Upon the transfer of a Bill drawn in Sets, each part must be delivered to the perfon in whose favour the transfer is made; otherwise the fame inconveniencies may follow, which would enfue upon a neglect to deliver each of them to the Payee.

The indorsement of a Bill or Note, implies an undertaking from the Indorfer to the perfon in whose favour it is made, and every other person to whom the Bill or Note may afterwards be transferred, exactly fimilar to that which is implied by drawing a Bill, except that in the case of a Note, the stipulations with respect to the Drawer's responsibility and undertaking do not apply; and a transfer by delivery only, if made on account of an antecedent debt, implies a fimilar undertaking from the person making it, to the person in whose favour it is made.

not paying them when they became due, the Plaintiff brought this action. Hotham B. before whom the cause was tried, was of opinion, that as the Notes were incomplete when the Defendant indorsed them, no fubsequent act of Galley could make them otherwife, because that would alter the effect of the Defendant's indorsement, and he accordingly directed a verdict for the Defendant; but upon an application for a new trial and cause shewn, Mr. Wallace the Attorney General, gave up the point, though Mr. Lee afterwards argued it, and Lord Mansfield faid, "Nothing is fo clear as the point; the Indorsement on a Blank Note is a letter of credit for an inde"finite fum; the Defendant faid, truft Galley to any amount, and I will be his fecurity; it does not lie in his mouth to fay, the indorsements were "not regular." A new trial was accordingly granted, and a verdict having been found for the Plaintiff in a fimilar action before Lord Mansfield, the Defendant fubmitted in this, without going to a second trial.

G

CA P. III.

Of the Acceptance of Bills.

THE doctrine of acceptances applies to Bills only; for a Note may (a) be confidered, on comparison with a Bill, as accepted when it iffues.

An acceptance is an engagement to pay a Bill according to the tenor of the acceptance, and a general accceptance is an engagement to pay according to the tenor of the Bill.

This engagement is made by the Drawee of the Bill or fome (b) other perfon, to the (c) Drawer or fome

(4) D. acc. 2 Bl. Comm470.

(b) Mutford v. Walcott, Lord Raym. 575. 12 Mod. 410. Com. 76. per. Holt C. J. "If A. draws a Bill on B. and B. will not accept, and C. offers "to accept for the honour of the Drawer, the holder need not acquiefce, but "if he does C. is bound." And per Lord Mansfield and Yates J. in Pillans v. Van Mierop, Burr. 1672. 1674. an acceptance for the honour of the Drawer will bind the Acceptor.

(c) Pillans and another v. Van Mierop, Burr. 1663. White drew on the Plaintiffs at Rotterdam for £800. and proposed to give them credit upon the Defendant's houfe in London; the Plaintiffs paid White's bill, and wrote to the Defendants to know "Whether they would accept fuch bills as they "(the Plaintiffs) fhould draw in about a month upon them for £800. on "White's credit." The Defendants anfwered, that they would, but White having failed before the month elapfed, the Defendants wrote to the Plaintiffs not to draw. The Plaintiffs did however draw, and on the Defendant's refufal to pay the bills brought this action. The jury found a verdict for the Defendants, but upon an application for a new trial, as upon a verdict against evidence, and two arguments upon it, the court was unanimous that the Defendant's letter was a virtual acceptance of fuch bills as the Plaintiff fhould draw to the amount of £800. and the rule was made abfolute.

fome of the other parties, before the (a) Bill is drawn

Pierfon v. Dunlop and others, Cowp. 571. M'Lintot drew upon the Defendants in favour of Nicholl, and gave Nicholl a navy bill affigned to the Defendants as a fecurity till the bill of exchange fhould be accepted; both bills were fent to the Defendants, who said, the bill of exchange would not be accepted till the navy bill was paid, but they would receive the money on the navy bill; and they wrote to M'Lintot faying his bill would receive due honour, but it was drawn too fhort, being payable before the navy bill; they afterwards received the money on the navy bill, but refused to pay the bill of exchange, upon which this action was brought: the Plaintiff obtained a verdict, but the Defendants had a rule to fhew caufe why there should not be a new trial, and infifted that the letter to M'Lintot, upon which the jury had in fome measure relied, was no acceptance; but on caufe fhewn, Lord Mansfield faid, "I confider what the Defendants did as 66 an acceptance; it has been truly faid, as a general rule, that the mere "anfwer of a merchant to the Drawer of a bill, saying-he will duly honour "it, is no acceptance, unless accompanied with circumstances which may “induce a third perfon to take the bill by indorsement—if there are any "such circumstances, it may amount to an acceptance, though contained in "a letter to the Drawer; in this cafe, there is great reason to say, that what "the Defendants did was equivalent to an acceptance; there may be a "conditional, as well as an abfolute acceptance, what then is the declaration "by the Defendants, but an undertaking that the bill fhould be accepted, "when the navy bill was paid; after this he writes this letter, which is an "admiffion he looked to the navy bill as the fund out of which the bill of "exchange was to be paid." A new trial was refused.

Mafon v. Hunt, Dougl. 284. 297. Rowland Hunt in Dominica wrote a letter to his partner Thomas Hunt in London, ftating that he had agreed that Thomas should accept bills for £3600. upon certain conditions; it was doubtful whether thofe conditions had been performed, but at all events it was clear that the obligation created by this letter was waived; an action was however brought against the Hunts, and after a verdict for the Defendants and an application for a new trial, upon which the court took time to confider, Lord Mansfield faid, "There is no doubt but an agreement to accept may amount to an acceptance, and it may be couched in fuch terms "as to put a third perfon in a better fituation than the Drawer."

66

Powell v. Monnier, 1 Atk. 611. Newburgh drew upon Monnier for £50. and fent him a letter of advice, and Monnier wrote for anfwer that the bill fhould be duly honoured, and placed to Newburgh's debit. A bill in chancery was afterwards filled against Monnier's executrix, upon the ground that this letter amounted to an acceptance, and Lord Hardwicke thought it clear that it did, and decreed payment.

(a) Vide Pillans v. Van Mierop and Mafon v. Hunt, ante p. 42. Note (c)

G 2

ärawn or (a) afterwards, verbally (b) or in writing; and is either abfolute or (c) conditional, and when made after the drawing of the Bill, is according to or (d) varying from its tenor.

(a) Vide Powell v. Monnier, ante p. 42. note (c).

(b) Cox v. Coleman, M. 6 G. II. cited arguendo Ann. 75. A foreign bill drawn on Defendant was protefted for non acceptance and returned, and afterwards Defendant told the Plaintiff, "if the bill comes back, I will pay it ;" and this was held a good acceptance.

Lumley v. Palmer, Str. 1000 Ann. 74. In an action against the Defendant as acceptor of a bill, the acceptance appeared to be by parol only; which Lord Hardwicke C. J. ruled to be fufficient; but Eyre C. J. of the common pleas having ruled it otherwife in Reo v. Meggott, H. 7 G. II. an application was made for a new trial, and the court to fettle the point ordered it to be argued; upon the argument the court held Lord Hardwicke's direction right, and Eyre C. J. waived his opinion and agreed with the court of King's Bench; and this determination is referred to and approved of in Julian v. Shobrooke, 2 Wils. 9. Powell v. Monnier, 1 Atk. 612. and in Pillans v. Van Mierop, Burr. 1662. Lord Mansfield fays, a verbal acceptance is binding; and in Sproat v. Matthews, 1 Term Rep. 182, it was taken for granted by the court and bar, that a parol acceptance was good. See alfo Str. 817.

(c) Smith v. Abbott, Str. 1152. Defendant accepted a bill to pay when goods configned to him were fold; he fold the goods, and on being fued upon his acceptance infifted in arreft of judgment that it was not binding because it was conditional; but the court on confideration held, that though the Plaintiff might have refufed to take it, and have protefted the bill, yet as he did take it, it was binding on the Defendant.

Julian v. Shobrooke, 2 Wils. 9. The Defendant accepted a bill to pay, when in cafh, for the cargo of the ship Thetis; and on being fued, moved in arieft of judgment that a conditional acceptance was not good; but the court held otherwife, and over-ruled the objection.

Pierfon v. Dunlop, Cowp. 571. ante p. 43. An anfwer that the bill would not be accepted till a navy bill was paid, was held a conditional acceptance to pay, when the navy bill fhould be discharged.

(d) Wegerfoffe v. Keene, Str. 214. A foreign bill for £127. 18s. 4d. was drawn on the Defendant, and he accepted to pay £100. part thereof; he was fued upon this acceptance, and on demurrer to the replication, infifted that a partial acceptance was not good within the cuftom of merchants; but the court held otherwife, and judgment was given for the Plaintiff.

Walker

An acceptance is feldom made before the Bill is drawn by any other perfon than the Drawee; afterwards for the purpofe either of promoting the negotiation of a Bill where the Drawee's credit is fufpected, or to fave the reputation and prevent the prosecution of some of the parties where the Drawee either cannot be found, is not capable of making himself refponfible, or refufes acceptance, it is not uncommon; and it is called an acceptance for the honour of the (a) perfon on whofe account it is made, and enures to the benefit of all the parties fubfequent to that perfon.

Such of these acceptances as are made with the former view are confidered as made on account of the perfon in poffeffion of the Bill at the time they are made, and fuch as are made with the latter, unless they declare the contrary, on account of the Drawer.

Walker v. Atwood, 11 Mod. 190. A bill was drawn on the Defendant 8th of April; and no time fixed for its payment it was prefented to Defendant 18th April, and he accepted it to pay 8th September; this being ftated in the declaration, the Defendant demurred, and infifted that as no time was prescribed for the payment, the bill was payable at fight, and then a promife to pay two or three months after fight, was not an acceptance within the custom of merchants; but the court held it was an acceptance within the custom, and the demurrer was overruled.

Petit v. Benfon, Comb. 452. A bill was accepted to be paid, half in money and half in bills; and the question was, whether there tould be a qualification of an acceptance, and it was proved by divers merchants that there might, for he that might refuse the bill totally, might accept it in part; but that the holder was not bound to acquiefce in fuch acceptance. (a) Vide Lutw. 899. Beawes, §. 34 1ft cd. p. 418. §. 40. 42. 1ft. ed. P. 419.

If