parties to a bill of exchange; but by stat. 6 Ann. c. 22. s. 9. and 15 Geo. 2. c. 13. s. 5. it shall not be lawful for any body politic or corporate, other than the governor and company of the Bank of England, or for any other persons, united in covenants or partnership, exceeding the number of six persons, in England, to borrow or take up any sums of money on their bills or notes, payable at demand, or at any less time than six months from the borrowing thereof, during the continuance of the privilege of exclusive banking granted to the governor and company of the Bank of England.

Infant.-An infant cannot bind himself by a bill drawn in the course of trade, or even for necessaries. But infancy is a personal privilege, of which the infant alone can avail himself. Hence it has been holden, that the drawer of a bill of exchange cannot set up the infancy of the payee and indorser as a defence to the action (1). And if a bill be accepted by a party after he is of full age, he will be liable, although the bill was drawn on him while an infant.

A feme covert cannot bind herself by drawing a bill of exchange.

This proposition falls within the general rule of law, which permits married women to avoid all contracts made by them during their coverture. To this rule there are some exceptions, which are stated under title Baron and Feme, Sect. II.

The interest in a bill of exchange or note given to a feme covert, vests in her husband, and he must indorse it.

An action was brought by the indorsee against the maker of a promissory note'. The first count of the declaration was upon the note, to which were added the money counts. It appeared that the note had been given by the defendant to a married woman, with knowledge of her coverture, to the

g Williams v. W. Harrison & R. Har rison, Carth. 160.

h Williamson v. Watts, I Camp. N. P. C. 552. Sir J. Mansfield, C. J.

i Grey v. Cowper, B. R. E. 22 Geo. 3.

MS.

k Stevens v. Jackson, 4 Camp. 164. Barlow v. Bishop, 1 East's R. 432.

(1) In like manner the acceptor of a bill of exchange cannot set up the infancy of the drawer as a defence to an action brought at the suit of the indorsee. Taylor v. Croker, 4 Esp. N. P. C. 187: and per Lord Hardwicke in Haly v. Lane, 2 Atk. 181-2. S. P. So, though a note given by a wife to a husband is void; yet if it is indorsed over by the husband, as between him and the indorsee, it is certainly good. Ibid.

intent that she should indorse it to the plaintiff, which was done accordingly, in payment of a debt which she owed him (in the course of carrying on trade in her own name with the consent of her husband). The plaintiff had dealt with her as a feme sole. It was holden, that the property in the note vested in the husband by the delivery to the wife, and that her indorsement did not transfer any interest to the plaintiff; consequently he was not entitled to recover on the special count; nor on the money counts, because no money had passed between the plaintiff and defendant.

But if a promissory note is made payable to a married woman, and she indorses it for value in her own name ", and the maker afterwards promises to pay it, in an action against him by the indorsee, it will be presumed, that the nominal payee had authority from her husband to indorse the note in tha form, and the indorsement will be considered as vesting a legal title to the note in the plaintiff.

Bills of exchange may be drawn, accepted, or indorsed, by means of the agent or attorney of the party (2). An agent or attorney for this purpose may be constituted by parol (3). In such case the principal is said to draw, accept, or indorse by procuration. Agents should be cautious how they accept bills directed to them personally, and not to their principals, although such direction describe them in their official characters; for in such case, if they accept in their own name, they will become personally responsible, as appears from the following case:

The plaintiff was indorsee of a bill of exchange, drawn from Scotland upon the defendant in these words ", "At thirty days sight pay to J. S. or order 2007. value received of him, and place the same to account of the York Buildings' Company, as per advice from Charles Mildmay. To Mr. Humphrey Bishop, cashier of the York Buildings' Company, at their house in Winchester-street, London. Accepted per H. Bishop." The bill not having been paid, an action was brought against defendant upon his acceptance; at the trial he

m Cotes v. Davis, 1 Camp. N. P. C. n Thomas v. Bishop, Str. 955. Ca.. Temp. Hardw. 1. S. C.

495.

(2) Many persons, under disabilities in other respects, may act as private attornies, such as infants, femes covert, persons attainted, outlawed, excommunicated, aliens, &c. 1 Inst. 52 a.

(3) The holder of a bill may authorise another person to indorse his name on it, by parol, per Holt, C. J. at N. P. 12 Mod. 564.

proved, that the letter of advice was addressed to the company; and that, the bill having been brought to their house, defendant was ordered to accept it, which he did in the same manner 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 indorsee, 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 servant 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 firm, and one of the partners accept it in his own name, this acceptance binds the partnership P. 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.

o Pinkney v. Hail, Salk. 126.

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

384.

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

(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. 149.

U

Where there are several partners it is competent to either of them, by his indorsement, in the name of the firm, to pass their interest in the bill; and such indorsement made by one partner for the satisfaction of his separate debt, cannot be questioned in an action by the indorsee against the acceptor, without shewing that the indorsement was at the time unknown to or unauthorised by the other partners. 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 indorsement, 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 indorsement 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 part

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

s Ridley v. Taylor, 13 East, 175.

t Abel v. Sutton, 3 Esp. N. P. C. 108. Kenyon, C. J.

u

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

(5) Indorsee 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' 21 Geo, 3. B. R. Peake's N. P. C 80.

ner is to be considered as tenant in common with the assignees of the bankrupt partner, and the property in the bill can only be transferred by their respective indorse

ments.

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.

66

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 advice from

To Mr. payable at

in Paris,

JAMES OATLAND.

x Per Cur. Ld. Raym. 1397.

y Chitty, 37.