In general, it is incumbent on the holder of a bill or note dishonoured, whether by non-acceptance (a), or by non-pay (a) Bleasard v. Hirst, 5 Burr. 2672; Goodall v. Dolley, 1 T. R. 712. And the parties who are entitled to notice of non-acceptance, CHAPTER CHAPTER DIVISION OF ment, to give notice of that fact to the antecedent parties. The requisites of notice and the consequences of neglect being much the same in both cases, under the general head of notice of dishonour will be considered notice of nonacceptance and notice of non-payment. In considering this subject, let us inquire,-first, what THE SUBJECT. form of notice is required; secondly, how notice is to be transmitted; thirdly, at what place it is to be given; fourthly, at what time; fifthly, by whom it must be given; sixthly, to whom; seventhly, what are the consequences of neglect; eighthly, how notice may be excused or waived; and lastly, how it may be proved. WHAT FORM First, at to the form of the notice. Notice does not mean mere knowledge, but an actual notification. For a man who can be clearly shown to have known beforehand that the bill would be dishonoured is nevertheless entitled to notice (b). No particular form of notice is required. It may be either written or oral (c). All that is necessary is, to apprise the party liable of the dishonour (d) of the bill in question, and to intimate that he is expected to pay it. And an announcement of the dishonour will (at least, if it come from the holder) amount to a sufficient intimation to the indorser, that he is held liable (e). But where a mere demand of payment was are discharged for want of it, and 3 D. & L. 274, S. C.; and if notice of non-acceptance be given, the right to recover of the prior parties the full amount of the bill immediately, however distant its maturity, is complete. Whitehead v. Walker, 9 M. & W. 506. (b) See Burgh v. Legge, 5 M. & W. 418; Caunt v. Thompson, 18 L. J., C. P. 127; 7 C. B. 400, S. C. (c) The construction of a parol notice is for the jury, of a written notice for the Court, and therefore, perhaps, a parol notice may be good where the same words, if in writing, might be held insufficient. See Metcalfe v. Richardson, 11 C. B. 1011; and Phillips v. Gould, 8 C. & P. 355. (d) i. e. (in the case of dishonour by non-payment), of presentment and non-payment. East v. Smith, 16 L. J., Q. B. 292; 4 Dowl. & L. 744, S. C. (e) It was held in Furze v. made, the Court observed, "There is no precise form of words necessary to be used in giving notice of the dishonour of a bill of exchange, but the language used must be such as to convey notice to the party what the bill is, and that payment of it has been refused by the acceptor. Here the letter in question did not convey to the defendant any such notice; it does not even say the bill was ever accepted. We, therefore, think the notice was insufficient" (ƒ). Where the attorney for the indorsee wrote a letter to the indorser to the following effect: "A bill for 6837., drawn by K. on J. & Co., and bearing your indorsement, has been put into our hands by A., with directions to take legal measures for the recovery thereof, unless immediately paid to us ;" it was held, that this letter was not a sufficient notice of dishonour. "The notice of dishonour," says Tindal, C. J., delivering the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, "which is commonly substituted in this country in the place of a formal protest (such formal protest being essential in other countries to enable the plaintiff to recover), most certainly does not require all the precision and formality which accompanied the regular protest, for which it has been substituted. But it should at least inform the party to whom it is addressed, either in express terms or by necessary implication (g), that the bill has been dishonoured, and that Sharwood, 2 G. & D. 116; 2 Q. B. 416, S. C., that a notice of the dishonour of a bill of exchange sent by the holder, need not contain an announcement, that the holder looks to the party to whom it is addressed for payment, but that if the notice do not come immediately from the holder, such an intimation may perhaps be necessary. See also East v. Smith, 16 L. J., Q. B. 292; 4 Dowl. & L. 744. The formal protest itself, for which the notice is substituted, contains no such announcement. And see Miers v. Brown, 11 M. & W. 372, where Mr. Baron Alderson says, "knowledge of dishonour obtained by communication from the holder of the bill, amounts to notice ;" and the observations of Cresswell, J., in Caunt v. Thompson, 18 L. J., C. P. 128; 7 C. B. 400, S. C. In King v. Bickley, 2 Q. B. 419, it was held not necessary to state in a notice of dishononr, that the (f) Hartley v. Case, 4 B. & (g) Perhaps "reasonable intendment" would be a more correct expression than "necessary implication:" at all events the expression "necessary implication" is not to be so construed as to exclude the possibility of any other inference. See the observations of Mr. Baron Parke on this expression in Hedger CHAPTER CHAPTER XXII. the holder looks to him for payment of the amount. Looking at this notice, we think no such intimation is conveyed in terms, or is necessarily to be inferred from its contents." The Court further observed, that it was consistent with the notice that the bill had never been presented, but that the plaintiff intended to rely on an excuse for non-presentment, that the notice did not state that the bill was due, and might not have been intended as a notice of dishonour, but might have pre-supposed it (h). v. Steavenson, 2 M. & W. 799; 5 Dowl. 771, S. C.; Lewis v. Gompertz, 6 M. & W. 402. (h) Solarte v. Palmer, 7 Bing. 530; 5 Moo. & P. 475; 1 C. & J. 417; 1 Tyr. 371, S. C.; affirmed in the House of Lords, 1834, 1 Bing. N. C. 194, where Parke, J., declared the unanimous opinion of the Judges present, that the letter of the plaintiff's attorney did not amount to notice of the dishonour of the bill, as such a notice ought, in express terms or by necessary implication, to convey full information that the bill had been dishonoured. And Lord Brougham, C., on the ground that after Hartley's case, the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, and the 5th edition of Bayley on Bills, the case was too clear for appeal, said that the judgment of the Court below must be affirmed, with costs. The propriety of this decision and of dismissing the appeal, with costs, as a case too clear for argument, was the subject of considerable discussion among the profession at the time. The decisions in Hartley v. Case, and Solarte v. Palmer, have been followed by no small inconvenience to the public, who are now hardly safe in giving notices of dishonour without professional aid. The following notices have accordingly been since held insufficient : "The note for 2007., drawn by H. H., dated 18th July last, payable three months after date, and indorsed by you, became due yesterday, and is returned to me unpaid. I therefore request you will let me have the amount forthwith. "These facts,' says Tindal, C. J., 'are compatible with an entire omission to present the note to the maker."" Boulton v. Welsh, 3 Bing. N. C. 688; 4 Scott, 425, S. C. "Sir, A bill for 301., dated the 18th August, 1837, at three months, drawn and indorsed by R. Everett upon and accepted by W. Tuck, and indorsed by you, lies at my office due and unpaid. I am, &c., S. J. SYDNEY." Phillips v. Gould, 8 C. & P. 355. "Messrs. Strange and Co. inform Mr. James Price that Mr. John Betterton's acceptance for 877. 58. is not paid. As indorser, Mr. Price is called upon to pay the money, which will be expected immediately. Swindon, Dec. 1836." Strange v. Price, 10 Ad. & El. 125; 2 Per. & Dav. 278, S. C. "Sir, This is to inform you that the bill I took of you, 117. 2s. 6d., is not took up, and 48. 6d. expenses; and the money I must pay immediately. My son will be in London on Friday morning. WM. MESSENGER." Messenger V. Southey, 1 Man. & Gr. 76; 1 Scott, N. R. 180, S. C. The following notices of nonpayment of six bills of exchange were held insufficient : 1. "Sir, A bill for 297. 17s. 3d., drawn by Ward on Hunt, due yesterday, is unpaid, and I am sorry to say the person at whose house it is made payable don't speak very favourably of the acceptor's punctuality. I should like to see you upon it to-day." It is to be observed, however, that the expressions of the Judges in Solarte v. Palmer are not the language of the 2. "Mr. Maine, -Sir, This is to give you notice that a bill drawn by you and accepted by Josias Bateman for 477. 168. 9d., due July 19th, 1835, is unpaid, and lies due at Mr. J. Furze's, 65, Fleet-street." 3. "Sir, Mr. Howard's acceptance for 211. 48. 4d., due on Saturday, is unpaid. He has promised to pay it in a week or ten days. I shall be glad to see you upon it as early as possible." 4. "Sir, This is to give you notice that a bill for 1767. 15s. 6d., drawn by Samuel Maine, accepted by G. Clisby, dated May 7th, 1835, at four months, lies due and unpaid at my house." 5. "P. Johnson, Esq.,-Sir, This is to give you notice that a bill, 207. 178.7d., drawn by Samuel Maine, accepted by Richard Jones, dated May 21st, 1835, at four months, lies due and unpaid at my house." 6. "P. Johnson, Esq.,-Sir, This is to give you notice that a bill for 1487. 108., drawn by Samuel Maine, and accepted by G. Parker, dated May 22nd, 1835, lies due and unpaid at my house." Furze V. Sharwood and Others, 11 L. J., Q. B. 19; 2 Q. B. 388, S. C. But the following have been held to be sufficient notices of dishonour: "Sir, a bill drawn by you upon and accepted by Mr. Joshua Watson for 31. 38., due yesterday, is dishonoured and unpaid; and I am desired to give you notice thereof to request that the same may be immediately paid. I am, &c., H. D. RUSHBURY." Woodthorpe v. Lawes, 2 M. & W. 109. "Sir, the bill for £- drawn by you, is this day returned with charges, to which your immediate attention is requested." (Signed by indorsee.) Grugeon v. Smith, 6 Ad. & Ell. 499; 2 Nev. & P. B. 303, S. C. Sir, I am desired by Mr. Hedger to give you notice that a promissory note for 997. 188., payable to your order two months after the date thereof, became due yesterday, and has been returned unpaid, and I have to request you will please remit the amount thereof with 18. 6d. noting, free of postage, by return of post. I am, &c., JONES SPYER." Hedger v. Steavenson, 2 M. & W. 799; 5 Dowl. 771, S. C. "Your bill is unpaid, noting 58." Armstrong v. Christiani, 5 C. B. 687. "Your note has been returned dishonoured," is sufficient, without the words "your note has been presented for payment." Edmonds v. Cates, 2 Jurist, 183. "Messrs Houlditch are surprised that Mr. Cauty has not taken up Chaplin's bill according to his promise; are also surprised to hear that Mrs. Gib's bill was returned to the holder unpaid." This notice was followed by a visit from the indorser to the holder on the same day, in which he promised to write to the other parties, by whom, or by himself, the bill should be paid. Houlditch v. Cauty, 4 Bing. N. C. 441; 3 Scott, 209, S. C. "Mr. Gompertz,-Sir, The bill of exchange for 2507., drawn by S. Rendall, and accepted by Charles Stretton, and bearing your indorsement, has been presented for payment to the acceptor thereof, and returned dishonoured, and now lies overdue and unpaid with me, as above, of which I hereby give you notice. I am, &c., C. LEWIS." Lewis v. Gompertz, 6 M. & W. 400. "I beg to inform you that Mr. D.'s acceptance for 2007., drawn and indorsed by you, due 31st July, has been presented for payment and returned, and now re T CHAPTER |