215. A release given to the drawee before acceptance is void. Drage v. Netter, 1 Ld. Raym., 65. Ashton v. Freestun, 2 Scott., N. R., 273. Hartley v. Manton, 5 Q. B. 247. 216. A creditor who releases a debt cannot retain any securities he holds for the debt. Shepherd's Touchstone (Preston), 342. Cowper v. Green, 7 M. & W., 633. Of Payment, Discharge, and Satisfaction. 217. 1. The words Payment, Discharge, and Satisfaction are not synonymous. Payment, pacatio, is anything which is taken as an equivalent in exchange for something else, and which appeases or estops a right of action for a time, but it is not necessarily a final discharge, or a satisfaction. Thus a Bill or note taken "for or on account of" a debt; for goods sold and delivered; or a bill taken in renewal of a previous one is payment for the time being, because the vendor has agreed to take it as an equivalent for the goods or bill; but it is not a satisfaction until the bill is paid. If the second bill is not given and accepted expressly in satisfaction of the former bill, the holder may sue for interest on the first. Louvriere v. Laubray, 10 Mod., 37. Holdipp v. Otway, 2 Wms. Saund., 103 b. n. (e). Kearslake v. Morgan, 5 T. R., 513. Tapley v. Martens, 8 T. R., 451. Plimley v. Westley, 2 Bing., N. C., 249. Thorne v. Smith, 10 C. B., 659. Belshaw v. Bush, 11 C. B., 191. Jones v. Broadhurst, 9 C. B., 173. Stedman v. Gooch, 1 Esp., N. P. C., 3. Lewis v. Lyster, 4 Dowl., 377. Bottomley v. Nuttall, 5 C. B., N. S., 122. Ford v. Beech, 11 Q. B., 854. Maillard v. Duke of Argyll, 6 Scott, N. R., 938. Mercer v. Cheese, 5 Scott, N. R., 664. Griffiths v. Owen, 13 M. & W., 58. James v. Williams, 13 M. & W., 828. Price v. Price, 16 M. & W., 232. Kendrick v. Lomax, 2 C. & J., 405. Simon v. Lloyd, 2 C. M. & R., 187. Wilkinson v. Casey, 7 T. R., 713. Ex parte Barclay, 7 Ves., 597. Biskop v. Rowe, 3 M. & S., 362. Ditton v. Rimmer, 1 Bing., 100. London and Birmingham and S. Staffordshire Bank, in re, 34 L. J., Ch., 418. Lumley v. Musgrave, 5 Scott, 230. Lumley v. Hudson, 5 Scott, 238. 218. If however the security is dishonored at maturity and is in the possession of the plaintiff, the original debt remains in force, and may be sued for. Puckford v. Maxwell, 6 T. R., 52. Owenson v. Morse, 7 T. R., Sayer v. Wagstaff, 64. Swinyard v. Bowes, 5 M. & S., 62. Van Wart v. Woolley, 3 Scott, N. R., 938. 219. The words "Payment" and "Discharge" do not mean a final and absolute extinguishment of the debt. "Satisfaction" is the only legal term which means a final and absolute extinguishment of the debt (a). : If a creditor takes a bill or note in "satisfaction" and discharge of a debt (b) or if he takes a bill or note "for and on account of" a debt, and commits laches by not getting it paid in due course (c); it is a satisfaction and extinguishment of the debt. If he has once consented to accept a bill in "satisfaction" of a debt he cannot revoke his consent (d). (a) Maillard v. Duke of Argyll, 6 Scott, N. R., 938. Kemp v. Watt, 15 M. & W., 672. Macdowall v. Boyd, 17 L. J., Q. B., 295. Bottomley v. Nuttall, 5 C. B., N. S., 122. (b) Sard v. Rhodes, 1 M. & W., 153. 377. (c) 2 & 3 Anne (1704), c. 9, s. 7. Lewis v. Lyster, 4 Dowl., (d) Hardman v. Bellhouse, 9 M. & W., 600. 220. Whether a Security is given "for and on account of" or in "satisfaction" of a debt is a question for the jury. Goldshede v. Cottrell, 2 M. & W., 20. W., 23. Sibtree v. Tripp, 15 M. & 221. A bill is not discharged and finally extinguished until it is paid by or on behalf of the acceptor; or a note by or on behalf of the maker at or after maturity: after which it cannot be reissued, and is absolutely void. If paid before maturity they may be reissued, and the acceptor or maker will be liable to an indorsee (a). Paying a security before it is due does not discharge the debtor (b). (a) Beck v. Robley, 1 H. Bla., 89n (a). Thorogood v. Clarke, 2 Stark., N. P. C., 251. Roberts v. Eden, 1 B. & P., 398. Burbridge v. Manners, 3 Camp., 193. Callow v. Lawrence, 3 M. & S., 95. Morley v. Culverwell, 7 M. & W., 174. Harmer v. Steele, 4 Ex., 1. Lazarus v. Cowie, 3 Q. B., 459. Jewell v. Parr, 13 C. B., 909. Freakley v. Fox, 9 B. & C., 130. Bartrum v. Caddy, 9 A. & E., 275. Attenborough v. Mackenzie, 25 L. J., Ex., 244. (b) Da Silva v. Fuller. 222. Payment should be made to the holder or his agent: but it is sufficient if the funds reach him. Field v. Carr, 5 Bing., 13. 223. The party paying a bill has a right to demand it (a) : receipted (b): which imports prima facia that it has been paid by the acceptor (c). (a) Hansard v. Robinson, 7 B. & C., 90. Esp., 76. Alexander v. Strong, 9 M. & W., 733. 10 Ex., 441. (b) 43 Geo. 3 (1803), c. 126, s. 5. Powell v. Roach, 6 Cornes v. Taylor, (c) Pfiel v. Vanbatenberg, 2 Camp., 439. Scholes v. Walsby, Peake, 27. 224. If a person accepts and pays a bill under a mistake of facts he may recover it back. Kendall v. Wood, L. R., 6 Ex., 243. 225. Payment of a bill or note to a person who holds through a forged indorsement does not discharge the debtor. East India Co. v. Tritton, 3 B. & C., 280. Smith v. Mercer, 6 Taunt., 76. Robarts v. Tucker, 13 Q. B., 575. 226. 1. If a creditor having the option of receiving cash from a principal chooses to take a security, that is a "satisfaction" of his debt (a). 2. But not from an agent (b). (a) Strong v. Hart, 6 B. & C., 160. Smith v. Ferrand, 7 B. & C., 19. Anderson v. Hillies, 12 C. B., 499. Robinson v. Read, 9 B. & C., 494. (b) Marsh v. Pedder, 4 Camp., 257. Everett v. Collins, 2 Camp., 515. 227. A creditor may transfer his debt against another person to a creditor of his own, by the consent of the common debtor; and if the arrangement is consented to by all the parties it is a satisfaction of the first creditor's debt. Bracton, Lib. iii., c. 2., s. 13. Tatlock v. Harris, 3 T. R., 174. 482. Hodgson v. Anderson, 3 B. & C., 842. 228. Payment may be demanded at any reasonable hour of the day on which the bill or note is due, and if refused, notice of dishonour may be given. But the acceptor or maker has the whole day to pay, and if he pays the instrument on the day, the notice is void. Hartley v. Case, 4 B. & C., 339. 229. Payment of an accommodation bill by the drawer extinguishes the bill. Lazarus v. Cowie, 2 Q. B., 459. Cook v. Lister, 32 L. J., C. P. 121. 230. 1. Payment by the debtor of a smaller sum is not satisfaction of a larger sum due (a). 2. But payment by a stranger may be (b). 3. Or a negotiable security given by a debtor (c). (a) Pinnel's case, 5 Co. Rep., 117. Adams v. Tapling, 4 Mod., 88. Fletcher v. Sutton, 5 East., 230. Watters v. Smith, 2 B. & Ad., 889. Beaumont v. Greathead, 2 C. B., 294. Smith v. Page, 15 M. & W., 683. Perry v. Attwood, 6 E. & B., (b) Welby v. Drake, 1 C. & P., 557. Ex., 99. 691. Henderson v. Stobart, 5 (c) Sibtree v. Tripp, 15 M. & W., 23. 281. An agreement not to sue for a limited time does not suspend the right of action on a bill or note. Ford v. Beech, 11 Q. B., 842. Moss v. Hall, 5 Ex., 50. Webb v, 232. A set off, or a part payment in cash and part set off, is now payment of a bill or note. 36 & 37 Vict. (1873), c. 66, s. 25, § 11. 233. Payment by a stranger or any other party to a bill is not payment by the acceptor; unless made for and on his account, and ratified by him (a). A banker who has rediscounted a bill accepted by his customer, payable at his bank, may pay the bill either as indorser or as agent for the acceptor, and take time to consider in which capacity he does so (b). Jones v. Broadhurst, (a) Deacon v. Stodhart, 2 M. & G., 317. 9 C. B., 173. Randall v. Moon, 12 C. B., 261. 22 L. J., Q. B., 30. Kemp v. Balls, 10 Ex., 607. Agra and Masterman's Bank v. Leighton, L. R., 2 Ex., 56. (b) Pollard v. Ogden, 3 E. & B., 459. 234. Taking a co-extensive security of a higher nature in lieu of a Bill or Note "merges" or extinguishes it: but unless it is strictly co-extensive it will not. Ansell v. Baker, 15 Q. B., 20. 527. Bell v. Banks, 3. M. & G., 358. 235. Judgment recovered on a Bill or Note extinguishes the original debt of the defendant and all parties jointly liable with him. But without satisfaction it does not extinguish the plaintiff's claim against other parties not jointly liable with the defendant. Nor between a prior party to whom the plaintiff after judgment returns the bill, and the defendant. A judgment recovered against one joint and several debtor is no bar to an action against another joint and several debtor. Claxton v. Swift, 2 Show., 441. King v. Hoare, 13 M. & W., 494. Tarleton v. Allhusen, 2 A. & E., 32. 236. Discharging a party from execution is a satisfaction of the debt from all parties who are sureties for him, but not of those parties who are not. Hayling v. Nuthall, 2 W. Bla., 1235. English v. Darley, 2 B. & P., 61. Clark v. Clement, 6 T. R., 525. Mayhew v. Crickett, 2 Swans., 190. Michael v. Myers, 6 M. & G., 702. Upon Notice of Dishonour. 237. If a bill is refused acceptance or payment by the drawee or acceptor, or a note by the maker, the holder must give notice of the fact, termed Dishonour, to the antecedent parties, or they will be discharged. No particular form of words is necessary, and it may be either written or oral. The person to whom it is sent must be informed either directly, or by reasonable intendment, that the bill or note has been duly presented for acceptance or payment, and has been dishonoured. Many intimations have been held invalid for the want of these requisites and the parties discharged (a). It has been held in many cases that a demand for payment is also necessary in a notice of dishonour: but this doctrine has now been overruled; and it is expressly decided that a demand of payment from the party is not necessary in a notice of dishonour (b). (a) Boulton v. Welsh, 4 Scott, 425. Phillips v. Gould, 8 C. & P., 355. Strange v. Price, 10 A. & E., 125. Messenger v. Southey, 1 Scott, N. R., 180. Furze v. Sharwood, 2 Q. B., 388. Hartley v. Case, 4 B. & C., 339. Solarte v. Palmer, 7 Bing., 530; aff. in Dom. Proc., 1 Bing., N. C., 194. (b) Furze v. Sharwood, 2 Q. B., 388. 419. Miers v. Brown, 11 M. & W.,372. King v. Bickley, 2 Q. B., Chard v. Fox, 14 Q. B., 200. |