Guienne in 1287, and out of England in 1290 (r); and in 1236 the use of paper credit was introduced into the Mogul empire in China (s). In common speech, such a bill is frequently called a draft, but a bill of exchange is the more legal as well as mercantile expression. The person, however, who writes this letter, is called in law the drawer, and he to whom it is written the drawee; and the third person, or negotiator, to whom it is payable (whether specially named, or the bearer generally) is called the payee. These bills are either foreign, or inland; foreign, when Foreign. drawn by a merchant residing abroad upon his correspondent in England, or vice versâ; and inland, when both the Inland. drawer and the drawee reside within the kingdom. Formerly foreign bills of exchange were much more regarded in the eye of the law than inland ones, as being thought of more public concern in the advancement of trade and commerce. But now, by two statutes, the one 9 & 10 W. III. c. 17, the other 3 & 4 Ann. c. 9 (44), inland bills of exchange are put upon the same footing as foreign ones; what was the law and custom of merchants with regard to the one, and taken notice of merely as such (t), being by those statutes expressly enacted with regard to the other. So that now there is not in law any manner of difference between them (45). (r) 2 Carte. Hist. Eng. 203, 206. (s) Mod. Un. Hist. iv. 499. (44) The acts, which at first were temporary, were made perpetual by 7 Ann. c. 25. (45) Mr. Christian observes, that "one very important distinction between foreign and inland bills of exchange still remains unaltered by the statutes; viz. in a foreign bill, in order to recover against the drawer or indorsers, it is necessary that the bill should be protested for non-acceptance or non-payment; (5 T. R. 239 ;) but a protest is not necessary upon an inland bill, to enable the holder to recover the amount of it against the drawer or indorsers; and the only advantage of a protest upon an inland bill is to give the holder a right to recover interest and expenses incurred (t) 1 Roll. Abr. 6. by the non-acceptance or non-pay- [In Windle v. Andrews, (2 Barn. & Promissory notes. Promissory notes, or notes of hand, are a plain and direct engagement in writing, to pay a sum specified at the time therein limited to a person therein named, or sometimes to his order, or often to the bearer at large. These also, by the same statute 3 & 4 Ann. c. 9, are made assignable and indorsable in like manner as bills of exchange (46). But, by statute 15 Geo. III. c. 51, all promissory or other notes, [* 468] *bills of exchange, drafts, and undertakings in writing, being negotiable or transferable, for the payment of less than twenty shillings, are declared to be null and void; and it is made penal to utter or publish any such; they being deemed prejudicial to trade and public credit. And, by 17 Geo. III. c. 30 (47), all such notes, bills, drafts, and undertakings, to the amount of twenty shillings, and less than five pounds, are subjected to many other regulations and formalities; the omission of any one of which vacates the security, and is penal to him that utters it. The property in both bills and the payee. The payee, we may observe, either of a bill of exchange notes is vested in or promissory note, has clearly a property vested in him (not indeed in possession but in action) by the express contract of the drawer in the case of a promissory note, and, in the case of a bill of exchange, by his implied contract, viz. that, provided the drawee does not pay the bill, the drawer will: for which reason it is usual, in bills of exchange, to express that the value thereof hath been received by the drawer (u); in order to show the consideration, upon which the implied contract of repayment arises. And this property, so vested, may be transferred and assigned from the payee to any other man; contrary to the general rule of the common law, that no chose in action is assignable; which assignment is the life of paper credit. It may, therefore, be of some use, to mention a few of the principal incidents attending this transfer or assignment, in order to make it regular, and thereby to charge the drawer with the payment of the debt to other persons than those with whom he originally contracted. As to the mode of assigning bills and notes. In the first place then, the payee, or person to whom or whose order such bill of exchange or promissory note is pay (46) Vol. III. p. 157. (u) Stra. 1212. (47) By the statute of 7 Geo. IV. c. 6, the issuing of promissory notes for any sum under 57. is prohibited, under a penalty of 207. for every such note issued. bill. ] able, may, by indorsement, or writing his name in dorso, or (v) 2 Show. 235.—Grant v. Vaughan, T. 4 Geo. III. B. R. (48) The statute of 1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 78, enacts, that no acceptance of any inland bill shall be sufficient to charge any person, unless such acceptance be in writing on the bill, or on one of its parts when drawn in sets. But a parol acceptance of a foreign bill of exchange is still valid. (Fairlee v. Herring, 3 Bingh. 625; S. C. 11 Moore, 520.) The same statute enacts, that acceptance of any bill of exchange, payable at a specified place, without further expression qualifying the acceptance, shall be deemed to all intents and purposes a general acceptance; (therefore, in such case, the holder is not bound to present the bill at any particular time or place; Turner v. Hayden, 4 Barn. (49) The ground upon which the acceptance. Protest for nonpayment. But, in case such bill be accepted by the drawee, and after acceptance he fails or refuses to pay it within three holder, omitting to send such notice to the drawer, must be presumed to have given credit to some person liable as between him and the drawer: and it has been held, (in Ex parte Barclay, 7 Ves. 598, in Staples v. Okines, 1 Esp. N. P. C. 333, and in Stewart v. Kennet, 2 Camp. 177,) that notice of the dishonour of a bill should be given by the holder himself or his authorised agent, otherwise the drawer would be discharged: but in later cases, at law, it has been decided, that it is sufficient for an indorsee to prove that the drawer of a bill had notice of its dishonour from the acceptor, or any party to the bill: (Rosher v. Kiernan, 4 Camp. 87; Wilson v. Swabey, 1 Stark. 34; Chapman v. Keane, 3 Adol. & Ellis, 197; S. C. 4 Nev. & M. 607 :) and likewise, that if the indorser of a bill receive notice of its dishonour from any person who is a party to the bill, he is directly liable upon it to a subsequent indorsee, although he had no notice of the dishonour from such subsequent indorsee. (Jameson v. Swinton, 2 Camp. 373.) It seems, also, that want of notice to a drawer, of the dishonour of one of his bills of exchange, may be supplied by evidence of his acknowledgment to the holder when asked if the bill would be paid, that "it would not:" (Brett v. Levett, 13 East, 214; and see infrà :) but such an acknowledgment, made by the drawer after he has committed an act of bankruptcy, is inadmissible as evidence, in an action by his assignees, to prove the petitioning creditor's debt, in order to support the commission. (Smallcombe v. Bruges, 1 M'Clel. 60.) And the necessity of notice is not dispensed with by any understand. ing which existed between the parties; for, evidence of such an understanding can never be admitted to vary the legal operation of an instrument: (Free v. Hawkins, 8 Taunt. 97; S. C. 1 Moore, 535 :) nor, will mere knowledge of the dishonour of a bill, (such knowledge not being derived from any party to the bill, or person who would have a right of action thereon, if returned to him,) be equivalent to notice from the holder, or other party thereto, for the purpose of fixing the person who has acquired such casual knowledge of the fact with responsibility, for, unless such notice be received, it may be supposed that the holder intends to give credit to some other party. (Esdaile v. Sowerby, 11 East, 116; Tindal v. Brown, 1 T. R. 169.) Even when the drawer of a bill of exchange has become bankrupt, and absconded before it was due, and the acceptor also has become bankrupt before the bill was due; the holder will not be entitled to prove the bill under the commission against the drawer, unless notice of the dishonour of the bill has been duly given to the assignees of the said drawer; at all events when the bankrupt drawer's house was open, and a notice left there would have reached his assignees. (Rohde v. Proctor, 4 Barn. & Cress. 524; S. C. 6 D. & R. 616.) If, indeed, the bill had been dishonoured before assignees of the drawer's estate were chosen, notice to the drawer himself would be sufficient. (Ex parte Moline, 19 Ves. 217.) There are certain excepted cases, in which notice of the dishonour of a bill of exchange has been determined not to be necessary: for instance, (as was before intimated,) where the drawer has no effects in the hands of the drawee, nor any right upon any other ground to expect the bill will be paid, he is held not to be entitled to formal notice of its dishonour; knowledge being, in such case substituted for notice: but the decisions establishing this and similar exceptions have been frequently regretted by courts both of law and days after it becomes due (50) (which three days are called days of grace), the payee or indorsee is then to get it protested for non-payment, in the same manner, and by the same persons who are to protest it in case of non-acceptance, and such protest must also be notified, within fourteen days after, to the drawer. And he, on producing such protest, either of non-acceptance, or non-payment, is bound to make good to the payee, or indorsee, not only the amount of the said bills (which he is bound to do within a reasonable time after non-payment, without any protest, by the rules of the common law (x),) but also interest and all charges, to be computed from the time of making such protest. But if Consequences of no protest be made or notified to the drawer, and the holder to any protest, or to damage accrues by such neglect, it shall fall on the holder give notice of of the bill. The bill, when refused, must be demanded of the drawer as soon as conveniently may be for though, when one draws a bill of *exchange, he subjects himself to [470] the payment, if the person on whom it is drawn refuses either to accept or pay, yet that is with this limitation, that if the bill be not paid, when due, the person to whom it is payable, shall in convenient time give the drawer notice (x) Lord Raym. 993. equity, as tending to introduce nice distinctions, instead of adhering to a plain and intelligible rule. (Cory v. Scott, 3 Barn. & Ald. 622; Claridge v. Dalton, 4 Mau. & Sel. 231; Wallwyn v. St. Quintin, 1 Bos. & Pull. 655; Mawson v. Stock, 6 Ves. 305; Ex parte Wilson, 11 Ves. 411; Ex parte Heath, 2 Ves. & Bea. 240.) (50) Mr. Christian observes, that "a bill or note is not now considered due or demandable till the last day of the three days' grace; as, if a bill or note is dated on the 12th of any month, and made payable ten days, one week, or one month, after date, payment must be demanded on the 25th, the 22d, of the same, and on the 15th of the next month respectively. But, if the third day of grace falls on a Sunday, the bill or note is payable and due on the Saturday preceding; and by 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 42, if payable on Good Friday, they are due the day "A promissory note made payable "A bill or note must be drawn upon a proper stamp, and if it be drawn upon a greater stamp than the statutes require, it cannot be received in evidence; but the plaintiff may recover as for so much money lent or advanced, if he can prove the defendant's promise to pay, or the consideration received by him from the plaintiff, independently of the imperfect note. (1 East, 55.)" [But, as to this last point, a ra the neglect of the dishonour. |