ception was taken, that a bill was payable to the defendant only, without the words, "or his order," and, therefore, not assignable by indorsement. Holt, C. J. said, that the indorsement did not make the drawer chargeable to the indorsee, but, that the indorsement of such a bill is good between the indorser and the indorsee, to make the former chargeable to the latter. Hill v. Lewis, 1 Salk. 133. Nicholson v. Sedgwick, 1 Ld. Raym. 181. Although it was formerly thought, that a bill or note payable to bearer, or to a certain person bearer, was not transferable, Nicholson v. Sedgwick, 1 Ld. Raym. 180, Horton v. Coggs, 3 Lev. 299, it is now settled, that such a bill or note is negotiable. Grant v. Vaughan, 3 Burr. 1516. 1 W. Bl. 485. S. C. Edie v. East India Co. 2 Burr. 1224. Whether a bill or note be negotiable or not, is a question of law. Per Lord Mansfield, Grant v. Vaughan, 3 Burr. 1523. And where the law is clear, evidence of the usage of merchants on the subject is inadmissible. Edie v. East India Company, 2 Burr. 1224. 1 W. Bl. 298. S. C. But, where the matter has never been judicially determined, it seems that such evidence is admissible. Hone v. Rawlinson, Willes, 561. and see Carvick v. Vickery, Dougl. 653. (n.)

4th edit.

An exchequer bill (the blank not being filled up) passes, by delivery, like a bill of exchange. Wookey v. Pole, 4 B. & A. 1. So, Prussian bonds, payable to bearer. Gorgier v. Mieville, 3 B. & C. 45. 4 D. & R. 641. S. C.

By whom in general.] A transfer, by indorsement, will confer no title, except against the person making it, unless it is made by him who has a right to make the transfer, but a transfer by delivery may. Bayley, 106. An indorsement, by a person of the same name as the payee, without fraud, will not operate as a transfer of the bill. Mead v. Young, 4 T. R. 28. Where a bill is payable to A. for the use of B. the right to indorse is in A. Evans v. Cramlington, Carth. 5. 2 Vent. 307. S. C. ante, p. 24. Where the right to transfer is in several persons, not partners, each must indorse. Ante, p. 71.

After putting a bill or note in suit, the holder cannot, pending the action, transfer it, so as to give another person a right of action upon it, provided that person has notice of the suit. Marsh v. Newell, 1 Taunt. 109.

By whom,-banker, pledgee, or agent.] Where a bill or note is indorsed to a banker, or other person, for a particular purpose, and deposited with him for that purpose, he may transfer the property in such bill or note, by indorsement, to a third person, who has no notice of the want of title, as, in the following case: A. B. C. and D. were partners in a banking house at Liverpool, and C. and D. carried on a separate mer

cantile concern in London. J. S. having accepted bills, payable at the house of C. and D. employed A. B. C. and D. to get them paid, and agreed to deposit with them good bills, indorsed by him, for the purpose of enabling them so to do. A. B. C. and D. debited J. S. in account for his acceptances, and credited him for all the bills which he deposited. Some of the bills so deposited by J. S. were remitted by A. B. C. and D. to C. and D. upon the general account between the two houses, and before any of the acceptances of J. S. became due both houses failed, and J. S. was obliged to pay his own acceptances. It was held, that the assignees of C. and D. were entitled to retain against J. S. the bills remitted to them by A. B. C. and D., for the transaction between the two houses changed the property in the bills. Bolton v. Pullen, 1 B. & P. 539. See also Ramsbottom v. Cator, 1 Stark. 228. So, a banker who holds indorsed bills from his customers, deposited with him to get in when due, may not only discount or sell them, but may likewise pledge them. Collins ». Martin, 1 B. & P. 648. Gorgier v. Mieville, 3 B. & C. 45. Wookey v. Pole, 4 B. & A. 13. But, where the party receiving such bills has notice that they were merely deposited by way of pledge, the property will not pass to him, so as to give him a right of action upon them. Roberts v. Eden, 1 B. & P. 398. And, where bills were indorsed to an agent, and the indorsement was expressed to be "for account of T. & W." the principals, and the agent pledged the same on his own account, it was held, that the principals were entitled to recover the bills in trover from the pledgee, for that the indorsement was sufficient notice, that the bills were not the property of the agent who pledged them. Treuttel v. Barandon, 8 Taunt. 100. 1 B. Moore, 543. S. C.

By whom-bankrupts.] When a person in possession of bills of exchange in his own right, becomes bankrupt, the right to transfer such bills vests, by relation to the committing of the act of bankruptcy, in his assignees, and an indorsement by the bankrupt, though before any commission issued against him, will not convey any property in the bill. Thomason v. Frere, 10 East, 418, and see Smith v. De Witts, 6 D. & R. 120. Lacy v. Woolcot, 2 D. & R. 458. ante, p. 68. And, where one of two several partners becomes bankrupt, such bankruptcy operates as a dissolution of the partnership, and the solvent partner cannot, in the name of the partnership, transfer a bill of which the partnership was possessed. Ramsbottom v. Lewis, 1 Campb. 279. Abel v. Sutton, 3 Esp. 110. Unless, perhaps, where the partners held the bill as trustees. Ramsbottom v. Cator, 1 Stark. 228.

It is only where the bankrupt is beneficially interested in the bill, that the property in it will pass to his assignees. Therefore, where a bill was drawn by A. payable to his own order,

and was accepted by the defendant for his accommodation, and was indorsed by A. after his bankruptcy, it was held, that as the bill would not pass to A.'s assignees, this indorsement transferred the property in the bill, and that the indorsee, for a valuable consideration, might sue the defendant. Arden v. Watkins, 3 East, 317. Wallis v. Hardacre, 1 Campb. 46. Bruce v. Hurly, 1 Stark. 23. And, where a trader, having securities in his banker's hands, to the amount of 8881. 16s. 8d. after a secret act of bankruptcy, drew on them a bill for 1400l. for his own accommodation, payable to his own order, which, after acceptance, he indorsed to the plaintiff (who knew of his partial insolvency, but not of the act of bankruptcy,) a commission of bankrupt having been afterwards taken out, it was held, that the plaintiff was entitled to sue the acceptors for the amount of the bill accepted for the accommodation, but not for the residue, for which the defendants were liable to the assignees. Willis v. Freeman, 12 East, 656. Upon the same principle, where a trader delivered over a bill, for a valuable consideration, to another, and forgot to indorse it, and, after becoming bankrupt, indorsed it, Lord Kenyon ruled that such indorsement was good, the party to whom the bill was delivered having an equitable claim, and the property in the bill not having passed to the assignees of the bankrupt. Smith v. Pickering, Peake, 50. And where a note was made for the accommodation of A, who transferred it to B. and C. without indorsement, for a valuable consideration, and afterwards became bankrupt, and died intestate; and, more than six years after the note was due, B. procured letters of administration to the effects of A. and indorsed the note to himself and C., it was held by the Master of the Rolls, that B. and C. were entitled to sue the maker. Watkins v. Maule, 2 Jac. & Walk. 237. So, where a bill had been delivered to the indorsee, with the intent to transfer the property to him, more than two months before a commission of bankrupt issued against the indorser, but the latter did not indorse the bill till within the two months, Lord Ellenborough held, that the writing of the indorsement had reference to the delivery of the bill. Anon. 1 Campb. 492. (n.) Whether a court of equity will direct the bankrupt, or his assignees, to indorse such a bill, see Ex parte Greening, 13 Ves. 206. Ex parte Mowbray, 1 Jac. & W. 428. Ex parte Hall, 1 Rose, 13. Eden's Bank. Law, 147. (n.) 2d. ed. Ex parte Brown, 1 G. & J. 407. post, Chapter XIV. Bills fraudulently obtained by the bankrupt, will not pass to his assignees. Gladstone v. Hadwen, 1 M. & S. 517.

Though, in general, the indorsemement of a bill by a trader, after he has committed an act of bankruptcy, will not transfer the property in the bill, yet such indorsement may be valid, under the 6th Geo. 4. c. 16. s. 82. by which it is enacted, that all payments really and bona fide made, or which shall

hereafter be made by any bankrupt, or by any person on his behalf, before the date and issuing of the commission against such bankrupt, to any creditor of such bankrupt, (such payment not being a fraudulent preference of such creditor) shall be deemed valid, notwithstanding any prior act of bankruptcy by such bankrupt committed; and all payments really and bond fide made, or which shall hereafter be made, to any bankrupt, before the date and issuing of the commission against such bankrupt, shall be deemed valid, notwithstanding any prior act of bankruptcy by such bankrupt committed, and such creditor shall not be liable to refund the same to the assignees of such bankrupt, provided the person so dealing with the said bankrupt had not, at the time of such payment by or to such bankrupt, notice of any such act of bankruptcy by such bankrupt committed.

บ.

By whom-bankrupts-fraudulent preference.] Where a trader, in contemplation of bankruptcy, voluntarily indorses a bill or note to a creditor, such a preference is fraudulent, and the indorsement will not have the effect of transferring the property in the bill or note. To make it void, the indorsement must be made in contemplation of bankruptcy. Wheelwright v. Jackson, 5 Taunt. 309. 633. Hartshorn v. Slodden, 2 B. & P. 584. Gibbins v. Phillips, 7 B. & C. 529. A trader may be in embarrassed circumstances, and compelled to suspend his payments, without contemplating bankruptcy. Fidgeon Sharp, 1 Marsh. 196. The rule on this subject has been lately laid down in these terms:-"If a man be in such a situation, that he must be presumed to think bankruptcy probable, then, if he makes a payment, with a view to put one creditor in a better situation than the rest, such payment cannot be supported." Per Bayley, J. Poland v. Glyn, 4 Bing. 22. (n.) It is not sufficient alone, that the bill, or note, has been indorsed in contemplation of bankruptcy, but it must appear to have been indorsed voluntarily; and if the debtor be bona fide pressed by his creditor to make such a transfer, it is good. See Thompson v. Freeman, 1 T. R. 155. Smith v. Payne, 6 T. R. 152. Hartshorn v. Slodden, 2 B. & P. 583. Thornton v. Hargreaves, 7 East, 544. Crosby v. Crouch, 2 Campb. 166. 11 East, 256. S. C. Thus, where in contemplation of bankruptcy, a debtor, without being pressed, sent three checks to his creditor's counting house, but, before the delivery of those checks, a demand was made on the debtor by the creditor, Lord Ellenborough held, that, though there was an intention of giving a voluntary preference, yet that intention not having been consummated, the payment was good. Bayley v. Ballard, 1 Campb. 416.

By whom

— executors and administrators.] Where the holder

of a bill or note dies, the interest in it vests in his executors or administrators, who may transfer it by indorsement. Rawlin son v. Stone, 3 Wils. 1. Willes, 559. 2 Str. 1260. S. C. Watkins v. Maule, 2 Jac. & Walk. 243. ante, p. 55.

By whom infants.] As the indorsement of a bill or note by an infant is a voidable act only, and not absolutely void, the holder of a bill may make a good title, through the indorsement of an infant, though the latter, if sued as indorser, may insist upon his infancy as a defence. Taylor v. Croker, 4 Esp. 187. Grey v. Cooper, E. 22. G. 3. 1 Selw. N. P. 287. 4th ed. ante, p. 56.

Married women.] A married woman cannot transfer any interest in a bill or note by her indorsement. Barlow v. Bishop, 1 East, 432, ante, p. 58. unless an authority from her husband can be presumed. Cotes v. Davis, 1 Campb. 485. ante, p. 58. Or, unless she can be considered in law as a feme sole. Ante, p. 58. Where a bill or note is indorsed to a feme sole, who afterwards marries, or to a feme covert, the right to transfer such bill or note vests in her husband. Ibid.

By whom partners.] In general, one partner has authority to transfer bills and notes, the property of the partnership, by indorsing them in the name of the partnership. Ante, p. 59. And it has even been held, in the absence of fraud, that one partner may transfer a bill, belonging to the partnership, in payment of his separate debt. Swann v. Steele, 7 East, 210. Ridley v. Taylor, 13 East, 175. ante, p. 64. and see the other cases cited, from p. 60. to p. 70. But, the authority of one partner to indorse in the partnership name, ceases on the dissolution of the partnership; and an indorsee, for valuable consideration, but with notice of the dissolution, cannot recover on such a bill. Ante, p. 67. In case of the bankruptcy of one of several partners, the right to indorse is vested in the solvent partner, and the assignees of the bankrupt jointly. Ante, p. 70.

By whom-by a person who has no title himself.] In many cases, a person, who is not entitled to sue upon a bill or note himself, may confer on another a good title to sue. Thus, where the holder of a bill who gave no value for it, indorses it to another for a valuable consideration, with notice of his title, the latter may maintain an action upon the bill against all the parties to it, though the former could not have sued the person from whom he received it, without consideration. Ante, p. 104. So, unless in cases of bills made void by statute, the holder of a bill, who, on account of some illegality or fraud, could not have enforced the bill against any of the prior parties, may, by transferring the bill to another person, for a valuable consideration, and with