will confer no title; Thomason v. Frere, 10 East, 418; see Drayton v. Dale, 2 B. and C. 293; but where the partners hold the bill as trustees, and one of them becomes bankrupt, he and the rest may indorse. Ramsbottom v. Cator, 1 Stark. 228. On a bill payable to A., for the use of B., the right to transfer is in A. Evans v. Cramlington, Carth. 5; but see Sigourney v. Lloyd, 8 B. and C. 631.

What indorsements need be proved.] If all the indorsements have been stated, though unnecessarily, they must, it seems, be proved; Waynam v. Bend, 1 Camph. 175, Bosanquet v. Anderson, 6 Esp. 43; but where the first indorsement is in blank, the plaintiff may state an indorsement from the payee to himself immediately, though there be intermediate special indorsements, and it will only be necessary to prove the first indorsement. Smith v. Clarke, Peake, 225. In an action by the indorsees of a bill against the acceptor, the first count stated all the indorsements, the second count an indorsement by the payee to the plaintiff; Abbott, C. J., said, that all the indorsements must be proved or struck out, though not stated in the declaration. I remember," said his Lordship, "Mr. Justice Bayley so ruling, and striking them out himself at the trial; and this need not be done before the trial.” Cocks v. Borrodaile, Chitty, 392. 7th ed.

Title of the plaintiffs as indorsees.] When a bill is indorsed in blank, possession is a sufficient primâ facie title, and several plaintiffs suing as indorsees need not prove that they are in partnership, or that the bill was indorsed to them jointly; Ord v. Portal, 3 Campb. 239; Rordusns v. Leach, 1 Stark, 446; and see Machell v. Kinnear, 1 Stark. 499; Attwood v. Rattenbury, 6 B. Moore, 579; but where it is specially indorsed to a firm, the partnership of the plaintiffs must be proved; 3 Campb. 240; and where the plaintiffs sue in a particular capacity, as assignees of a bankrupt for instance, they must prove that the bills were indorsed to them in that capacity. Bernasconi v. Duke of Argyle, 3 C. and P. 29.

Evidence under the money counts.] An acceptance is said to be evidence of money had and received by the acceptor to the use of the holder; Bayley on bills, 287; and it has therefore been supposed, that in an action by an indorsee against an acceptor, the bill may be given in evidence under the count for money had and received. 2 Phil. Ev. 30. But late authorities show that it is only where the bill or note is enforced between immediate parties, that the plaintiff can recover on the count for money had and received. Waynham v. Bend, 1 Campb. 175. Exon v. Russell, 4 M. and S. 507. Thompson v. Morgan, 3 Campb. 101. Wells v. Girling, Gow, 22,

3 B. Moore, 79. Bently v. Northouse, 1 M. and M. 66. Eales v. Dicker, 1 M. and M. 324.

Drawer against Acceptor.

When a bill, not payable to the drawer's order, has been dishonoured and taken up by the drawer, the latter may sue the acceptor, and in such action must prove, 1. The acceptance, (vide ante, p. 152); 2. The presentment to the defendant, and his refusal, which may be done by calling the person who presented the bill, or by proving a promise to pay by the defendant, which dispenses with proof of the presentment; and 3. The payment of the bill by the plaintiff. To prove the latter fact, it is not sufficient to produce the bill with a receipt on the back of it, as from the then holder, for the receipt prima facie imports that the bill was paid by the acceptor. Scholey v. Walshy, Peake, 24. It will not be necessary for the plaintiff, in the first instance, to prove that the defendant had effects of the plaintiff in his hands, the acceptance being sufficient prima facie evidence of that fact. Vere v. Lewis, 3 T. R. 183. The bill may be given in evidence under the count for money had and received, where it payable to the order of the drawer. Thompson v. Morgan, 3 Campb. 101, ante, p. 153.

Payee against Drawer.

In an action by the payee against the drawer, the plaintiff must prove, 1. The drawing of the bill; 2. Presentment to the drawee or acceptor; 3. His default; 4. Notice to the defendant of the dishonour.

The drawing of the bill.] The drawing of the bill must be proved by evidence of the drawer's handwriting, see ante, p. 68; or if drawn by an agent, by proving the authority of the agent. If drawn in the name of a partnership, the partnership must be proved, and the handwriting of the partner who drew the bill, see ante, p. 152.

Presentment to the drawec or acceptor.] A presentment for acceptance is not necessary, except in cases of bills payable within a limited time after sight, Bayley on bills, 182; but if presented and refused acceptance, notice of such refusal must be given, Goodall v. Dolley, 1 T. R. 712, though the drawer of a bill is not discharged by want of notice of non-acceptance where the bill has passed into the hands of a bona fide indorsee for value, who has no knowledge of the dishonour. Dunn v. O'Keefe, 5 M. and S. 282. Where the bill is payable at a certain date, and not presented for acceptance, a

presentment for payment on the last day of grace must be proved; Tassel v. Lewis, 1 Ld. Raym. 743. Bayley on bills, 198; but where it is payable at a certain time after sight, or at sight, it need only be presented within a reasonable time; which has been held to be, though the authorities differ on the point, a question for the jury; Muilman v. D'Eguino, 2 H. Bl. 565, Fry v. Hill, 7 Taunt. 397; see the cases Bayl. on bills, 187; or rather a mixed question of law and fact. Shute v. Robins, 1 M. and M. 133. If a bill drawn at three days' sight were put into circulation, and kept out in that way for a year, it would not, as it seems, be laches; but if the holder were to lock it up for any length of time, it seems he would be guilty of laches. Per Buller, J., Muilman v. D'Eguino, 2 H. Bl. 565. Where a bill drawn by the defendant at one month after sight, on London, was delivered to the plaintiff on the 9th, at Windsor, and was presented on the 13th, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, the court of C. P. refused to disturb the verdict. Fry v. Hill, 7 Taunt. 397.

A distinction has been taken with regard to bills payable after sight, drawn by bankers in the country on their correspondents in London. "It does not seem unreasonable,” says Lord Tenterden, "to treat bills of this nature as not requiring immediate presentment, but as being retainable by the holders for the purpose of using them within a moderate time (for indefinite delay of course cannot be allowed) as part of the circulating medium of the country." Shute v. Robins, 1 M. and M. 133.

Bills due on a Sunday or Christmas-day; Tassell v. Lewis, 1 Ld. Raym. 743; or on a Good-Friday, 39 and 4 Geo. III. c. 42; or on a fast day, 7 and 8 Geo. IV. c. 15; are to be presented on the day next before those respective days.

Presentment must be proved although the acceptor has become bankrupt, Russel v. Langstaffe, Dougl. 518, or insolvent, Esdaile v. Sowerby, 11 East, 117, Rohde v. Proctor, 4 B. and C. 523, and where he is dead it must be made to his executor or administrator, or if there be none, at the house of the deceased. Molloy b. 2, c. 10. s. 34. Chitty on bills, 317, 5th ed. If the bill is payable at a particular place, it is not necessary to present it to the executor. Philpot v. Bryant, 3 C. and P. 244. Where a bill is accepted by an agent, the drawee being abroad, presentment to the agent must be proved. Philips v. Astling, 2 Taunt. 206.

A bill payable at a banker's must be presented within banking hours; Elford v. Teed, 1 M. and S. 28; but if presented after, and a servant stationed at the banking-house return for answer, No orders," it is sufficient. Garnett v. Woodcock, 6 M. and S. 44. Henry v. Lee, 2 Chitty, 125. Presentment at eight in the evening, at the house of a merchant, is good. Barclay v. Bailey, 2 Campb. 527. Presentment to a

banker's clerk at the clearing-house, is a presentment at the banker's. Reynolds v. Chettle, 2 Campb. 595.

lf a bill or note is made payable at a particular house, that house is the proper place at which to make the presentment, whether such house be mentioned in the body of the bill or note, or in a marginal note only, or in the acceptance only. Bayley on bills, 174, citing Ambrose v. Hopwood, 2 Taunt. 61, Garnett v. Woodcock, 1 Stark. 475. Although since the stat. 1 and 2 Geo. IV., c. 78, the holder of a bill accepted payable at a banker's (not saying, and not otherwise, &c.) is not obliged, in order to charge the acceptor, to present it for payment there, Turner v. Hayden, 4 B. and C. 2. Bayley on bills, 178, yet a presentment there, and refusal, with notice, will it seems be sufficient to charge the drawer. See Macintosh v. Haydon, R. and M. 363.

Presentment, proof of, when dispensed with.] Payment of part of the money due upon a bill or note, or a subsequent promise to pay, with knowledge that the bill has not been duly presented, will be evidence of presentment under the usual averment. Taylor v. Jones, 2 Campb. 106. Lundie v. Robertson, 7 East, 231. So unavoidable accident will excuse a regular presentment." Duly presented, is presented according to the custom of merchants, which necessarily implies an exception in favour of those unavoidable accidents which must prevent the party from doing it within the regular time." Per Ld. Ellenborough, Patience v. Townley, 2 Smith, 224. The mere knowledge on the part of the drawer or indorser of a bill, that the bill when presented is likely to be dishonoured, will not dispense with the presentment. Prideaux v. Collier, 2 Stark. 57.

Default of drawee or acceptor.] If the action is brought on a refusal to accept, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to show that the drawee refused to accept it generally, or according to the terms of the bill. Boehm v. Garcias, 1 Campb. 425 (n). It is not sufficient to show that the bill was presented to some person on the drawee's premises who refused to accept it, without connecting that person with the drawee. Cheek v. Roper, 5 Esp. 175. The refusal to accept, or pay, may be proved by the person who presented the bill for acceptance or pay

ment.

Notice of dishonour.] There is no prescribed form of notice, but a mere demand of payment, without notice of the dishonour, is not sufficient. Hartley v. Case, 4 B. and C. 339; see Margesson v. Noble, 2 Chitty's R. 364. A written notice is not required. Crosse v. Smith, 1 M. and S. 545. Notice to the drawers, by sending to their counting-house, during the hours of business on two successive days, knocking there, and

making noise sufficient to be heard by persons within, and waiting there several minutes, the inner door of the counting. house being locked, is sufficient, without leaving a notice in writing, or sending by the post, though some of the drawers live at a small distance from the place. Ibid.

By whom given.] It is sufficient if the defendant has had notice of the dishonour of the bill, from any person who is party to it, Jameson v. Swinton, 2 Campb. 373, Wilson v. Swabey, 1 Stark. 34, Rosher v. Kiernan, 4 Campb. 87, Gunson v. Metz, 1 B. and C. 192, though it was formerly thought that the notice must come from the holder; Tindall v. Brown, 1 T. R. 167; but notice given by a person not party to the bill, without any authority, is not sufficient, Stewart v. Kennett, 2 Campb. 177.

To whom notice should be given.] Where the holder of a bill is desirous of suing all the parties to it, he should give notice to all, for if he only gives notice to his immediate indorser, &c., it is possible that such notice may not be regularly transmitted to the prior parties who may consequently be discharged. But if he give notice to his immediate indorser, and he, in due time, to his indorser, and so on to the drawer, the holder may sue all or any of such parties, and it is no objection in such case that there was no notice immediately from the plaintiff to the defendant. Bayley on bills, 209. Rosc. Dig. Bills,198. The bankruptcy of the drawer does not dispense with proof of notice. Where notice was given to a bankrupt drawer, before the appointment of assignees, it was held sufficient. Ex parte Moline, 19 Ves. 216. Where the drawer had become bankrupt and absconded, but his house remained open in the possession of the messenger, and no notice was given to the drawer, or left at his house, or given to the assignees, the drawer's estate was held to be discharged. Rohde v. Procter, 4 B. and C. 517. Where the drawer is dead, notice should be given to his executors or administrators. Chitty on bills, 295, 5th ed. Where the

drawers are in partnership, a notice to one is a notice to all; and, therefore, where a bill is drawn by a firm upon one of that firm, and dishonoured, notice of the dishonour need not be given to the firm. Porthouse v. Parker, 1 Campb. 82. Where the indorser of a dishonoured bill was abroad in Jamaica, but had a house in England, and notice was sent to his house, and the bill was shown to his wife who was informed of the nonpayment, Lord Kenyon held it sufficient. Cromwell v. Hynson, 2 Esp. 511. Where a substituted bill has been given and dishonoured, and the plaintiff sues on the first bill, he need only prove the dishonour, and not notice of the dishonour of the substituted bill. Bishop v. Rowe, 3 M. and S. 362. Notice to the drawer's attorney is not sufficient. Cross v. Smith, 1 M. and S. 554.