out notice of the illegality or fraud, entitle such persons to sue upon the bill. Ante, p. 116. and, see post, Chapter XV. of Lost and Stolen Bills.

At what time before the completion or date of the bill.] Where a person indorses a bill before it is complete, he will not be allowed to take advantage of that fact, in an action brought against him. Thus, where the defendant indorsed his name on five blank forms of promissory notes, which were afterwards filled up, and discounted by the plaintiff, who knew them to have been in blank at the time of the indorsement, it was held that the defendant was liable as indorser. Lord Mansfield observed, that the indorsement on a blank note is a letter of credit for an indefinite sum, and that it does not lie in the mouth of the indorser to say, that the indorsement is not regular. Russell v. Langstaffe, Dougl. 496. 514. fourth ed.

One of several partners drew a bill in blank in the partnership name, and payable to their order, and, after indorsing it in the partnership name, delivered it to a clerk to be filled up, according to the urgencies of business. The partner who drew the bill then died, and the clerk filled it up, and inserted a date, prior to the date of the death. Lord Ellenborough said, that this case came within the principle of Russell v. Langstaffe; that the power must be considered to emanate from the partnership, and that, therefore, after the death of the partner, the bill might still be filled up, so as to bind the survivors. Usher v. Dauncey, 4 Campb. 97.

So, a post dated bill may be indorsed before the day on which it bears date. Thus, where the defendant, on 4th May, drew a bill, dated the 11th May, and delivered it to the payee, who, after indorsing it on the 5th, died on the same day, it was held, that the indorsee was entitled to recover. Pasmore v. North, 13 East, 517. See also Snaith v. Mingay, 1 M. & S. 87. Crutchley v. Clarance, 2 M. & S. 90. ante, p. 22.

By 17 Geo. 3. c. 30. s. 1. bills and notes, for the payment of a less sum than 5l. shall not be indorsed before the making thereof. Ante, p. 5.

At what time-before due, but after refusal of acceptance.] Where a bill is presented for acceptance and refused, and the holder neglects to give notice of non-acceptance to the drawer, and before the bill becomes due indorses it for a valuable consideration without notice of the dishonour, the indorsee is entitled to recover against the drawer. O'Keefe v. Dunn, 6 Taunt. 305. 1 Marsh. 613. 5 M. & S. 282. S. C. affirmed But if the indorsee had notice of the facts of nonacceptance and want of notice to the drawer, it would be otherwise. Noting for non-acceptance would be notice on the face of the bill. Per Dallas, J. 6 Taunt. 309. and see S. P.

on error.

per Bayley J. Crossley v. Ham, 13 East, 502. 5 M. & S. 289. Clark in America drew two bills on Dickerson in London, at sixty days' sight, payable to the defendant or order, who indorsed them for the accommodation of Clark, by whom they were paid to Parry, who transmitted them to F. & B. his agents in London, with directions to make a payment to the plaintiff. The bills arrived in London on the 26th of April, and were refused acceptance. On the 14th of April Parry agreed to exonerate the defendant from paying one of the bills in case the other were paid, which was paid. On the 6th of June F. & B. delivered over to the plaintiff the other bill, informing him of the presentment for acceptance, and refusal, and that he must take it under all the existing circumstances and liable to all the infirmities that attended it. The plaintiff having sued the defendant on the bill, it was held that the plaintiff took it subject to the agreement between Parry the then holder and the defendant, whereby payment of one of the bills was agreed to be received as payment of both, and that one of the bills having been in fact paid, the plaintiff was not entitled to ecover on the other. Crossley v. Ham, 13 East, 498; and see Roscow v. Hardy, 12 East, 434.

it

At what time—before due—but after payment.] While a bill of exchange is running it is in a negotiable state, and if it is paid and afterwards indorsed for a valuable consideration and without notice, the indorsee may sue on such a bill. Thus where four days before a note became due, some person ununknown came to the bankers where it lay, paid it, and carried away without its being cancelled or any memorandum made upon it, and afterwards, and before it was due, it came into the hands of the plaintiff, who sued the payee, Lord Ellenborough said that payment meant payment in due course and not by anticipation; and that as the plaintiff had received the note before it was due, there was nothing to awaken his suspicion, and that he was entitled to recover. That it was the duty of bankers to make some memorandum on bills and notes which have been paid; but that if they do not, the holders of such securities cannot be affected by any payment made before they are due. Burbridge v. Manners, 3 Campb. 194.

At what time-after due.] A bill or note may be transferred after it is due, so as to convey a good title to the party taking it. Mutford v. Walcot, 1 Ld. Raym. 575. Dehers v. Harriott, 1 Show. 163. But he who takes a bill after it has arrived at maturity, takes it subject to all the defences that could have been made by any previous holder; for the bill being unpaid, its date is notice to him sufficient to put him on enquiry, but if he takes the bill before it is due, he takes it not subject to the same infirmity of title, because he then takes it

without notice of any suspicious circumstances that may break in upon his remedy against any former holder. Per Gibbs, C. J. O'Keefe v. Dunn, Taunt. 315. The same rule is laid

There is

down by Mr. Justice Buller in the following terms. this distinction between bills indorsed before and after they become due. If a note indorsed be not due at the time, it carries no suspicion whatever on the face of it, and the party receives it on his own intrinsic credit. But if it is over due, though I do not say that by law it is not negotiable, yet certainly it is out of the common course of dealing, and does give rise to suspicion. Still stronger ought that suspicion to be, when it appears on the face of the note to have been noted for non-payment." Per Buller, J. Brown v. Davies, 3 T. R. 82. Thus where a note due upon the 13th Nov. was indorsed on the 6th December, in an action by the indorsee against the maker, it was held that evidence was admissible to show that the note had been paid as between the defendant and the original payee from whom the plaintiff received it. Brown v. Davies, 3 T. R. 80. And it is said that where there are any circumstances of fraud in the transaction, and a bill comes into the hands of the plaintiff after it is due, the slightest circumstances are sufficient to raise the presumption that the indorsee was acquainted with the fraud. Per Buller, J. Taylor v. Mather, 3 T. R. 83. (n.) In Tinson v. Francis, 1 Campb. 19. ante, p. 112, it was ruled by Lord Ellenborough, that after a bill or note is due, it comes disgraced to the indorsee, and it is his duty to make inquiries concerning it. If he takes it, though he gives a full consideration for it, he takes it on the credit of the indorser, and subject to all the equities with which it may be incumbered. See Charles v. Marsden, 1 Taunt. 224. ante, p. 112, Lee v. Zagury, 1 B. Moore, 556. So where the defendant accepted a bill for the differences on a stock-jobbing transaction, drawn by the broker, who indorsed it, after it was due, to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration, it was held that as the broker himself could not have sued upon the bill, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Brown v. Turner, 7 T. R. 630. Amory v. Merryweather, 2 B. &C. 573. Goggerley v. Cuthbert, 2 N. R. 170. When a bill is indorsed after it is due, the indorsee stands in the situation of the indorser from whom he received it, and if the latter could have sued upon it, the former may maintain the action. Thus, where in an action against the acceptor of a bill by an indorsee who had taken it after it had become due, it was proposed to show as a defence that the bill had been accepted for a debt contracted in a smuggling transaction, and that although it had been indorsed for value before it became due to a bona fide holder, yet that it had been indorsed by him to the present plaintiff after it was due; Lord Ellenborough ruled that if the plaintiff received the bill from a person who might himself have maintained an action upon it, the circumstance of the indorse

ment to him having been made after the bill had become due, was insufficient to let in the proposed defence; and on a motion for a new trial, the court of K. B. was of the same opinion. Chalmers v. Lanion, 1 Campb. 393. Where a bill which had been deposited with the plaintiffs' bankers, in London, as a collateral security, came again into the hands of their customer at the time it became due, and was dishonored, but was subsequently returned to the plaintiffs, Lord Ellenborough was of opinion, that when the bill was returned to the plaintiffs, they recurred to their former rights, and he therefore held that the fact of the customer having no right to sue upon the bill at the time of returning it to his bankers, furnished no defence. Bosanquet v. Dudman, 1 Stark. 1., and see Watkins v. Maule, 2 Jac. & Walk. 244. So where the plaintiffs, the holders of a bill, indorsed it to one Lord, who held it for three months after it became due, and then after receiving satisfaction from the drawer, called on the plaintiffs, who took it up; Lord Ellenborough was of opinion, that since the plaintiffs were originally indorsees for a valuable consideration, they stood in a better situation than an indorsee who took a bill for the first time after it became due. Buzzard v. Flecknoe, 1 Stark. 333.

Where in an action by an indorsee of an overdue bill against an indorser, the defendant proposed to give in evidence the books of one Powell, the person from whom the plaintiff had received the bill after it became due, in order to show the amount of the balance between Powell and himself, beyond which the plaintiff could not claim; Lord Ellenborough was of opinion, that any entry made by Powell at the time, and accompanying his act, would be evidence, in whatever book it was made, but that an entry or declaration, which did not accompany the act, was not admissible, for it might have been made for the very purpose of being used in evidence. Collenridge v. Farquharson, 1 Stark. 260.

At what time a bill or note payable on demand is to be considered as a bill or note over-due, does not appear to be decided. In Banks v. Cowell, cited 3 T. R. 81, it is said that Mr. Justice Buller held that a note payable on demand, and indorsed a year and a half after the making, was indorsed after it was due, and that therefore the indorsee took it subject to the infirmities of the indorser's title; but in a late case it was the opinion of Bayley, Holroyd, and Littledale, JJ., that a note payable on demand was not to be considered as over due withsome evidence of payment having been demanded and refused. Barough v. White, 4 B. & C. 327. See Roberts v. Eden, 1 B. & P. 398. Gascoyne v. Smith, M. & Y. 348. The rule with regard to a bankers' check appears to be this. It is the duty of the person who receives it to present it for payment on the same or the following day, and a person taking it after that period,

will take it subject to the infirmities of the title of him from whom he received it, as in the case of an over-due bill. Down v. Halling, 4 B. & C. 330. 6 D. & R. 455. S. C. But where the drawers of a check did not issue it until nine months after it bore date, upon a consideration which afterwards failed, as between them and the person to whom they delivered it, it was held that it was not competent to them to set up this circumstance as a defence in an action by a subsequent holder for a valuable consideration, and without notice. Boehm v. Stirling, 7 T. R. 423. (Note 21.)

At what time-after due and after payment.] Where a bill or note is paid on becoming due, it cannot be reissued so as to charge any person who would not otherwise be liable. Thus, where Brown drew a bill upon the defendant, payable to Hodgson or order, which was accepted by the defendant, indorsed by Hodgson, and when due returned to Brown, and by him paid, and afterwards by him transferred to the plaintiffs, it was held that the plaintiffs could not recover, for that if the bill was negotiable Hodgson would be liable, for which there was no colour. Beck v. Robley, 1 H. Bl. 89. (n). But where the reissuing of the bill would not have the effect of prejudicing any of the indorsers, it may be reissued after payment by the drawer. Thus, where the drawer of a bill, payable to his own order, and indorsed by him to T., and by T. to B., upon the bill being dishonored paid the amount to B., who struck out his own and T.'s indorsement, and returned it to the drawer, who afterwards passed it to the plaintiffs, it was held that the plaintiffs might afterwards recover against the acceptor. Callow v. Lawrence, 3 M. & S. 95. And see Hubbard v. Jackson, 4 Bingh. 390. 1 Moore & Payne, 11. S. C. S. P. A bill of exchange is negotiable ad infinitum until it has been paid or discharged on behalf of the acceptor. Per Lord Ellenborough, 3 M. & S. 97.

In what manner bills, &c. may be transferred.] Bills and notes payable to order are transferred by indorsement and delivery; bills and notes payable to bearer, or payable to order, and indorsed generally, are transferable by delivery. Gibson v. Minet, 1 H. Bl. 605. Where a bill or note is transferred by delivery only, the party transferring it cannot be sued upon it. Ante p. 42. No particular form of words is requisite to constitute an indorsement; writing the name of the party indorsing is sufficient. Lambert v. Oakes, 1 Ld. Raym. 443. But a promise to indorse will not operate as an indorsement. Moxon v. Pulling, 4 Campb. 50. Although the writing of his name by the party transferring the bill, is usually made on the back of the bill, yet if made in writing on the face of it, it is of the same effect, and will be taken and accepted as an indorsement.