residence as he was living amongst his friends, and he would call and see if the bill was paid by the acceptor. Lord Ellenborough ruled, that this dispensed with notice, and threw upon the defendant himself the duty of inquiring if the bill was paid. Phipson v. Kneller, 4 Campb. 285. 1 Stark. 116. S. C.

Protest-when excused.] Where a foreign bill has been dishonored, and a party to it, with a knowledge of that fact, promises to pay it, such promise dispenses not only with notice, but with the protest. One Colbourne was the drawer of a foreign bill of exchange, and in lieu of evidence of notice and protest, the plaintiff proved, that after the bill became due, Colbourne was told that it was dishonored, and called upon to pay it, when he said, that his affairs were at that moment deranged, but that he would be glad to pay it as soon as his accounts with his agent were cleared. Per Lord Ellenborough," By Colbourne's promise to pay he admits his liability he admits the existence of everything which is necessary to render him liable.

When

called upon for payment of the bill, he ought to have objected that there was no protest; instead of that he promises to pay it. I must therefore presume, that he had due notice, and that a protest was regularly drawn up by a notary." Gibbon v. Coggon, 2 Campb. 188. In an action against the drawers of a foreign bill, the declaration stated, that the bill was presented for payment, which was refused, and that it was duly protested for non-payment. The proof in support of these averments was, that one of the defendants called at the plaintiff's counting-house after the bill became due, and said, that it was regular; it was due from him and his partner; and he was come to make an arrangement for payment of the bill, with interest from the time it became due; Lord Ellenborough con. sidered, that the defendant's acknowledgment was a sufficient foundation from which the jury might infer the facts stated in the declaration. Greenway v. Hindley, 4 Campb. 52. In an action by the payee against the drawer of a bill of exchange, the declaration stated, that the defendant, on, &c. at St. Helena, to wit, at Westminster, drew the bill, &c. At the trial the bill was produced, dated at St. Helena, and not upon a stamp. The plaintiff proved the handwriting of the defendant as well as a subsequent promise by him to pay the bill. For the defendant, evidence was adduced, which tended to shew, that such promise, if any, was made without prejudice, and it was objected, that the declaration contained no averment of the bill having been drawn abroad, so as to enable the defendant to object to the want of a protest upon special demurrer ; that it must therefore be presumed, that the bill declared on was an inland bill; and if so, the instrument produced would vary from that set out in the declaration, and if it was considered an inland bill, it was inadmissible for want of a stamp.

At the trial, Dallas, C. J. was of opinion, that the subsequent promise to pay might amount to a waiver of those objections, and supersede the necessity of any further proof as to the presentment or protest for non-payment, those facts not having been averred in the declaration. The jury found for the plaintiff, and the court of C. P. refused an application to enter a nonsuit. Per Richardson, J. "Even if the instrument in question had been properly declared on as a foreign bill, it has been decided in the case of Rogers v. Stevens, (ante, p. 216,) that a promise to pay after a bill or note becomes due, will dispense with proof of presentment and notice of dishonor. So it will dispense with the proof of protest, as it will amount to an admission on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff had a right to resort to him on the bill." Putterson v. Beecher, 6 B. Moore, 319. It seems that inevitable accident, as it excuses want of presentment at the day, will also excuse want of protest. (See Note 52.)

By whom-in general.] Payment of a bill may be made either by the acceptor, drawer, or indorser, or by a person, supra protest, for the honor of one of those parties. Until a bill is paid by or on the behalf of the acceptor, it continues negotiable and may be issued without any fresh stamp. Ante, p. 135. Thus where a bill payable to the drawer's own order is taken up by him, it may be reissued; Callow v. Lawrence, 3 M. & S. 95; though it is otherwise where the bill is payable to a third person, for then that person might be twice charged. Beck v. Robley, 1 H. Bl. 89. (n.) So where a note has been taken up by an indorser he may reissue it. Gomez Serra v. Berkley, 1 Wils. 46. See ante, p. 135.

Where the acceptor of a bill or the maker of a note delivers money to his agent to retire the bill or note, and the agent tenders the money to the holder, on condition of having the bill or note delivered up, the bill being mislaid and the money consequently not paid, the acceptor or maker still remains liable after the bankruptcy of the agent with the money in his hands. Dent v. Dunn, 3 Campb. 296. Payment of a note by the bail of the maker is a discharge to the indorser. Hull v. 1 Wils. 46. Pitfield,

By whom-bankrupts.] All payments really and bona fide made or which shall hereafter be made by any bankrupt, or by any person on his behalf, before the date and issuing of the commission against such bankrupt, (such payment not being a fraudulent preference of such creditor,) shall be deemed valid, notwithstanding any prior act of bankruptcy by such bankrupt committed, provided the person so dealing with the said bankrupt had not at the time of such payment by such bankrupt, notice of any act of bankruptcy by such bankrupt committed. 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. s. 82.

To whom-in general.] Payment should always be made to the proprietor of the bill, and if made to the payee will be inoperative should he have ceased to be the holder, and should the acceptor have notice of that fact. Poth. pl. 142. 3. 164. Payment to one of several partners will be good. Duff v. East India Co. 15 Ves. 213. So will payment to an authorised agent; and the production of a bill by a person professing to be the agent of the holder, will be prima facie evidence of agency. Owen v. Barrow, 1 Bos. & Pul. N. R. 103. If the proprietor die, payment should be made to his personal representative; Poth. pl. 166. Bayley, 255; and payment to an executor under a forged will, the holder being actually dead, is valid. Allen v. Dundas, 3 T. R. 125. or order, to the use of B. payment should be made to A., for When a bill is payable to A. the right to sue is in him. Evans v. Cramlington, Carth. 5. ante, p. 24. If the holder be an infant, payment should be made to his guardian, Poth. pl. 166. Bayley, 255, though if the bill be beneficial to the minor, payment to him would, it is said, be valid. Ibid. In case of a married woman, payment should be made to her husband, Bayley, 256. Poth. pl. 167, for he has the power to sue upon and transfer the bill; ante, p. 58.

The production of a bill of exchange is in general sufficient to warrant payment of the amount to the party who produces it. Per Mansfield C. J. Owen v. Barrow, 1 N. R. 102. bill is indorsed to a person merely for the purpose of receiving Where a payment for the indorser, and the authority given to the indorsee is afterwards revoked, either by the party himself or by

operation of law, as by death, payment to the indorsee will not be a good discharge, if the person making it had notice of the revocation. Mar. 72. 3. Poth. pl. 168. See Tate v. Hilbert, 2

Ves. Jun. 118. Payment to an attorney while an action is subsisting is good, but otherwise to his clerk, who shews no other authority than his master's orders to receive it. Per Lord Kenyon, Coore v. Callaway, 1 Esp. 115. Nor is payment to the attorney's agent good. Yates v. Freckleton, Dougl. 623. 4th Ed. 600. It is incumbent on the asceptor to satisfy himself of the validity of the title of the holder. Certain bills of exchange, drawn upon and accepted by the East India Company in favor of W. Hope in India, were afterwards indorsed to Davies and Card, by S. Card as agent for Hope, under a supposed authority given by a power of attorney, which was seen and inspected by the acceptors. Davies & Card indorsed them to the defendants, as their bankers, in order that the latter might present them for payment when due. The defendants put their names on the back of the bills, presented them for payment, and received the amount, which they soon afterwards paid over to Davies & Card. It was then discovered that the power of attorney given by Hope, did not authorise his agent to indorse the bills, and the administrators of Hope, in an action against the acceptors, recovered the amount of them. The acceptors then sued the defendants on a supposed undertaking that they as holders were entitled to receive the amount of the bills. The jury found that the plaintiffs paid the bills on the faith of the power of attorney, and not of the indorsement by the defendants, and that the latter paid over the money before they had notice of the invalidity of the first indorsement. It was held under these circumstances that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. The plaintiffs, though they had the means of ascertaining the extent of Card's authority, yet thought fit to pay the money. East India Co. v. Tritton, 3 B. & C. 280. 5 D. & R. 214. S. C. (Note 53.)

To whom-bankrupts.] All payments really and bona fide made or which shall hereafter be made to any bankrupt, before the date and issuing of the commission against such bankrupt, shall be deemed valid, notwithstanding any prior act of bankruptcy by such bankrupt committed, and such creditor shall not be liable to refund the same to the assignees of such bankrupt, provided the person so dealing with the said bankrupt had not at the time of such payment to such bankrupt, notice of any act of bankruptcy by such bankrupt committed. 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. s. 82.

To whom-in case of lost and stolen bills, &c.] The cases relating to the transfer of bills or notes which have been lost or stolen, will be collected in a subsequent chapter. Post, Chap. XV. Where a bill or note is lost or stolen, and when due is presented