Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

See notes to Sec. 93, and the case of Goodman v. Harvey, by which it was decided, that it was sufficient to inform the drawer, that the bill had been protested, without sending a copy of the protest. According to English Law, however, it has been held in the case of a foreign bill, that a statement in the notice, that the bill had been “duly presented for payment and returned dishonored,” but without making any reference to the protest which had been made was sufficient notice of dishonor. 2

ance.

103. All bills of exchange drawn payable at Protest for some other place than the place mentioned as the after dishonor residence of the drawee, and which are dishonored by non-acceptby non-acceptance, may, without further presentment to the drawee, be protested for non-payment, in the place specified for payment, unless paid before or at maturity.

This section reproduces Sec. 4 of Act VI of 1840 and the English Statute II and III, Will. IV, c. 98. The case of Mitchell v. Baring,' gave rise to the passing of the English Statute. There a foreign bill was drawn at 60 days after sight, upon a house at Liverpool, and made payable in London ; after acceptance by the drawees had been refused, it was accepted by a house in London supra protest, for the honor of the payee in the following terms :

if regularly protested and refused when due;' the date of refusal of acceptance was 30th August, the due date consequently being 1st November, on which day it was presented for and refused payment at Liverpool, and on 3rd November again presented in London, where payment was refused, on the ground it should have been presented on the 1st November, but it was held that the presentment in Liverpool on the 1st November was regular and

proper. 104. Foreign bills of exchange must be protest- Protest of

. ed for dishonor when such protest is required by the foreigu bills. law of the place where they are drawn.

[blocks in formation]

66

[ocr errors]

66

As to what is a foreign bill, see ante, Sec. 12. Byles thus speaks of the necessity and reason for protesting foregn bills :' “When a foreign bill is refused acceptance or payment, it was “and still is necessary, by the custom of merchants, in order to charge the drawer, that the dishonor should be attested by a protest. For by the law of most foreign nations a protest is, or was, essential in case of dishonor of any bill; and though by “ the law of England it is annecessary in the case of an inland bill, yet for the sake of uniformity in international transactions, a · foreign bill must be protested. Besides, a protest affords satisfactory evidence of dishonor to the drawer, who from his “residence abroad, might experience a difficulty in making proper inquiries on the subject, and be compelled to rely on the

representation of the holder. It also furnishes an indorsee, “ with the best evidence to charge an antecedent party abroad, " for foreign Courts give credit to the acts of a public functionary, " in the same manner as a protest under the seal of a foreign

notary is evidence in our Courts, of the dishonor of a bill ‘payable abroad.” Chitty sums up to the law of the subject " in the following words : 4 “ The holder of a foreign bill must not “omit making protest, which, though a mere matter of form, “has become, by the law merchant of Europe and America “indispensable." The want of it cannot be supplied by witnesses, or by mere notings or any other means. Lord Mansfield, held that a protest was the only legal notice, in the case of a foreign bill.7 As to the time when a protest of a foreign bill should be drawn up, nothing is said in the section. Brooke says, " is a difference between foreign and inland bills, with respect “to the time when the protest for non-payment may be drawn "up. In the case of foreign bills, the holder may, and com“monly does, cause them to be protested on the day when they "fall due: but though an inland bill is generally noted on the

6

8 " There

* Byles on Bills, 13th ed., p. 261.

2 Gale v. Walsh, 5 T. R. 239 ; Rogers v. Stephens, 2 T. R. 713 ; Orr v. Maginnis, 7 East, 359 ; S. C. 3 Sm. 328.

3 Secs. 57 (6), 78, 82, Act I of 1872.

4 Chitty on Bills, urth ed., by Russell, p. 339.

5 Leftley v. Mills, 4 T. R. 175.

6 Vandewall v. Tyrrell, M. & M. 87.

? Salomons v. Stavely, 3 Doug. 298.

& Brooke's office of Notary, 4th ed., p. 144.

[ocr errors]

day of dishonor, it may be protested afterwards, provided the “protest be dated as of the true date when the bill was pre"sented.” Byles however applies, the rule above quoted as applicable to inland bills to foreign bills also.' And Chitty while pointing out that there has been no express

decision
agrees

with him.' It is to be observed that the section is only applicable to foreign bills of exchange, and nothing is said about foreign promissory notes, and cheques.

Byles on Bills, 13th ed., p. 262.

: Chitty on Bills, i1th ed., by Russell, p. 237; see Geralopulo v. Wieler, 20 J. (C. P.) 105;

S. C. 10 C. B. 690 ; Leftley v.
Mills, 4 T. R. 174.

3 Bonar v. Mitchell, 5 Exch. 415; S. C. 19 L. J. (Ex.) 302.

CHAPTER X.

OF REASONABLE TIME.

Reasonable time.

105. In determining what is a reasonable time for presentment for acceptance or payment, for giving notice of dishonor and for noting, regard shall be had to the nature of the instrument and the usual course of dealing with respect to similar instruments; and, in calculating such time, public holidays shall be excluded.

“It is difficult to draw the line as to reasonable and unreason. able time. But I infer from the authorities that if a holder of a cheque, has not presented it when he might, but has unreasonably withheld presentment so that the situation of the maker is altered for the worse, the holder has thereby made the cheque payment.”ı (A month was held not a reasonable time for hold. ing a cheque without presentment.

It is for the jury to find the facts, and when they have done so the reasonableness of the time becomes a question of law, which is to be determined by the Court.?

The section must be read with Sec. 98.

The following rule was laid down by Eord Ellenborough with reference to what the duty of the holder of a bill was, when he did not know the residence of the indorser, whom he sought to charge, with respect to giving notice of dishonor: “The holder

must not allow himself to remain in a state of passive and con“ tented ignorance ; but if he uses reasonable diligence to discover

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

“the residence of the indorser, I conceive that notice given as

soon as this is discovered, is due notice of the dishonor of the " bill, within the usage and custom of merchants.” And in another case, the same learned Judge said,' Ignorance of the indorser's

residence may excuse the want of due notice, but the party must show that he has used reasonable diligence to find it "out.” Where a hundi which fell due on a Saturday, was on that day presented for payment, and the acceptor just at the time when the banks closed, gave a cheque for the amount, which was immediately taken to the bank on which it was drawn, which was found to be closed, business hours having passed : information of the bank being closed was at once given to the acceptor, who said the cheque would be paid on Monday, and the holder's immediate indorser, was at once informed verbally of what had been done, and payment of the hundi again demanded on Monday, when the cheque on presentment was dishonored. Written notice of the dishonor was then given to the indorser, and it was held, that such notice on the Monday was within reasonable time. Ordinarily, notice of dishonor, of a bill of exchange, drawn in India, and payable in England, should be posted by the first Mail which leaves England, after the dishonor of the bill.3

honor.

106. If the holder and the party to whom notice Reasonable of dishonor is given carry on business or live (as the notice of discase may be) in different places, such notice is given within a reasonable time if it is despatched by the next post or on the day next after the day of dishonor.

If the said parties carry on business or live in the same place, such notice is given within a reasonable time if it is despatched in time to reach its destination on the day next after the day of dishonor.

The rule has been thus defined in England. “ The rule is, not that he is to have a day only and no more, but that he is " to have so much time as will enable him to give notice with

Beveridge v. Burgis, 3 Camp. 262.

? Somarimull v. Bhairo Doss Fowry, 7 Beng. L. R. 431.

3 Uncovenanted Service Bk. v. Duffin, 3 N. W. P., H. C. R. 99.

« PreviousContinue »