bills, &c. payable be presented for drafts on them until the afternoon, and then stopped When checks, payment. And where a person in London received on demand should a check upon a London banker, between one and two payment. o'clock, and lodged it soon after four with his banker, and the latter presented it between five and six, and got it marked as a good check, and the next day at noon, presented for payment at the clearing-house, the court held that there had been no unreasonable delay either by the holder in not presenting it for payment on the first day, which he might have done, or by his banker in presenting it at the clearing-house only on the following day at noon; it being proved to be the usage among such bankers, not to pay checks presented by one banker to another after four o'clock, but only to mark them if good, and to pay them the next day at the clearing-house. And it has been holden that a London banker who receives a check by the general post, Pocklington v. Silvester, Sittings at Guildhall, after Trin. Term, 57 Geo. 3. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs for the amount of a check given by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The defendants drew the check on their bankers, Messrs. Mainwaring & Co. which was paid to the plaintiffs at eleven o'clock in the morning on the 16th of November, 1817, which was not presented till near five o'clock on the 17th. The bankers stopped payment at four o'clock on the 17th of November, and the defendants had notice thereof that evening. At the trial before Gibbs, C. J. at Guildhall, he directed a verdict for the plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiffs had the whole of the banking hours of the next day to present the check for payment. The jury, however, contrary to the direction of the judge, found for defendants. In the ensuing term the plaintiff obtained a rule for a new trial, and upon the second trial before Burrough, J. at Guildhall, 10th of December, 1817, he directed a verdict for the plaintiffs, saying, that whatever doubts had been formerly entertained, it was now established as a rule of law, that the party receiving a check on a banker has the whole of the banking-hours of the next day to present it for payment. The jury found accordingly. See also Robson and another v. Bennett and another, 2 Taunt. 388.-Rickford v. Ridge, 2 Campb. 537. Robson v. Bennett, 2 Taunt. 388. On the 11th of September, between one and two o'clock, the defendants gave the plaintiffs a check upon Bloxam and Co. their bankers, in payment for goods. The plaintiffs lodged the check with Messrs. Harrison, their bankers, a few minutes after four, and they presented it between five and six to Bloxam and Co. who marked it as good: it was proved to be the usage amongst London bankers not to pay any check, presented by or on behalf of another banker, after four o'clock, but merely to mark it if good, and pay it the next day at the clearing-house. On the 12th at noon Harrison's clerk took this check to the clearing-house, but no person attended for Bloxam and Co who stopped payment at nine on that morning; and the check therefore was treated as dishonoured. The plaintiffs in going with the check to Harrison's passed Bloxam's When checks, bills, &c. payable on demand should be presented for payment. is not bound to present it for payment until the following day'. house. On a case stating these facts the court held, that there had been no laches in the plaintiffs iu not presenting the check to Bloxam and Co. on the 11th for payment, or in his bankers in not presenting it at the banking-house, but merely at the clearing house, and therefore gave judgment for the plaintiffs. Per Lord Mansfield, C. J. The whole question amounts merely to this; a man who has bought goods, and given a draft on a banker, contends, that he has paid for those goods, though the plaintiff has never received the money. A draft was drawn on the 11th of September; on that day it was carried to the house of the drawee, and in the language of those persons was marked; the effect of that marking is similar to the accepting of a bill; for he admits thereby assets, and makes himself liable to pay. It is the practice of the bankers not to pay bills of this description, which are presented after four o'clock but tomark them; and it is usual that bills marked on one day are carried to the clearing-house, where their clerks meet and paid there on the next day. Therefore it is the same thing as if a banker had written on a check, "we pay this to-morrow at the clearing-house." On the next day, after marking the check, the banker stops payment; the holder's clerk goes to the clearing-house, where no clerk attends from Messrs. Bloxams, and the bill is not paid, and the first question is, whether there is any laches as to the time of presentment? As to that the case of Appleton v. Sweetapple decides, that a check need not be presented on the day on which it was drawn; now this bill was in fact presented and accepted on the very day on which it was drawp. The reason of that haste probably was in order to fix the banker, lest the drawer should be insolvent before the next day, bankers being usually persons of great substance, whereas the drawer may be of less credit; the mark on the check is an engagement to pay at a particular place; is not then the presenting it at that place equivalent to presenting at the banking house? It seems that it is; and that it therefore is no laches; consequently the surplus of the money for the coals remains due, and judgment must be entered for the plaintiff. See also Reynolds v. Chettle, 2 Campb. 596.-Selwyn, N. P. 4th ed. 341. Rickford and others v. Ridge, 2 Campb. 537. The plaintiffs, bankers at Aylesbury, gave the defendant cash for a check upon Smith and Co. bankers in London; and in an action to recover this money, it appeared that they took the check on the 13th June; but, instead of sending it to London by the post of that day, which they might have done, they sent it by a morning coach on the 14th, and their bankers, to whom it was directed, received it between three and four o'clock on the same day, and presented it at Smith's house at noon on the 15th, when payment was refused. It was proved that bankers to the west of St. Paul's, where the plaintiff's bankers resided, sent out checks and bills for payment only once in the day, and that generally before the arrival of the post; and therefore such as arrived by the post on one day generally remained with them until the following morning so that had this check arrived by the post on the 14th, it would not have been presented until the 15th. The question therefore was, whether such practice were reasonable? It was admitted that a different practice prevailed to the cast of St. Paul's. Lord Ellenborough said, the holder of a check is not bound to give notice of its dishonour to the drawer for the purpose of charging the person bills, &c. payable on demand should be presented for It will be observed that this rule allowing the party When checks, receiving a bill, note, or check, payable on demand, until the next day to present it for payment, will not payment. enable a succession of persons to keep such instrument long in circulation, so as to retain the liability of all the parties, in case the same should ultimately be dishonoured by the maker of the note, or drawee of the check'. a A presentment for payment of a bill, payable on day certain, should in all cases be made within a reasonable time before the expiration of the day when it is due; and if by the known custom of any particular place, bills are only payable within limited hours, a presentment there, out of those hours, would be improper. This rule extends also to a presentment out of the hours of business to a person of a particular from whom he received it. He does enough if he presents it with due diligence to the bankers on whom it is drawn, and gives due nutice of its dishonour to those only against whom he seeks his remedy. The question here is, whether if the check had arrived by post or the 14th, the bankers were bound to present it for payment the same day? This must be decided by the Law-merchant. I cannot hear of any arbitrary distinction between one part of the city and another. It is not competent to bankers to lay down one rule for the eastward of St. Paul's, and another for the westward. They may as well fix upon St. Peter's at Rome. It is always to be considered whether, under the circumstances of the case, the check has been presented with reasonable diligence. This is what the Law-merchant requires. The rule that the moment a check is received by the post, it should invariably be sent out for payment, would be most inconvenient and unreasonable. In Liverpool and other great towns different posts arrive at different hours; but it would be impossible to have clerks constantly ready to carry out all the bills and checks that may arrive in the course of the day; nor if it were possible, is it requisite that all other business being laid aside parties should devote themselves to the presenting of checks. The rule to be adopted must be a rule of convenience; and it seems to me to be convenient and reasonable, that checks received in the course of one day should be presented the next. Is this practice consistent with the Law-merchant? It cannot alter it. Bankers would be kept in a continual fever if they were obliged to send out a check the moment it is paid in. The arrangement mentioned by the plaintiffs witnesses appears subservient to general convenience, and not contrary to the Law-merchant, which merely requires checks to be presented with reasonable diligence." 'Admitted in Boehm v. Sterling, 7 T. R. 425. Bayl. 99. 110. Per Lord Ellenborough, in Parker v. Gordon, 6 Esp. Rep. 42.-7 East. 385, and in Elford v. Teed, 1 M. & S. 28. cited Marius, 2d edit. 187. A A Time of the day when the present. ment should be made. when the presentment should be made. Time of the day description, where, by the known custom of the place, all such persons begin and leave off business at stated hours; and therefore when a bill is accepted, payable at a banker's, it must be presented there before five o'clock, or the usual hour of shutting up their shop, and presentment afterwards will not entitle the notary to protest it. And it has been recently determined, that no inference is to be drawn from the circumstance of the bill being presented by a notary in the evening that it had before been duly presented within the banking hours. However a presentment of a bill at a banker's, where it is payable, is sufficient, although it be made after banking hours, provided a person be stationed there by the banker to return an answer and refuses to pay the bill. And when the Bayl. 99.-Leftley v. Mills, 4 T. R. 170. 2 Parker v. Gordon, 7 East. 385.-3 Smith, 358.-6 Esp. Rep. 41. S. C.-Elford o. Teed, 1 M. & S. 28.-Jameson v. Swinton, 2 Taunt. 224.-2 Campb. 374.-Selw. N. P. 4th edit. 342. Parker. Gordon. The drawee accepted the bill, payable at Davison and Co. his bankers; at the part of the town where Davison and Co. lived, bankers shut up at six o'clock. The bill was not presented for payment until after six, when the shop was shut up, and the clerks gone. In an action against the drawer, Lord Ellenborough held that this was not a good presentment, and nonsuited the plaintiff; and on a motion for a new trial the court held, that if a party took an acceptance, payable at a banker's, he bound himself to present the bill during the banking hours; and therefore rule refused. N. Lawrence and Le Blanc, justices, said the holder was not bound to take such an acceptance. 3 Elford v. Teed, 1 M. & S. 28. Garnett v. Woodcock, 1 Stark. 475. Indorsce of bill against acceptor. The bill in question was drawn by Hodson and Co. in Lancashire, upon the defendants in London, for the sum of £670, payable to the order of the drawers, and indorsed by the drawers to the plaintiff. The defendants had accepted the bill, payable at Denison's and Co. bankers, London. The bill had been presented at Denison's and Co. between seven and eight in the evening of the day when it became due, and a boy returned for answer no orders. Campbell, for the defendants, contended, that since the bill was drawn in London, the place of payment being in the body of the bill, and had been accepted, payable at Denison's and Co. a presentment there was necessary; and that this was not a sufficient presentment, and cited Parker v. Gordon, 7 East. 385. Elford v. Teed, 1 M. & S. 28. There the court held, that the presentment at a banker's, after banking hours, was a nullity, although the presentment in that case had been made by a notary. He, admitted that when the bill had been made payable at a merchant's, a presentment, after banking hours, where a negative answer had been returned on presentment of the bill, had when the present party to pay the bill or note is not a banker, a pre- Time of the day sentment at any time, even late in the evening, will ment should be in general suffice'. been deemed to be sufficient; but this was the case of a presentment at a banker's. Lord Ellenborough. Bankers do not usually pay at so late an hour; but if a person be left there who gives a negative answer, there is no difference between that case and that of a presentment at a merchant's. I think, it is perfectly clear, that if a banker appoint a person to attend, in order to give an answer, a presentment would be sufficient if it were made before twelve at night. Verdict for the plain tiff. In the ensuing term Campbell moved for a rule to shew a cause why there should not be a new trial; and he cited the words of Lawrence, J. in Parker v. Gordon, 7 East. 385. where he says, "the party might" have refused to take this special acceptance; but if he chose to take the acceptance payable in that manner, payable at the banker's, does he not agree to take it payable at the usual banking hours. Lord Ellenborough. In that case no answer was given upon the presentment of the bill. Upon the trial, I laid down nothing but that, if a servant was stationed for the purpose of giving an answer, it was sufficient. In general, there are two presentments, one in the morning, and the other in the evening; but if there be a presentment in the evening, and the party is ready to give an answer, he does all that is necessary. The banker returned an answer by the mouth of his servant, and non constat, but that he was stationed there for the express purpose. Rule refused. Barclay v. Bailey, 2 Campb. 527. The presentment of a bill of exchange for payment at the house of a merchant, residing in Lon don, at eight o'clock in the evening of the day it becomes due, is sufficient to charge the drawer. Action against the drawer of a bill of exchange, accepted by one David Hardy. At eight in the evening of the day the bill became due, it was presented at the house mentioned on the face of it, as the drawer's place of residence, when the answer given by a person who came to the door was, that Mr. Hardy had become bankrupt, and removed into another quarter of the town. On the part of the defendant it was proved, that he had a person stationed at this house for the purpose of taking up the bill, from nine in the morning till four in the afternoon, but that no one presented it during that time; and the point was strenuously argued, that a presentment so late as eight in the evening was insufficient to charge the drawer. Lord Ellenborough, I think this presentment sufficient; a common trader is different from bankers, and has not any peculiar hours for paying or receiving money; if the presentment had been during the hours of rest, it would have been altogether unavailing; but eight in the evening cannot be considered an unseasonable hour for demanding payment at the house of a private merchant, who has accepted a bill. The plaintiff had a verdict. S. P. Jameson v. Swinton, 2 Taunt. 224.-2 Campb. 374. S. C.Bancroft v. Hall, 1 Holt, C. N. P. 476. Morgan v. Davison, 1 Stark. 114. Assumpsit by the indorsee of a bill of exchange against the drawer. The bill was made payable at Herring and Richardson's, Copthall-court, London. The plaintiff proved presentment at Herring and Richardson's, who were not bankers, in Copthal-court, on the day when the bill became due, between made. |