reside out of the state.266 In Illinois, if drawn and indorsed in that state and payable out of the United States.267 And so in Minnesota.268 But in Minnesota, if drawn on a drawee out of the state, but within the United States, they are regarded as inland bills.2** In Mississippi domestic bills drawn on that state, and payable in it. are put on the footing of foreign bills, if over $20.270 So, in New Jersey, inland bills drawn in that state, and on a drawee there, if over eight dollars and payable at sight or on demand, or at a future time named.271 In Virginia it seems that a bill drawn out of the state, payable in it, is a foreign bill, while one drawn in the state. on any other of the United States, is not to be so regarded, so far, at least, as protest of the bills is concerned. 272

GINIA (§ 129). Negotiable Instrument Law; NORTH DAKOTA. Rev. Code, § 4946; WYOMING. Rev. St. c. 70, § 98. And this is the general rule in the absence of statutory definition.

272 Brown v. Ferguson, 4 Leigh (Va.) 37, 51; Code 1873, p. 986, § 7.

(422)

IV. PARTS OR SET OF PARTS.

237. Condition Expressed.

238. Delivery.

239. Transfer.

240. Presentment and Acceptance.

241. Protest-Payment-Action.

242. Copies.

243. Foreign Statutes.

Condition Expressed.

§ 237. Foreign bills of exchange are generally drawn in a set of several parts (duplicate or triplicate, as the case may be), to guard against delay and loss. The usual number of parts is three, although there may be more or less. Each part should be designated by its number, and should refer to the other parts, requiring payment on condition of their being unpaid.273 It seems that such reference was formerly often omitted in Europe in the first part,274 but this practice has never found favor in the United States.275 All the parts, whatever may be their number, compose one set and constitute but one bill.276 In Great Britain, however, each part requires a stamp.27

277

273 1 Chit. Bills, 178; Story, Bills, § 67; 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. 122; Byles, Bills, 393. The usual form is as follows: "Thirty days after sight of this, my First of Exchange (Second and Third unpaid), pay," etc. The Civil Code of California provides for any number of parts, each making reference to the others, and all constituting one bill (section 3173). The designation of a check in parts does not make it conditional. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Ritzinger, 118 Ill. 484, 8 N. E. 834.

274 1 Pars. Notes & B. 59.

275 If the parts are not designated as such, payment of one part is no defense against the bona fide holder of another. Roswell Mfg. Co. v. Hudson, 72 Ga. 24.

276 Byles, Bills, 393; 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. 121. 277 Chit. Bills, 178; 33 & 34 Vict. c. 97, § 55.

(423)

Delivery.

280

§ 238. All the parts should be delivered together,278 and in a transfer of the bill all should be transferred.2 279 And it has been said that an agreement to deliver a foreign bill of exchange requires the delivery of as many parts as may be desired.2 But this has been rightly questioned, and the rule is properly restricted to the usual number of parts (duplicates or triplicates).281 If the bill is lost, another set may be demanded. 282 But an action will not lie against prior parties, other than the drawer or payee, for such other parts without proof of their being in their possession.283

Transfer.

§ 239. As each and all parts of the bill constitute but one bill, it follows that the indorsement of one part is a transfer of all.284 But the indorsement of one part is no implied warranty of possession of the other parts, although, if the indorser holds them, he may be required to give them up to his indorsee or a subsequent holder.285 If, indeed, the indorser indorses and transfers several parts to different holders, he will be liable generally on each.286 Thus, if two parts are accepted and negotiated, and the drawer knowingly receives the proceeds of both, he will be liable to the bona fide holder of the second part, although the acceptor has paid the first.287

278 Chit. Bills, 178; Story, Bills, § 67.

279 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. 123; Story, Bills, § 226.

280 Byles, Bills, 394; Chit. Bills, 178; 1 Edw. Bills & N. § 188.

In

281 Story, Bills, § 66; 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. 121; Chit. Bills, 178. In California three parts may be demanded. Civ. Code, § 3174.

282 Story, Bills, § 66.

283 Pinard v. Klockmann, 3 Best & S. 388; 32 Law J. Q. B. 82.

284 Chit. Bills, 179; 1 Edw. Bills & N. § 188; Benj. Chalm. Dig. art. 27; Société Générale v. Metropolitan Bank, 27 Law T. (N. S.) 849; Walsh v. Blatchley, 6 Wis. 413; British Bills of Exchange Act, § 71.

285 Pinard v. Klockmann, supra; 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. 122.

286 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. 123; British Bills of Exchange Act, § 71. And on payment he should have all individual payments returned to him. Byles, Bills, 394.

287 Wright v. McFall, 8 La. Ann. 120. And, if no condition is contained

in the several parts referring to one another, a drawer or acceptor, although

like manner, where two parts have been so accepted and negotiated, the surrender of one part to the acceptor will not relieve him from liability on the other.288 And if one part is lost and paid to a bona fide holder on a forged indorsement, an action will still lie in favor of the rightful holder of the other parts.289 It seems, however, that the bona fide holder of one part by valid indorsement may claim the other parts even against later bona fide indorsees.290 And an averment that the defendant indorsed a certain part is sustained by proof of his indorsing another part.291

Presentment and Acceptance.

§ 240. Any part of a bill of exchange may be presented for acceptance.292 And if there are several parts, as it is easier to avoid delay and obviate loss, the presentment should be made more promptly.298 If the first part forwarded for presentment is delayed, the second should be forwarded for that purpose.

294

297

But the drawee should accept only one part.295 And he will be liable on the part accepted by him, although one of the other parts may have been paid.296 So, the acceptor is liable on all parts accepted by him and transferred by him or with his knowledge.' If the second part is accepted with blanks on condition of the "first unpaid," and the two parts are filled up differently, and both disnot concerned in the transfer of the several parts to different persons, may still be liable on them all. Davison v. Robertson, 3 Dow, 218. And in such case payment of one part will be no defense against the bona fide holder of another. Id.; Chit. Bills, 178; 1 Edw. Bills & N. § 188; Story, Bills, § 67. 288 Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 Barn. & C. 449.

289 Chit. Bills, 178; Cheap v. Harley, 3 Term R. 127. See, too, Smith v. Mercer, 6 Taunt. 80; Fuller v. Smith, 1 Car. & P. 197; Ryan & M. 49.

290 Byles, Bills, 394; Chit. Bills, 178; Lang v. Smyth, 7 Bing. 284; 5 Moore & P. 78; Perreira v. Jopp, 10 Barn. & C. 450, note.

291 Miller v. Hackley, Anth. (N. Y.) 91.

292 Walsh v. Blatchley, 6 Wis. 422. So, in California, the presentment of one part for all is sufficient. Civ. Code, § 3175.

298 1 Pars. Notes & B. 59.

294 Straker v. Graham, 4 Mees. & W. 721.

295 Byles, Bills, 395; Chit. Bills, 178.

296 Chit. Bills, 178; British Bills of Exchange Act, § 71.

297 Byles, Bills, 394; Chit. Bills, 178; 1 Edw. Bills & N. § 188; Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 Barn. & C. 449.

counted, the acceptor will be liable on both to bona fide holders. 29s When the acceptor pays a bill, he should in all cases have the accepted part returned to him.299 And, if it is lost, he is entitled to demand security before paying another part.300

Protest-Payment-Action.

§ 241. In like manner, any copy of a bill may be protested. And if the first has been sent to the indorsee and lost, and no third part can be obtained because of the drawer's absence, and a copy of the second part is protested, this will be sufficient where payment has been refused on other grounds than objection to the copy.3

301

Payment of one part is payment of the whole bill.30% And, except where the drawee has accepted another part, he may safely pay any part that is presented to him. If the second part is paid by the acceptor after presentment of the first and protest of it for nonacceptance, and he afterwards pays the first in the hands of a bona fide holder, he may recover the amount paid as a payment made by mistake, 303 If two parts are both accepted and negotiated, and the proceeds received by the drawer, he will be liable on the first part, although the second part has been paid by the acceptor.304

When a bill is paid, the part which has been protested should be surrendered. So, a part which has been accepted should be surrendered; and, if this is not done, the acceptor may still remain liable to a bona fide holder.305 When an agreement is made to surrender a bill, it implies the surrender of all the parts.306 After the first part of a bill has been surrendered to the drawer with demand for

298 Bank of Pittsburgh v. Neal, 22 How. 96.

299 Byles, Bills, 395.

800 Chit. Bills, 178.

301 Dehers v. Harriot, 1 Show. 163.

302 Benj. Chalm. Dig. art. 29; Byles, Bills, 394; 1 Edw. Bills & N. § 188; 1. Pars. Notes & B. 59; Story, Bills, 226; British Bills of Exchange Act, § 71. 303 Durkin v. Cranston, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 442.

304 Wright v. McFall, 8 La. Ann. 120.

305 Benj. Chalm. Dig. art. 27; British Bills of Exchange Act, § 71; Holden ▼. Davis, 57 Miss. 769.

306 Byles, Bills, 580; Chit. Bills, 178; Kearney v. Mining Co., 1 Hurl. & N. 412, 26 Law Ex. J. 15.