; a reason obviously as applicable to the case of a bill drawn payable at sight in this as in any other country. Beawes, in his Lex Mercatoria3, says, that bills made payable here at sight, have no days of grace allowed, although it would be otherwise in the case of a bill made payable one day after sight. Mr. Kyd, in his Treatise * expresses the same opinion. But it seems, that the rule is unsettled'. In Dehers v. Harriot', it was taken for granted that days of grace are allowable on a bill payable at sight. The same point was decided in Coleman v. Sayer 7. And in another case, where the question was, whether a bill payable at sight, was included under an exception in the stamp act, 23 G. 3. 1 Pl. 12. 172, 198. 2 Id. pl. 172. 3 Pl. 256. * Page 10. Bayl. 62, 66, 2d edit.-Bayl. 3d edit. pa. 42, 109, 110. 7 Coleman v. Sayer, Barnard Rep. B. R. 303.-Vin. Ab. Bills of Exchange. 8 l'Anson v. Thomas, B. R. Trin. 24 G. 3. ante, 71. due. c. 49. s. 4. in favour of bills payable on demand, the Bills at sight when court held that it was not; and Buller, J. mentioned a ease before Willes, C. J. in London, in which a jury of merchants was of opinion, that the usual days of grace were to be allowed on bills payable at sight. And Mr. Selwyn, in his Nisi Prius, observes, that the weight of authority is in favour of such allowance'. When checks, bills, &c. payable When a check or bill or banker's note is expressed to be payable on demand, or when no time of payment on demand should be presented for is expressed, it is payable instantly on presentment, payment. It has been frequently disputed, whether it is the province of the court, or of a jury, to determine upon the reasonableness of the time within which a check, &c. payable on demand, should be presented for payment. Formerly it was thought that it was a question for the jury; but the decisions, even of mercantile juries, were found so much at variance from each other, that for the sake of certainty on the subject, it is now settled, that the reasonableness of the time for presentment is partly a question of fact, and partly of law; the jury are to find the facts, such as the distance at which the parties are from each other, the course of the post, &c. ; but when those facts are established, the reasonableness of the time is a question of law, upon which the judge is to direct the jury, though judges may take the opinion of a jury, as to what is convenient with reference to mercantile transactions. This doctrine, though formerly by no 'Selw. 4th edit. 339; and see Bayl. 42, 109, 110. Bayl. 103, 4, 5. 3 Ante, 335, 6.-Bayl. 103.-2 Taunt. 394.-Tindal v. Brown, 1 T. R. 168.-Darbishire v. Parker, 6 East, 3, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16.— Parker. Gordon, 7 East. 386.-Haynes v. Birks, 3 Bos. & Pul. 599. Appleton v. Sweetapple, 1 Esp. N. P. 58.-Bayl. 106, note c.-The King v. the Dean of St. Asaph, 3 T. R. 428, n. a. Per Grose, J. in Scott v. Lifford, 9 East. 347. |