CHAPTER BILLS of exchange are either foreign or inland (a). Inland bills of exchange, at common law, are such as are both drawn and payable within the limits of England, Wales and What are foreign Berwick-on-Tweed (b). Foreign bills, as distinguished from inland bills at common law, are such as are drawn or payable, or both, abroad, or drawn in one realm of the United Kingdom, and payable in another (c). Bills drawn in England and payable in Scotland, or Ireland, or vice versâ, were until recently foreign bills, for they were so before the union between the countries, and the union does not make them inland bills (d). But bills drawn and payable in Scotland, or drawn and payable in Ireland, were inland bills within 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 78, to which an acceptance in writing was necessary (e). But now, by the 19 & 20 (a) Holt, C. J.: "I remember when actions upon inland bills of exchange did first begin, and there they laid a particular custom between London and Bristol, and it was an action against the acceptor. The defendant's counsel would put them to prove the custom, at which, Hale, who tried it, laughed, and said, they had a hopeful case on't." Buller v. Crips, 6 Mod. 29; 1 Salk. 130; Holt, 119, S. C. (b) A bill drawn in England on and what inland bills. CHAPTER Presumption of being an inland bill. Stamp on an inland bill purporting to be a foreign one. Sets of bills. Presentment of foreign bills. Acceptance. PROTEST. drawn in one part and payable in any other part of the British Islands (ƒ) are inland bills (g). A bill of exchange is primâ facie an inland bill. When an action is brought on a foreign bill, against a drawer or indorser, the declaration ought to disclose that it is a foreign bill. And if it do not, the defendant will be entitled to succeed on the ordinary traverses of the material allegations in the declaration (h). Formerly the acceptor of a bill, purporting to be a foreign bill, but really made in England, and known by the acceptor at the time of acceptance to be so, was not precluded from objecting, in an action by an innocent indorsee, that it was really an inland bill and therefore void for want of a stamp (i). But there was an implied warranty by a transferer that a bill apparently drawn abroad really was so drawn (k). Now, however, every bill of exchange which shall purport to be drawn at any place out of the United Kingdom, shall for all the purposes of the Stamp Act be deemed a foreign bill, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 83, s. 4(1), and may, as we have seen, be stamped accordingly. And by the 27 & 28 Vict. c. 56, s. 2, every bill of exchange payable on demand, and purporting to be indorsed abroad, shall, for the purposes of the Stamp Act, be deemed to be a foreign bill. Foreign bills are frequently drawn in sets: that is, exemplars or parts of the bill are made on separate pieces of paper, each part referring to the other parts, and containing a condition that it shall continue payable only so long as the others remain unpaid. For the law on this subject the reader is referred to the preceding Chapter on SETS, PARTS AND COPIES OF BILLS. As to the presentment of foreign bills for acceptance or payment, see the Chapters on PRESENTMENT FOR ACCEPTANCE, and PRESENTMENT For Payment. For the English law regulating the acceptance of foreign bills in this country, see the Chapter on ACCEPTANCE. As to the protest of foreign bills, see the Chapter on PROTEST. (f) i. e. Great Britain, Ireland, Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, and the islands adjacent to any of them, s. 7. (g) Except so far as stamp duty is concerned. See Griffin v. Weathersby, L. R., 3 Q. B. 753. And see APPENDIX. (h) Armani v. Castrique, 13 M. & W. 443. (i) Steadman v. Duhamel, 1 C. B. 888. (k) Gompertz v. Bartlett, 2 E. & B. 854. (1) See Siordet v. Kuczynski, 17 C. B. 251. CHAPTER XXXII. OF THE EFFECT OF FOREIGN LAW RELATING TO CHAPTER OF THE CON COUNTRIES SOMETIMES bills drawn in England are payable in a foreign country, and bills drawn in a foreign country are payable in England. Sometimes English bills circulate abroad, and foreign bills circulate here; and, frequently suits on foreign FLICT OF THE bills, or bills negotiated abroad, are brought in English LAWS OF DIFCourts of justice. The laws of foreign countries, as to bills FERENT of exchange, often differ widely from the law of England, RELATING TO and from each other. But natural justice, mutual conve- BILLS. nience, and the practice of all civilized nations, require that contracts, wherever enforced, should be regulated and interpreted according to the laws with reference to which they were made, otherwise the rights and liabilities of parties would entirely depend on the law of the country where the CHAPTER Elements in the question. Discrepancy on the doctrine of foreign writers. General principles laid down in England. remedy might happen to be sought. Such a state of things would introduce uncertainty and confusion infinitely greater than arises from that measure of respect and comity, which every tribunal now shows to the law of foreign nations. In determining how far foreign laws are to regulate foreign contracts in English Courts, a great variety of circumstances are often necessary to be considered. It may be essential to regard the domicil of one, or both, or all, of the contracting parties, the place where the contract is made (which place it may not always be easy to determine, for the parties may live in different countries), the place where the contract is to be performed, the place where the subject-matter of the contract is locally situate, and the place where the remedy is sought. Many nice questions, therefore, have already arisen, and many more will, no doubt, in future arise in our Courts, from the conflict of English with foreign law, as to bills of exchange. The decisions of English Courts of justice on the international law of contracts have not been very numerous, but nothing can exceed the discrepancy and irreconcilable contrariety of the doctrines and opinions of foreign writers, not only on the application of the principles of international law to foreign contracts, but on the very principles themselves (a). To enter into the discussion of such topics would be foreign to the object and exceed the limits of this little book. But in the dearth of authoritative decisions, on the degree to which foreign law is admissible here to govern the contracts arising on bills or notes made, negotiated, or payable abroad, it may not be altogether useless, with a view, as well to the right understanding of such decisions as have already been pronounced, as to the solution of such undecided questions on the same subject as may hereafter arise, first to enumerate some of the general principles which seem to have guided the English Courts in determining the circumstances, and the degree in which they will respect foreign laws, in interpreting contracts either altogether or partially foreign, and then to adduce instances illustrating the application of those principles to the Law of Bills of Exchange. (a) See the well known and very learned work on the CONFLICT OF LAWS, for which not only his own country and the United Kingdom, but Europe and the civilized world, are deeply indebted to the late Mr. Justice Story. Among established principles in the law of this country, the five (b) following rules appear to rank. CHAPTER XXXII. First, every contract is, in general, to be regulated by the LEX LOCI CONlaws of the country in which it is made. For the laws of TRACTUS. that country alone are there binding proprio vigore on aliens as well as on natural-born citizens or subjects (c), and the parties to the contract may generally be taken to have contemplated the legal consequences which those laws deduce from their stipulations. Hence the formalities essential to the validity of the contract, and the interpretation of that contract, are to be governed by the laws of the country where it is made. "Con 'But, secondly, where a contract is made in one country to LEX LOCI be performed in another, the country where the contract is SOLUTIONIS. to be performed is deemed the country in which it was made. Such seems to be the general rule of the civil law. traxisse unusquisque in eo loco intelligitur, in quo ut solveret se obligavit." Some learned civilians have, indeed, entertained a different opinion, but such is unquestionably the general rule in the common law of England. "The law of the place," says Lord Mansfield, "can never be the rule, where the transaction is entered into with the express view to the law of another country, as the rule by which it is to be governed" (d). Thirdly, contracts immoral, or contrary to the law of Contracts against nations, or injurious to British public interests, though valid morals, the law where made, will not be enforced on behalf of a guilty party in our Courts. of nations, or British interest. But, fourthly, one country will not regard the revenue Infringing laws of another country. (b) That is to say, as to executory contracts and contracts relating to moveables. But the transfer of real or immoveable property is governed by another rule, the lex rei sita. See Fenton v. Levington, Dom. Proc. 1859. (c) According to some foreign writers, the domicil of persons entering into contracts, while in a foreign country, is to be considered in those contracts. Difficulties then arise, where the domicil of two or more of the contracting parties is not the same. The com mon law does not, it should seem, revenue laws. to a case of judgment in rem (d) Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr, Castrique 1077; 1 W. Bl. 256, S. C.; and 280 to 281; Allen v. Kemble, & LN 4 H: R Moore, P. C. C. 314. |