If a note is figned by several persons, but begins, I promife, &c. (a) it is feveral as well as joint. The act of drawing a bill implies an undertaking for the drawer to the payee, and every other perfon to whom the bill may afterwards be transferred, That the drawer is a perfon capable of making himself refponfible for its payment, that he fhall, if applied to for the purpose, express in writing upon the bill, an undertaking to pay it when it shall become payable, and that he fhall then pay it, and subjects him on a failure in any of thefe particulars to an action at the fuit of the payee or holder. The making of a note is an express engagement to the payee, or perfon to whom it fhall be transferred, to pay the money mentioned therein, according to its tenor. After the judgment in Minet v. Gibson in the King's Bench, and before its determination in the House of Lords, came on the cafe of Collis v. Emett, H. Bl. 313. where Livefay and Co. who were authorized by the Defendant to draw for him by his writing his name on a piece of blank paper with a fhilling bill ftamp thereon, made a bill payable to George Chapman, or order, and indorfed it with George Chapman's name, and it appearing that there was no fuch perfon as George Chapman, the court of Common Pleas after two arguments and time taken to confider, held that the action might fairly be fupported on a count that stated the bill to be payable to bearer, and there being fuch a count in the declaration, they gave the Plaintiffs judgment upon it. (6) March v. Ward, Peake, 130. A note figned by Bowling and Ward, began "I promise to pay," and in an action against Ward alone it was objected that the note was joint only, and not feveral, but Lord Kenyon held it was several as well as joint, and faid it had been fo decided on a cafe from Chester. "I applies to each feverally." Verdict for the Plaintiff. Vide poft. cap. 5. 3.56 22560 Or CA P. II. the Transfer of Bills and Notes. BILLS Bills and Notes are affigned either by delivery only, or by indorsement and delivery. Bills and Notes payable to order are affignable by the latter mode only; Bills and Notes payable to bearer, and Bills and Notes originally payable to order, (a) Hill v. Lewis. Salk. 132. Moor drew one Note payable to the Defendant, or his order, and another payable to him generally, without any words to make it affignable: the Defendant indorfed them to Zouch, and Zouch to the Plaintiff; the first objection was that the Plaintiff had been guilty of laches, but the Jury thought he had not; and it was then urged that the fecond Note was not affignable; and Holt C. J. agreed that the indorsement of this note did not make him that drew it chargeable to the Indorfee, for the words "or to his order" give authority to affign it by indorfe ment; but the indorsement of a Note which has not these words is good fo as to make the Indorfer chargeable to the Indorfee and 386 and indorfed, as (a) they may be, fo as to be payable to the bearer, by either. On a transfer by delivery, the perfon making it ceases to (b) be a party to the Bill or Note; on a transfer by indorfement, he (c) is to all intents and purposes a new drawer. Upon Bills and Notes for the payment of lefs than £5. the indorsement (d) must be attefted by one fubfcribing witnefs. No particular (e) words are effential to an indorfement; the mere signature (ƒ) of the indorfer is in general sufficient. But the indorfement of a Bill or Note for the payment of less than five pounds muft (g) mention the name and place of abode of the Indorfee, and bear date at or before the time of making it. An indorfement which mentions the name of the perfon in whose favour it is made, is called a full (a) See poft p. 32. (6) Vide Ld. Raym. 442. 724. 929, Salk. 128.-3 Salk. 68. Comb. 57. 930. 12 Mod. 241. 408. 517. 521. (c) Smallwood v. Vernon. Str. 478. In an Action against the Indorfer of a Note the Declaration stated that he became chargeable according to the tenor of the Indorsement: and it was objected that the indorsement might appoint the payment at a time different from that mentioned in the Note; fed per cur. if it did, it would charge the Indorfer, for every indorsement is the fame as making a new Note. Vide 2 Show. 501. Comb. 32. Skinn. 255, 256. 342. 411. 3 Mod. 87. 12 Mod 36. Ld. Raym. 181. 444. 7446 Salk. 125. 132, 133. 3 Salk. 68. Str. 442. 479. 1 Atk. 282. 2 Atk. 182. Burr. 670. 675. Dougl. 613. (d) Vide 17th G. III. c. 30. § 1. ante p. 5. (e) Vide Holt. 117. Ld. Raym. 176. 810. (f) Vide 12 Mod. 192. 244. Salk. 126. 128. 130. Ld. Raym. 444. (g) Vide 17. G. III. c. 30. § 1. ante p. 5. indorfe 336 2.86 indorsement, an indorfement which does not, a blank one. A blank indorsement, fo long as it continues blank, mikes a bill or note payable to the (a) bearer, but the holder may write over write over it what he pleases. As long however as the firft indorfement continues blank, the (b) bill or note as against the Payee, the Drawer, and Acceptor, is affignable by mere delivery, notwithstanding it may have upon it fubfequent full indorsements. A full indorsement may reftrain the negotiability of a bill or note. (a) Peacock v. Rhodes. Dougl. 611-633. A Bill was drawn by the Defendant payable to Ingham or order, Ingham indorfed it in blank, after which it was ftolen; the Plaintiff took it bonâ fide, and paid a valuable confideration for it, and acceptance and payment being refused, gave notice to the Defendant and brought this Action. A cafe was referved for the opinion of the Court, and it was contended that this Bill was not to be confidered as payable to Bearer, and that the Plaintiff had no better right upon it than the perfon of whom he took it; but the Court faid there was no difference be tween a Note indorfed in blank, and one payable to bearer; and the Plaintiff had judgment. Francis v. Mott. N. P. before Ld. Mansfield cited Dougl, 612. was a fimilar cafe, and the Attorney General, who was for the Defendant, after attempting unsuccessfully to fhew that the Plaintiff knew the Bill was obtained unfairly, gave up the cause. (6) Smith v. Clarke, Peake 225. A Bill was indorfed in blank by the Payee, and after fome other indorfements was inderfed to Jackfon or order; Jack fon fent it to Muir and Atkinson, but did not indorfe it, and Mair and Atkinfon discounted it with the Plaintiffs: the Plaintiffs truck out all the indorsements except the first, which continued blank. This was an Action againft the Acceptor, and it was objected, that the Plaintiffs could not recover without an indorfement by Jackfon; but Ld. Kenyon held otherwife, and the Plaintiffs recovered. The Plaintiffs afterwards proved that Jack for defired Muir and Atkinson to discount this Bill, but Ld. Kenyon thought the Plaintiff's cafe made out without this evidence. An within mult be credited to I. S.' is reftrictive. But the (c) mere omiffion of words to g power of transfer, will not make an indorfe reftrictive. A reftr (a) P. Wilmot, J. Burr. 1227. Blackft. 299. The Payce may ch currency of a Bill or Note by giving a bare authority to receive the as " Pay to A. for my ufe;" and per Lord Hardwicke in Snee v. I 1 Atk. 249. Bills and Notes are frequently indorfed in this manner pay the money to my ufe," in order to prevent their being filled fuch an indorsement as paffes the interest. (b) Ancher v. Bank of England, Dougl. 615. 637. A Bill was dr the Plaintiffs upon Claus Heide and Co. payable to Jens Moftue of Mæftue indorfed it to this effect "The within muft be credited to M. L. Dahl, value in account" and fent it to Claus Heide and C credited Dahl for the amount, and gave notice to Dahl and the P that they had done fo; an indorsement by Dahl was afterwards forge the Bill, and the Bank difcounted it. Claus Heide and Co. having infolvent, Fulgberg paid it for the honour of the Plaintiffs, and ground that the indorsement had restrained the negability of th they brought an Action for money had and received against the Bank Mansfield directed a Nonfuit, but upon a Rule to fhew caufe wh should not be a new trial, and caufe fhewn, Ld. Mansfield, Willes a hurft, Js. thought the indorsement reftrictive, and that the Plaintif intitled to recover; but Buller J. thought otherwife; upon which Mansfield faid, the whole turned on the question, Whether the Bill co negotiable? and if they altered their opinion they would mention again, but it never was mentioned afterwards, and upon a new tria Mansfield directed the Jury to find for the Plaintiffs, which they did. (c) Moore v. Manning. Com. 311. A Note was drawn by the 1 ant payable to Statham or order; Statham indorfed it to Witherhe did not add "or to his order" and Witherhead indorfed it to the P The Defendant contended that as there were no exprefs words to a |