Sect. 1. Of pro missory notes.

c. 9 ', (made perpetual by 7 Ann. c. 25. s. 3.) was passed: by which, after reciting "that it had been held, that "notes in writing, signed by the party who made the same, whereby such party promised to pay unto any other person, or his order, any sum of money

success, vide Pearson v. Garrett, 4 Mod. 242.-Clerke v. Martín, Ld. Raym. 757.-Salk. 129.-Burton v. Souter, Ld. Raym. 774, and Williams v. Cutting, Ld. Raym. 825.—Salk. 24.-7 Mod. 154.— 11 Mod. 24, and see 4 T. R. 151, 152.

66 By the 3 and 4 Anne, c. 9. s. 1. Whereas it hath been held, that notes in writing, signed by the party who makes the same, whereby such party promises to pay unto any other person, or his order, any sum of money therein mentioned, are not assignable or indorsable over, within the custom of merchants, to any other person; and that such person to whom the sum of money mentioned in such note is payable, cannot maintain an action by the custom of merchants against the person who first made and signed the same; and that any person to whom such note should be assigned, indorsed, or made payable, could not within the said custom of merchants, maintain any action upon such note against the person who first drew and signed the same;" therefore, to the intent to encourage trade and commerce, which will be much advanced, if such notes shall have the same effect as inland bills of exchange, and shall be negotiated in like manner; be it enacted, that all notes in writing, that after the 1st day of May, in the year of our Lord 1705, shall be made and signed by any person or persons, body politic or corporate, or by the servant or agent of any corporation, banker, goldsmith, merchant, or trader, who is usually intrusted by him, her, or them, to sign such promissory notes for him, her, or them, whereby such person or persons, body politic and corporate, his, her, or their servant or agent as aforesaid, doth or shall promise to pay to any other person or persons, body politic and corporate, his, her, or their order, or unto bearer, any sum of money mentioned in such note, shall be taken and construed to be, by virtue thereof, due and payable to any such person or persons, body politic and corporate, to whom the same is made payable, and also every such note payable to any person or persons, body politic and corporate, his, her, or their order, shall be assignable or indorsable over, in the same manner as inland bills of exchange are or may be, according to the custom of merchants; and that the person and persons, body politic or corporate, to whom such sum of money is or shall be by such note made payable, shall and may maintain an action for the same, in such manner as he, she, or they might do, upon any inland bill of exchange, made or drawn according to the custom of merchants, against the person or persons, body politic and corporate, who, or whose servant or agent as aforesaid, signed the same; and that any person or persons, body politic and corporate, to whom such note, that is payable to any person or persons, body politic and corporate, his, her, or their order, is indorsed or assigned, or the money therein mentioned ordered to be paid by indorsement thereon, shall and may maintain his, her, or their action for such sum of money, either against the person or persons, body politic and corporate, who, or whose servant or agent as aforesaid signed such note, or against any of the persons who indorsed the same, in like manner as in cases of inland bills of exchange.—Bayl. 1,2. 1 See observations on this statute. Colchan v. Cooke, Willes, 395. Bayl. 1.

1

therein mentioned, were not assignable or indorsable Sect. 1. Of promissory notes. over, within the custom of merchants, to any other

person; and that such person to whom the sum of "money mentioned in such note was payable, could “not maintain an action, by the custom of merchants, against the person who first made and signed the

66

66

same; and that any person to whom such note had "been assigned, indorsed, or made payable, could not, "within the custom of merchants, maintain any action upon such note against the person who first drew "and signed the same, it was to the intent to en

66

courage trade and commerce, which would be much advanced, if such notes should have the same effect as inland bills of exchange, and should be negotiat "ed in like manner, enacted, that all notes in writing, "made and signed by any person or persons, body politic or corporate, or by the servant or agent of any corporation, banker, goldsmith, merchant, or trader, who is usually intrusted by him, her, or them, "to sign such promissory notes for him, her, or them,

66

66

66

whereby such person or persons, body politic and

corporate, his, her, or their servant or agent as aforesaid, doth or shall promise to pay to any other per"son or persons, body politic and corporate, his, her, "or their order, or unto bearer, any sum of money "mentioned in such note, shall be taken and construed "to be, by virtue thereof, due and payable to any such person or persons, body politic and corporate, to "whom the same is made payable; and also every "such note payable to any person or persons, body politic and corporate, his, her, or their order, shall be "assignable or indorsable over, in the same manner as "inland bills of exchange are or may be, according to "the custom of merchants; and that the person or persons, body politic and corporate, to whom such

66

66

sum of money is or shall be by such note made payable, shall and may maintain an action for the same, "in such manner as he, she, or they, might do, upon

E E

Sect. 1. Of promissory notes.

any inland bills of exchange, made or drawn accord "ing to the custom of merchants, against the person "or persons, body politic and corporate, who, or whose "servant or agent as aforesaid, signed the same; and that any person or persons, body politic and cor

66

porate, to whom such note that is payable to any person or persons, body politic and corporate, his, "her, or their order, is indorsed or assigned, or the 66 money therein mentioned, ordered to be paid by in"dorsement thereon, shall and may maintain his, her, ❝or their action, for such sum of money, either against "the person or persons, body politic and corporate,

who, or whose servant or agent as aforesaid, signed "such note, or against any of the persons that in“dorsed the same, in like manner as in cases of in"land bills of exchange."

It has been considered that this statute of the 3 & 4 Ann. c. 9, giving the like remedy upon promissory notes as upon bills of exchange (though made perpetual by the statute 7 Ann. c. 25, passed after the union with Scotland) does not extend to promissory notes made in Scotland, because such subsequent statute only made the former act, which was a temporary law of England to have perpetual force there1, but subsequent statutes appear to recognize notes made in Scotland as valid. And although the statute of Ann. may not apply to notes made out of England, yet it should seem that notes made in a foreign country would now be held valid at common law, though it would

2

'King v. Esdale, 6th Dec. 1711. Forbes on Bills, 174.

39 Geo. 3. c. 107.-12 Geo. 3. c. 72.

3 Bayl. 18.-Carr v. Shaw, infra. 419. n. 1.

* In Pollard v. Herries, 3 Bos. & Pul. 335, a promissory note was 'made in Paris, payable there or in England, and no objection was taken on that account.-In Hewitt v. Morris, 3 Campb. 303, a declaration, on a note made at Paris, stated, that it was made in London, and Lord Ellenborough held, that this was no variance, because the contract evidenced by a promissory note is transitory, and the place where it purports to be made is immaterial, and the plaintiff recovered.-In Roche v. Campbell, 3 Campb. 247., the plaintiff declared on a note made in Ireland, and no objection was taken on that account. In Splitgerber v. Kolm, 1 Stark. 125, the plaintiff declared on a promissory note, drawn in Prussia, against the maker, and no objection was taken.

missory notes.

be improper to declare upon them as made in pur- Seet. 1. Of prosuance of the statute'. But it has been held, that the forging a Scotch bank note was not an offence within the English statute 2 Geo. 2. c. 25, against forgery, the note being made payable locally, where it was drawn*. The statute 48 Geo. 3. c. 149. s. 21, directs, that all promissory notes made out of Great Britain, or purporting to have been so made, shall not be negotiable, circulated, or paid in Great Britain, unless duly stamped as a promissory note made in Great Britain, and subjects the party offending to £20 penalty, with an exemption in favor of notes made payable only in Ireland. The more recent enactment in the statute 55 Geo. 3. c. 184. s. 29, seems only to apply a similar enactment to promissory notes, payable to bearer on demand.

Although the statute 3 and 4 Anne, enacts, that all notes in writing, made and signed by the party making it, shall be valid and assignable in like manner as an inland bill, yet it suffices if his name be written in any part of the note. And it has been held, that if a party write his promissory note thus:-I, John Dobbins, promise to pay, &c. this is as good as a note, I promise to pay, and subscribed J. Dobbins 3.

'Carr v. Shaw, B. R. Hil. 39 Geo. 3. Bayl. 18, n. 1. In an action on a promissory note made at Philadelphia, the first count of the declaration stated, that the defendant at Philadelphia, in parts beyond the seas, to wit, at London, &c. according to the form of the statute, &c. made his note in writing, &c. There were also the common money counts. The defendant demurred specially to the first count, and pleaded the general issue to the others. On the demurrer the court intimated a strong opinion that the statute did not apply to foreign notes, and advised the plaintiff to amend, but on the general issue Lord Kenyon said, the note, though not within the statute, is evidence to support any of the money counts, and the plaintiff had a verdict, at Guildhall, 1st May, 1799. N. B. The pleadings are entered as of Michaelmas Term, 39 Geo. 3. Roll, 1238.

The King v. Dick, 1 Leach. C. L. 4th ed. 68.-2 East 925. S. C. Taylor v. Dobbins, 1 Stra. 339. In case upon a promissory note, the declaration ran, that the defendant made a note et manu sua propria scripsit. Exception was taken that since the statute he should have said that the defendant signed the note, but the court held it well enough, because laid to be wrote with his own hand, and

Sect. 1. Of promissory notes.

The above statute being a remedial law and made for the encouragement of trade and commerce, the courts have construed it liberally'. The statute places promissory notes on the same footing as bills of exchange, and consequently the decisions and rules relating to the one are in general applicable to the other. Thus it has been decided, with respect to the time when a note is payable, that there is no difference between bills and promissory notes; and the latter, when payable at a stated time, are also entitled to three days of grace when payable to bearer or order 1. And in Carlos v. Fancourt, where the

there needs no subscription in that case, for it is sufficient his name is in any part of it. I, J. S. promise to pay, is as good as I promise to pay, subscribed J. S. See also Elliott v. Cowper, 1 Stra. 609.

2 Ld. Raym. 1376. and Vin. Abr. tit. Bills of Exchange, H.

'Selw. Ni. Pri. 4th edit. 363.

2

Bishop v. Young, 2 Bos & Pul. 80. 4.-Hill v. Halford, id. 413. Coleham v. Cooke, Willes, 394. 399. note b.-Brown v. Harraden, 4 T. R. 152.-Carlos v. Fancourt, 5 T. R. 486.-Heylin v. Adamson, 2 Burr. 669.-Bayl. 3. note a.; and see Smith v. Kendal, 6 T. R. 123. Iu Heylin v. Adamson, 2 Burr. 669, the question was, whether the indorsee of a bill was bound to make a demand upon the drawer, as the indorsee of a note must upon the maker; and per Lord Mansfield, while a note continues in its original shape of a promise from one man to another, it bears no similitude to a bill; but when it is indorsed, the resemblance begins, for then it is an order by the indorser upon the maker to pay the indorsee, which is the very definition of a bill. The indorser is the drawer, the maker of the note the acceptor, and the indorsee the person to whom it is made payable; and all the authorities, and particularly Lord Hardwicke, in a case of Hamerton v. Mackarell, M. 10 Geo. 2., put promissory notes on the same footing with bills of exchange.

In Brown v. Harraden, 4 T. R. 148., where the court decided, that three days grace should be allowed on promissory notes, Lord Kenyon observed, that the effect of the statute was, that notes were wholly to assume the shape of bills; and Buller, J. added, that the cases cited in the argument shewed clearly, that the courts of Westminster had thought the analogy between bills and notes so strong, that the rules established with respect to the one ought also to prevail as to the other; that the language of the preamble of the act was express; that it was the object of the legislature to put notes exactly on the same footing with bills; and that the enacting part pursued that intention. The same doctrine is to be found in Carlos v. Fancourt, 5 T. R. 482.-Edie v. East India Company, Burr. 1224.

In 2 Bla. Com. 470., and Bayley on Bills, 69., it is said, that a note may be considered on comparison with a bill as accepted when it issues.

3 Brown v. Harraden, 4 T. R. 152. See last note, and cases, Manning's Index, 65.

Smith v. Kendall, 6 T. R. 123. Three days grace are allowed on promissory note payable to A., without adding, "or to his order, or