as he had accepted other bills. Page J. directed the jury to find for the plaintiff, which they did accordingly. On motion for a new trial the court held the direction right; " for the bill on the face of it imported to be drawn on the defendant, and it was accepted by him generally, and not as servant to the company, to whose account he had no right to charge it until actual payment by himself. And this being an action by an endorsee, it would be of dangerous consequence to trade, to admit evidence arising from extrinsic circumstances as the letter of advice. And this differed widely from the case of a bill addressed to the master, and underwritten by the servant; where undoubtedly the serrant would not be liable, but his acceptance would be considered as the act of the master. A bill of exchange is a contract by the custom of merchants, and the whole of that contract must appear in writing. In this case there was nothing in writing to bind the company, nor could any action be maintained against them upon the bill: for the addition of cashier to defendant's name was only to denote the person with certainty; the direction to whose account to place it, was for the use of the drawee only." Judgment for the plaintiff (4).

Partners.-By the custom of England", where there are joint-traders, and one of them accepts a bill drawn on them for himself and partner, such acceptance binds all the partners, if it concerns the trade; otherwise, if it concerns the acceptor only in a separate and distinct interest.

If a bill of exchange is drawn upon a firim, and one of the partners accept it in his own name, this acceptance binds the partnership. So if A. B. and C. are in partnership, and A. draws a promissory note, by which he promises individually to pay the money, and which he signs with his own name only, but prefixing to his signature" for A. B. and C.” this binds the whole partnership”.

Where there are several partners it is competent to either of them, by his endorsement, in the name of the firm, to pass their interest in the bills; and such endorsement made by n Pinkney v. Hall, Salk. 126.

o Mason v. Rumsey, 1 Camp. N. P. C.

384.

p Ld. Galway v. Matthew, 1 Camp. N. -P. C. 403.

q Swan v. Steele, 7 East, 210. Ardea v. Sharpe and another, 2 Esp. N. P. C. 524. Wells v. Masterman, 2 Esp. N. P. C. 731.

(4) One who covenants for himself, his heirs, &c. under his own hand and seal, for the act of another, shall be personally bound by his covenant, though he describe himself in the declaration as covenanting for and on the part and behalf of such other person. Appleton v. Binks, 5 East's R. 148.

one partner for the satisfaction of his separate debt, cannot be questioned in an action by the endorsee against the acceptor, without shewing that the endorsement was at the time unknown to or unauthorised by the other partner'. But if a creditor of one of the partners collude with him to take security for his individual debt, out of the partnership funds, knowing at the time that it is without the consent of the other partners, it is fraudulent and void; but if it be taken bona fide without such knowledge at the time, no subsequently acquired knowledge of the misconduct of the partner, in giving such security, can disaffirm the act.

If a bill is sent into circulation after the dissolution of a partnership, all the partners must join in the endorsement, and one by putting the partnership name thereon cannot bind the rest (5); for the moment the partnership ceases, the partners become distinct persons; from that time they are tenants in common of the partnership property undisposed of. In like manner, after a secret act of bankruptcy committed by one of two partners, the other cannot by an endorsement in the name of the firm transfer the property in a bill, which belonged to the firm before the bankruptcy; for, the partnership having ceased to exist, the solvent partner is to be considered as tenant in common with the assignees of the bankrupt partner, and the property in the birl can only be transferred by their respective endorse

ments.

r Ridley v. Taylor, 13 East, 175.
s Abel v. Sutton, 3 Esp. N. P. C. 108.
Keuyon, C. J.

t Ramsbottom v. Lewis, 1 Camp. N. P. C. 279.

(5) Endorsee v. Defendant as one of the drawers of a bill of exchange, the other drawers having become bankrupts*:

The bill was drawn in the firm of " James King and Co." under which firm the defendant and his partners had traded. It appeared that there were other partnerships carried on under the same firm, in which the other drawers were concerned, but in which the defendant had no share. The defendant offered to shew that this bill was not drawn on account of the partnership in which he was concerned, but on account of one of the others, and that he knew nothing of it. Lord Kenyon C. J. was of opinion that the defendant was nevertheless liable; he had traded with the other persons under that firm, and persons taking bills under it, though without his knowledge, had a right to look to him for payment.

Baker and others v. Charlton, London Sittings, after Trinity Term, 31 Geo. 3. B. R. Peake N. P. C. 80.

III. Of the Requisites in a Bill of Exchange, and herein of the Stamp, Date, and Consideration.

In order to prevent any mistake in the manner of penning this instrument (although to constitute a bill of exchange there is not any precise form required") a foreign and inland bill of exchange are subjoined in the proper form:

Foreign Bill.

London, 1st January, 1806.

Stamp.

Exchange for 10,000 Livres Tournoises.

At two usances (or "at sight," or " after date") pay this my first bill of exchange, (second and third of the same tenor and date not paid) to Messrs.

or order (" or bearer") ten thousand Livres Tournoises, value received of them, and place the same to account as per ad

vice from

after sight" "at

Inland Bill.

London, 1st January, 1806.

At sight for "on demand," "at

after date") pay to Mr.

days

or order (" or bearer") one hundred pounds, for value re

With respect to these bills of exchange, the following rules must be observed:

A bill of exchange must not purport to be payable out of a particular fund, which may or may not be productive, or upon an event which may not happen; for it would perplex the commercial transactions of mankind, if paper securities were issued into the world encumbered with conditions and contingencies, and if the persons to whom they were offered in negociation were obliged to inquire at what time these uncertain events would probably be reduced to a certainty.

The following cases will illustrate this position;

An action was brought by payee against drawer of a written instrument in these words:

"Seven weeks after date pay A. B. £

W. Steward's money as soon as you receive it."

out of

It was objected" that it was payable out of a supposed fund at a future time, which was uncertain and might or might not happen." The court gave judgment for the defendant; and De Grey C. J. said, that the instrument or writing which constituted a good bill of exchange, according to the law, usage, and custom of merchants, was not confined to any certain form of words, yet it must have some essential qualities, without which it was not a bill of exchange; it must carry with it a personal and certain credit given to the drawer, not confined to credit upon any thing or funds that the payee or endorsee took it upon no particular event or contingency, except the failure of the general credit of the person drawing or negociating the same (6).

So where a bill was drawn by an officer upon his agent, requesting him to pay out of his growing subsistence, it was holden not to be good, because the fund was uncertain.

c Jenney v. Herle, Ld. Raym. 1362. Stevens v. Hill, 5 Esp. N. P. C. 247. d Dawkes and another v. Ld. De Loraine, 3 Wils. 207. 2 Bl. R. 782. S. C.

e Josselyn v. Lacier, argued P. 1 Geo. 1. B. R. 10 Mod. 294. adjudged in the same term, 10 Mod. 316. Fort. 291. S. C.

(6) So where the instrument declared on was, "Pay A. B. one month after date £ on account of the freight of the Veale Galley." It was objected, that it was an order upon a particular fund, and on this ground Lee C. J. ruled it not to be a bill of exchange. Banbury v. Lissett, London Sittings, Str. 1212.

So a request to J. S. to pay £ out of the monies in J. S.'s hands, belonging to the proprietors of the Devonshire mines, was holden not to be a bill of exchange, be cause it was uncertain, whether the fund would be sufficient to pay it (7).

So an order to pay money out of the fifth payment when it should become due, and it should be allowed by the drawer.

The same principle was recognized in the following case, although the instrument was holden to be a good bill of exchange.

as

J. S. on 25th May, 1724, drew a bill on J. N.h and directed him, one month after date, to pay A. B. or order £ his quarter's half-pay from 24th June, 1724, to 25th September following: The court were of opinion, that this was a good bill of exchange; for it was not payable upon a contingency nor out of a particular fund, and was made pay able at all events; and was drawn upon the general credit of the drawer, not out of the half-pay; for it was payable as soon as the quarter began for the half pay mentioned in the bill, which was not to be due till three months after. The mention of the half-pay was only by way of direction to the drawee, how he should reimburse himself.

Of the Stamp.-A bill of exchange cannot be given in evidence'; nor is it in any manner available, unless it be duly stamped, that is, not only with a stamp of the proper value, but also with a stamp of the proper denomination, or the peculiar stamp appropriated to this species of instrument by the legislature.

The amount of the stamp duties on bills of exchange is at this time (1812) regulated by stat. 48 Geo. 3. c. 149, as follows,

Inland bill of exchange, draft, or order, for the

payment to the bearer, or to order, either

f Jenney v. Herle, B. R. on error from C. B. Str. 591. and more fully reported in 8 Mod. 265. erd Raym. 1361. and 11 Mod. 384. Leach's edit.

h Mackleod v. Snee, E, 13 Geo. 1. B. R. on error from C. B. Lord Raym. 1481. Str. 762. and 11 Mod. 400. Leach's ed.

g Haydock v. Lynch on demurrer to i 1 Bos. & Pul. N. R. 30. declaration, Ld. Raym. 1563.

(7) The reason it was held not to be a bill of exchange, in Jenney v. Herle, was because it was no more than a private order to a man's servant. Per Cur. in Macleod v. Snee, Str. 762.