THE GENERAL NATURE, UTILITY, & HISTORY OF BILLS OF EXCHANGE, &c. General Na ture and Utility. A BILL OF EXCHANGE is defined by Mr. Justice Blackstone Definition: to be an open letter of request, or an order from one person to another, desiring him to pay, on his account, a sum of money therein mentioned, to a third person (a). It is consequently an assignment to a third person of a debt due to the person drawing the bill, from the person upon whom it is drawn. In other contracts and securities there are generally only two parties, or at most a third as a guarantee; whereas, on account of the assignable quality of a bill of exchange, there may be, and usually are, many more parties, severally liable for the performance of the contract. The person who makes or draws the bill is termed the drawer; he to whom it is addressed is, before acceptance called the drawee, and afterwards the acceptor, the person in whose favour it is drawn is termed the payee, and when he indorses the bill, the indorser; and the person to whom he transfers it is called the indorsee or holder (b) (a) 2 Bla. Com. 466.-Gibson v. Minet, 1 Hen. Bla. 586.—Stock v. Mawson, 1 Bos. & Pul. 291.-Walwyn v. St. Quintin, 1 Bos. & Pul. 654.-Selw. Ni. Pri. 4th edit. 285.-Bayl. on Bills, 3d edit. 1.-Rex v. Box, 6 Taunt. $25. (6) Bayl 2, VOL. 1.-A ture and Utility. General Na- Though this security is entitled to peculiar privileges, yet it is to be considered as a simple contract debt in the course of administration, which an executor or administrator cannot discharge until after satisfying debts by bond, without being guilty of a devastavit. And for the same reason a bill of exchange is considered as following the person of the debtor, and as bona notabilia where he resides at the time of the creditor's death, whereas a bond, or other specialty, is bona notabilia, wherever it may be at the time of such death (a). And though a bond or bank note may be delivered in prospect of death and be a good donation mortis causa, bills of exchange, promissory notes, and checks on beakers, seem incapa osbeing the objects osch donation (b) A bit or exchange. also being erely a simple contract, it is affected by the statute of limitations, and must be sued for within six years after it is pay-. (a) Yeomans v. Bradshaw, Carth. 373.--3 Salk. 70 and 164.-Comb. 392. S, C.-Bac. Ab. tit. Executors, E. 2.-Com. Dig. Administrator, B. 4. The case of Yeomans v. Bradshaw, as reported in Carth. 373, was an action on a bill of exchange, brought by the plaintiff, as administratrix of her late husband, against the drawer; the bill was drawn in London. The defendant craved oyer of the letters of administration, which were granted by the Bishop of Durham. Upon demurrer, it was insisted, that a bill of exchange was only a simple contract debt, and so followed the person of the debtor, wherever he might be, and that the right of granting administration, belonged to the ordinary of the place where the debtor was at the time of the death of the intestate, and that the administration was void, and of which opinion were the court, and gave judgment for the defendant; and see the judgment of Holt, C. J. in the same case, 3 Salk. 70. (b) Miller v. Miller, 3 P. W. 356.-Ward v. Turner, 2 Ves. sen. 442.Tate v. Hilbert, 2 Ves. jun. 111.-Lawson v. Lawson, 1 P. W. 441.-1 Roper on Leg. 2d ed. 3.-Tollers, Executors, 3d ed. 234, 5, where see the exceptions. Miller v. Miller, 3 P. W. 356. A person, after having made his will, and about an hour before his death, delivered to his wife two bank notes for 300%. cach, and another note for 1001. (not being a cash note, or payable to bearer), adding, that he had not sufficiently provided for her.— On a bill filed in the name of the infant son, being the residuary legatee, against the widow and executors, for an account of the testator's personal estate, it was insisted, that the 6001. was in payment of a legacy given her by the testator in a codicil to his will, and that, with regard to the other note for 100%., which was not payable to bearer, that was merely a chose in action, and consequently could not pass by a delivery thereof. Per Master of the Rolls, the gift of the 6001. contained in the bank notes, was a donatio causa mortis, which operates as such, though made to a wife, for it is in nature of a legacy, though it need not be proved in the Spiritual court as part of the testator's will. But as to the note for 100%., which was merely a chose in action, and must still be sued in the name of the executors, that cannot take effect as a donatio causa mortis, inasmuch as no property could pass therein by the delivery. See also Ward v. Turner, 2 Ves. sen. 442, and Tate v. Hilbert, 2 Ves. jun. 120, in which it was held, that a check on a banker, delivered by J. S. on his death-bed, did not take effect as a donatio causa mortis. But see 1 P. W. 441, and Toller's Law of Executors. 3d ed. 234, 5. (a) And being a chose in action, and a mere security for a det, it is not to be considered as goods and chattels, and it therefre does not pass by a bequest of all the testator's "property" in a particular house, though bank notes would have passed, they being quasi cash; (b) and upon the same principle, a bank note or bill cannot be taken in execution, or as a distress for rent. (c) And the accepting of a bill or note, in satisfaction of a specialty. debt or demand for rent, at most only suspends the remedy on the former security, and does not entirely defeat it. (d) A Bill of Exchange is a security originally invented amongst merchants in different countries for the more easy and safe remittance of money from the one to the other, and has since been extended to commercial transactions in this kingdom (e). The instance put by Mr. Justice Blackstone of the utility of the instrument, is this, "If A. live in Jamaica, and owe B. who lives in England, 1000l., now if C. be going from England to Jamaica he may advance B. this 1000l. and take a bill of exchange, drawn by B. in England upon A. in Jamaica, aud receive it when he comes thither: thus B. receives his debt at any distance of place by transferring it to C., who carries over his money in paper credit, without the risk of robbery or loss." In the origin of bills of exchange, it is probable that their principal utility was the safe transfer of property from one place to another, but that since the great increase of commerce, they have become the signs of valuable property and equivalent to specie, enlarging the capital stock of wealth in circulation, and thereby facilitating and increasing the trade and commerce of the country (f). The trader whose capital may not be sufficient to enable him to pay ready money for the commodityfwhich he purchases, on account of his not having the means of immediately obtaining payment of the debts due to him from others, and who might find a difficulty on his own individual security, to purchase goods, or obtain money for the purposes of his trade, by drawing a bill on one of his debtors payable at a future period, may obtain the goods or money on the General Na ture and Util. ity. [#4] (a) Renew v. Axtan, Carth. 3. (6) Flemming v. Brook, 1 Sch, & Lef. 318.-Stewart v. Marquis of Bute, 11 Ves. 662. 43. (c) Francis v. Nash, Cas. Temp. Hardw. 53.-Knight v. Criddle. 9 East. (d) Curtis v. Rush, 2 Ves. & Bea. 416.-Drake v. Mitchell, 3 East 251.Harris v. Shipway, Bul. N. P. 182. (e) Bla. Com. 466, 7. (f) Per Eyre, C. J. Gibson v. Minet, 1 Hen. Bla. 618. |