When checks,

bills, &c. payable

be presented for payment.

means universally assented to, is founded upon the On demand should soundest principles of law; it is justified also in point of expediency, for we find the most contradictory decisions of juries, when the point was left to them, Thus, in some cases, the keeping of a check or bill, payable on demand, three, four, or five days was holden not too long; and in another case it was holden, that the presentment must be made within two days, and in subsequent cases, that it should be made the day the bill is received, and that even an hour is an un reasonable time; and the opinion of juries of mer chants has been, that a check on a banker, or a cash note, payable on demand, ought, if given in the place where it is payable, to be presented for payment the same day it is received, if the distance, or other cir cumstances will possibly allow".

Considering it then to be settled, that the time when the presentment for payment must be made is in general a question of law, we have now to examine what is the rule of law upon the subject. Upon this question it has been observed, that there is no other settled rule than that the presentment must be made within a reasonable time, which must be accommodated to other business and affairs of life, and the party is not bound to neglect every other transaction, in order to present the bill, note, or check, payable on demand, the same day it is issued. And, as observed by Lord

Russell. Langstaffe, Dougl. 515.- Muilman v. D'Eguino, 2 H. Bl. 568, 9.-Hankey v. Trotman, 1 Bla. Rep. 1.-Bayl. 107.Kyd. 41.-Poth. pl. 140.

3

257.

Darbishire v. Parker, 6 East. 10.

Phillips. Phillips, 2 Freem. 247.-Crawley v. Crowther, id.

4 Mainwaring v. Harrison, 1 Stra. 508.

5 Per Lord Mansfield, in Tindal v. Brown, 1 T. R. 168, 9.-Hankey v. Trotman, 1 Bla. Rep. 1.-Beawes, 229.-Kyd. 45.-Appleton . Sweetapple, 1 Esp. N. P. 58. Bayl. 106, post, 348.-Pocklington v. Silvester, post, 351.

6

Appleton v. Sweetapple, 1 Esp. N. P. 58.-Bayl. 106, post, 348. Russell v. Langstaffe, Dougl. 515, n. b. 110.-Brown v. Collinson, Beawes, pl. 259,-Kyd. 43, 45.-Hankey v. Trotman, 1 Bla. Rep. 1. Darbishire v. Parker, 6 East. 4, 8, 9.-Kyd. 129.

bills, &c. payable

Mansfield, it would be unreasonable to suppose, that a When checks, tradesman should be compelled to run about the town on demand should with a dozen drafts, from Charing-cross to Lombard- be presented for. street, on the same day; and he directed the jury to consider, that twenty-four hours was the usual time allowed for the presentment for payment 1.

It is laid down, that upon a bill or note, payable on demand, or at sight, and given for cash by a person who makes the profit by the money on such bills or notes. a source of his livelihood, such as a country banker, it is difficult to say what length of time such person shall be entitled to consider unreasonable; but upon such bills or notes given by way of payment, or paid. into a banker's, any time beyond that which the common course of business warrants is unreasonable 2.

Upon a bill or note of this kind given by way of payment, the course of business seemed formerly to allow the party to keep it, if it was payable in the place where it was given, until the morning of the next day of business after its receipt, and according to

1

Beawes, pl. 229.-Kyd. 45, 127, 8.-Ward v. Evans, 2 Salk, 442, S. P. Scott v. Lifford, 9 East. 347.

2

Bayl. 104.

Bayl. 104.-Ward v. Evans, 2 Lord Raym. 928. A banker's note was paid to the plaintiff's servant at noon, and presented for payment the next morning, at which time the banker stopped payment. On a case reserved, the court held it was presented in time, and judgment was given for the plaintiff.

Moor v. Warren, 1 Stra. 415. The defendant gave the plaintiff a banker's note at two o'clock in the afternoon, and he tendered it for payment the next morning at nine: the banker stopped a quarter of an hour before; and Pratt, C. J. told the jury the loss should fall on the defendant, there being no laches in the plaintiff, who had demanded the money as soon as was usual in the course of dealing, and that keeping the note till next morning could not be construed giving a new credit to the banker, and the jury found for the plaintiff. In Holmes v. Barry, Stra. 415, the circumstances were the same, and King, C. J.. of the Common Pleas, gave similar directions, and the jury found accordingly.

Fletcher. Sandys, 2 Stra. 1248. A banker's note was paid to the plaintiff after dinner, and he sent it for payment the next morning. but the banker had stopped payment; and Lee, C. J. ruled, that there were no laches in the plaintiff, and that in all these cases there must be a reasonable time allowed consistent with the nature of circulating paper credit.

Turner and others v. Mead, 1 Stra. 416. The defendants paid the Sword-blade Company, the plaintiffs, two bankers notes at three

payment.

When checks,

bills, &c. payable

be presented for

payment.

more recent decisions, it should seem, that if such a

on demand should bill or note were payable by or at a banker's, it would suffice to present it for payment at any time during banking hours of the day after it is received. Thus where a note of this kind, payable in London, was given there in the morning, a presentment the next morning was held by the court sufficiently early, though juries have endeavoured to establish a contrary rule, and to find that the instrument must be presented the day it is received; and though it has been supposed

o'clock in the afternoon, and the next morning their servant left them at the bankers in order to call for the money in the evening, it then being the custom with the plaintiffs and the bank, to send out their notes in the morning, and to call for the money in the afternoon. The plaintiffs' servant called for the money between four and five in the afternoon, and the banker had just stopped payment, and because the plaintiffs had done nothing more than was usual in leaving the notes in the morning without taking the money, Pratt, C. J. directed the jury to find for them, which they did.

Hoar v. Da Costa, 2 Stra. 910. The defendant paid the plaintiff a banker's note at twelve; he put it into the bank at one, and at ten the next morning, the runner from the bank carried it. with other notes, and left them, as was then usual, to call again for the money: he called at eleven and was told the banker's servant was gone to the bank; he called again at two, when the banker said he was going to stop and refused payment, but he paid small notes till four o'clock. The defendant gave notice to the plaintiff the next morning, the question was, whether this note was payment to the plaintiff. It was insisted for the defendant, that if the note had been tendered by itself, it would have been paid; and for the plaintiff, that if there had been no demand there would have been no laches, being within a day after the receipt. Raymond, C. J. said there was no standing rule, and left it to the jury, who found for the plaintiff.

Robson v. Bennet, 2 Taunt. 388. post, 351; and Pocklington v. Silvester, post, 351, 2.

Bayl. 106, 7.--Beawes, pl. 229.-Kyd. 45, 127; see Ward v. Evans, and other cases in notes, ante, 247.

Appleton v. Sweetapple, K.B. Mich. 23 G. 3. 1Esp. N.P.58.-Bayl. 106. note c. S. C.—2 Taunt. 394. The case was, that plaintiff received from the defendant a banker's note at one o'clock in the day, but did not call for payment the whole of that day, and in the evening of it the banker failed. A verdict was found for the defendant, on the ground that it was the custom of the City that bills should be brought for payment the day they are received, but on a motion for a new trial, it appearing that there were many exceptions to this custom, as in the case of factors at Bear-key, the salesmen at Smithfield, and others, the court held that it was not sufficiently proved, and even if the decision had been on that ground, it must appear that the custom was reasonable, or the court would controul it, and therefore granted a new trial. The jury found again for the defendant, but against the judges direction: a second new trial was granted, and the jury again found for the defendant, and then the court refused to interfere.

bills, &c. payable

on demand should payment.

be presented for

that the presentment must be in the forenoon of the When checks, next day'; yet the party has twenty-four hours, or according to a more recent decision, he has the whole of the banking hours, or hours of business of the next day to make the presentment 3.

It has been held, that a bill or note of this kind given by way of payment to a banker must be presented by him as soon as if it had been paid into his hands by a customer *, and that if such a bill or note be paid into a banker's, and be payable at the place where the banker lives, it must be presented the next time the banker's clerk goes his rounds 4, but it should

'East India Company v. Chitty, 2 Stra. 1175.-Bayl. 104, 5.Mainwaring v. Harrison, 1 Stra. 508. On Saturday the 17th of September, about two o'clock, Harrison gave Mainwaring a banker's note, dated the 5th of September, and payable to Harrison or order on demand; Mainwaring paid it away the same afternoon to J. S. and he presented it for payment on Tuesday morning, as soon as the shop was open, but the banker stopped payment at that time. Mainwaring paid the money to J. S. and brought this action to recover it from Harrison. Pratt, C. J. Left it to the jury whether there had been any neglect, and observed, that as Harrison had kept it eleven days, he probably would not have demanded payment sooner than J. S. did. The jury wished to leave it to the court whether there had been reasonable time, but the Chief Justice told them they were judges of that, upon which they found for the defendant, and gave it as their opinion, that a person who did not demand a banker's note in two days, took the credit on himself.

East India Company v. Chitty, 2 Stra. 1175. At half-past eleven in the morning of the 18th of January, the defendant paid the East India Company's cashier, a banker's note, and they did not send it for payment till the next day at two, at which time the banker stopped payment. The question was, who should bear the loss? and upon examining the merchants, it was held that the Company had made it their own by not sending it out the afternoon they received it, or at furthest, the next morning, and the jury found accordingly for the defendant.

2 Per Lord Mansfield; sec Beawes, pl. 229.-Kyd. 45. 3 Pocklington . Silvester, post, 351.

Bayl. 107. Hankey v. Trotman, 1 Bla. Rep. 1. The plaintiff was a banker, and had a bill on the defendant, for which the defendant paid him a draft upon another banker at twelve at noon, and the plaintiff got it marked for acceptance that night; before the next morning the banker on whom it was drawn stopped. The question was, whether the plaintiff or defendant should bear the loss? The jury found a verdict for the defendant, and upon a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial, and cause shewn, the court (Wright, J. dubitante) held that it was a question of fact, whether the plaintiff had sufficient time for receiving the money, of which the jury were the proper judges, and the verdict stood.

But see the cases of Rickford v. Ridge, 2 Campb. 537; and Robson v. Bennet, 2 Taunt. 388, and post, 351.

In the last-mentioned case, Mansfield, C. J. said, that Hankey v.

When checks,

bills, &c. payable

seem that in all cases it suffices for a banker to present

on demand, should such check the day after he receives it 1.

be presented for payment.

If a bill or note, payable on demand, be payable elsewhere than in the place where it was given, it is laid down that the party receiving it must forward it for payment by the post of the next day after he received it, although that post may go out on the same day. But from other cases it should seem, that it would suffice if such bill or note were forwarded for payment by the regular post on the day after it is received. It is certain, however, that holder's not forwarding such bill or note for payment, by the post, or some conveyance of the day after it was received, would be deemed laches.

With respect to a check on a banker, it is now settled that it suffices it to present it for payment to the banker at any time during banking hours on the day after it is received, and that no laches can be imputed to the holder in not presenting it for payment in the morning of the second day, although the bankers paid Trotman had been over-ruled by Appleton v. Sweetapple. See 2 Taunt. 394.

Rickford v. Ridge, 2 Campb. 537. post, 352; and Robson v. Bennett, 2 Taunt. 388, post, 351.

3 Rickford v. Ridge, 2 Campb. 357, post, 382.-Darbishire . Parker, 6 East. 3.

4 Bayl. 104, 5, and note to Beccling and others v. Gower, 1 Holt, C. N. P. 315, 6.

Action for money had and received. The defendant paid the plaintiffs a check of £20, drawn on the Maidstone-bank, on the 5th of April. It was given to the plaintiffs at the time of Tunbridge market, and they gave their own notes in exchange. It was given sometime before the post set out on the 5th. The plaintiffs kept it all the 5th and 6th, but sent it to Maidstone by the carrier on the morning of the 7th; the carrier reached Maidstone at nine o'clock on the 7th, but the Maidstone bank did not open that morning. If it had been sent by the post of the 6th it would have reached Maidstone at an hour earlier, viz. at eight o'clock in the morning of the 7th. Best, Serjeant, for the defendant, contended that the plaintiffs had been guilty of laches. Blosset, Serjeant, for the plaintiffs contra, relied on Rickford v. Ridge, 2 Campb. 537. Gibbs, C. J.The plaintiff cannot recover, they have been guilty of laches; I will not say that it was not their duty to have sent the check off by the post of the 5th, but the extreme time up to which they were justified in keeping it was till the post of the 6th. They do not send it till the 7th. It does not matter when the carrier arrived, they must suf ter for their negligence. Plaintiffs nonsuited.