R. v. Bigg, 1 Str. 18. Yarborough v. the Bank of England, 16 East, 12. And see Tidd's Pr. 27. (n.) 8th Ed. An indorsement written in pencil is a good indorsement within the usage and custom of merchants. Geary v. Physic, 5 B. & C. 234. 7 D. & R. 653. S. C. Writing a private mark upon a bill will not operate as an indorsement. Ex parte Shuttleworth, 3 Ves. 368. Fenn v. Harrison, 3 T. R. 757. When before his death the holder of a note writes upon it, "I give this note to A." it is a testamentary indorsement which may be proved. Per Lord Chancellor, Chaworth v. Beech, 4 Ves. 585. Woodbridge v. Spooner, 3 B. & A. 233. See An indorsement of a bill or note for the payment of less than 51. must be attested by one subscribing witness, and must mention the name and place of abode of the indorsee, and bear date at or before the time of making it. 17 Geo. 3. c. 30. s. 1. Ante, p. 5. Where bills are specially indorsed, it has been held that the property in them does not pass before delivery. R. v. Lambton, 5 Price, 428. And in general, a delivery is necessary to complete the transfer, whether the bill is indorsed generally or specially. Thus where a note was placed in the hands of a banker to be delivered to the payee on certain conditions being fulfilled, Lord Ellenborough was of opinion that no cause of action accrued to the payee until the time when gave up the note. Savage v. Aldren, 2 Stark. 232. (note 22.) The delivery of a bill where indorsement was necessary and has been omitted by mistake, will entitle the party to whom it is delivered, to call for an indorsement. Smith v. Pickering, Peake, 50. ante, p. 128. Upon the transfer of a bill drawn in sets, each part must be delivered to the person in whose favor the transfer is made; otherwise, the same inconveniences may follow which would ensue upon a neglect to deliver each of them to the payee. Bayley, 129. In what manner the words "or order."] Where a bill or note is originally made negotiable by the insertion of the words "or order," it is not necessary that those words should be repeated in the indorsements, in order to continue the negotiability. Thus, where a note was made payable to S. or order, and by him indorsed to W. (without saying "or order,") and by W. to the plaintiff, on demurrer, it was objected that W. could not assign, but the declaration was held to be good; for if the original bill was assignable, then whosoever it is assigned to has all the interest in the bill and may assign it as he pleases. More v. Manning, Com. 311. So where an indorsement was pay the contents to L. A.," and the declaration stated it to be to L. A. or order, it was held no variance, it being the legal import of the indorsement. Acheson v. Fountain, 1 Str. 557. The same point was ruled in a later case after much consideration. Edie v. East India Co., 2 Burr. 1216. 1 W. Bl. 295, S. C. So where a bill is indorsed, "pay to the order of A. B." A. B. may himself sue upon the bill as indorsee. Fisher v. Pomfret, Carth. 403. In what manner · blank indorsement.] An indorsement which mentions the name of the person in whose favour it is made, is called a full indorsement; an indorsement which does not, a blank one. Bayley, 100. A bill or note indorsed in blank resembles a bill payable to bearer, and may be transferred from one holder to another by delivery merely. Peacock v. Rhodes, Dougl. 611, 633. 4th ed. Where a bill is indorsed in blank, a power is given to the indorsee of specially appointing the payment to be made to a particular individual, by writing the name of that person over the blank indorsement, but the act of writing such name will not render the party writing it liable as an indorser. Vincent v. Horlock, 1 Campb. 442. Ex parte Isbester, 1 Rose, 20. Where the first indorsement, by the payee, is blank, the bill continues transferable by delivery, although there may be subsequent full or special indorsements. In an action by the indorsees of a bill against the acceptor, it appeared that the bill was indorsed in blank by the payee, and that after several indorsements it had come to one Jackson, under, a special indorsement to him or order. Jackson sent it to Muir and Atkinson, who discounted it with the plaintiffs, but Jackson never indorsed it. It was contended that this special indorsement restrained the negotiability of the bill, and that the plaintiffs could not recover without proving an indorsement by Jackson, but Lord Kenyon said that the fair holder of a bill may consider himself the indorsee of the payee, and strike out all the other indorsements. Smith v. Clarke, Peake, 225. 1 Esp. 180. S. C. So the indorsee may in his declaration state himself to be the indorsee of any prior indorser, who indorsed it in blank without noticing the intermediate indorsements between that indorser and himself. Chaters v. Bell, 4 Esp. 210. see post. It was formerly held that an indorsement in blank did not entitle the person taking the bill to sue upon it without inserting his own name before the indorsement; Clarke v. Pigot, 1 Salk. 126. 12 Mod. 193. S. C; but it is now clear that such an insertion is unnecessary. An indorsement in blank conveys a joint right of action to as many as agree in suing on the bill. Per Lord Ellenborough, Ord v. Portal, 3 Campb. 240. Attwood v. Rattenbury, 6 B. Moore, 579. and see post, Chap. XII. In what manner — - indorsement in full.] A blank indorsement makes the bill payable to bearer, but by a special indorsement the holder may stop the negotiability. Per Lord Mansfield, Ancker v. Bank of England, Dougl. 639, 4th ed. An in dorsement in full or special indorsement is, where the name of the indorsee is inserted as pay the contents to A. B.," "C. D." In what manner —restrictive indorsements.] The payee may check the currency of a bill or note by giving a bare authority to receive the money, as "pay to my servant for my use." Per Wilmott, J. Edie v. East India Co. 2 Burr. 1227. So where the payee of a bill indorsed it, "the within must be credited to Captain D. value in account," it was held that this was a special indorsement which restrained the negotiability of the bill. Ancker v. Bank of England, Dougl. 637. 4th ed. A bill was drawn, payable to the plaintiff or order, on the defendants, and was thus indorsed by the payee, "Pay the within to C. & R. upon my name appearing in the Gazette as Ensign in any regiment of the line, if within two months from this date." The defendants accepted the bill thus indorsed; C. & R. negotiated it, and it came into the hands of the Bank of England, to whom the defendants paid it. Plaintiff's name never appeared in the Gazette, and he therefore sued the defendants on the bill, and the Court of Common Pleas held that he was entitled to recover. Robertson v. Kensington, 4 Taunt. 30. Where certain bills were indorsed to De Roure, as agent to Treutell and Wurtz, in the following form, "Pay to J. P. De Roure, Esq. or order, for account of Messrs. T. and W." and De Roure without the authority of T. and W. indorsed them to defendants as a security on his own account, it was held that under these circumstances the defendants had sufficient knowledge that the bills were not the property of De Roure, and that T. and W. were entitled to recover the bills in trover against the defendants. Treuttel v. Barandon, 8 Taunt. 100. Where the plaintiff, the indorsee of a bill, indorsed it in this form, Pay to S. W. or his order for my use," and S. W. discounted the bill with his bankers, to whom he indorsed it, and who received the proceeds and applied them to the use of S. W., in an action by the plaintiff against the bankers for money had and received, it was held that he was entitled to recover, for that the indorsement was restrictive. Segourney v. Lloyd, 8 B. & C. 622. (See Note 23.) When agents indorse foreign bills for the mere purpose of transmitting them, without intending to incur responsibility for the payment, it is their practice to add to the indorsement the words sans recours. Goupy v. Arden, 7 Taunt. 160, 163. (Note 24.) 66 Although in general a parol agreement is not admissible to control the operation of a bill or note, vide post, Chap. XII. yet it has been ruled that where the indorsee of a bill takes it under an agreement not to sue the indorser, he cannot sue such indorser, though the indorsement be unqualified. Pike v. Street, 1 Moody and Malkin, 226. In what manner — of part of the money.] Where the drawer of a bill has paid part, it may be indorsed over for the residue, otherwise not, because it would subject him to variety of actions. Per Gould, J. Johnson v. Kennion, 2 Wils. 262. Thus where A. having a bill upon B., indorsed part of it to J. S., who brought his action for that part, upon demurrer it was held that the action would not lie, for where a man's contract has subjected him only to one action, it cannot be divided so as to subject him to two. Hawkins v. Cardee, 1 Salk. 65. Carth. 466. 1 Lord Raym. 360. S. C. (Note 25.) Cancelling an indorsement.] Where an indorsement is cancelled by mistake, it will not have the effect of discharging the indorser. Thus where certain persons, for the honour of a firm, whose names appeared as the indorsers of a bill, paid it, and struck out the names subsequent to those of the firm, but finding that the indorsement of the firm was a forgery, immediately gave notice of that fact to the parties from whom they received the bill, and that the indorsements had been struck out by mistake, it was held that this cancelling would not have the effect of discharging the indorsers whose names were struck out. Per Abbott, C.J. "The striking out an indorsement by mistake cannot in our opinion discharge the indorser; it would be most mischievous to commerce to hold that it should." His lordship then stated the case of Fernandez v. Glynn, 1 Campb. 426. vide post, and continued, "If indeed it should appear that the defendants [the holders] are put to any additional expense, by proof or otherwise, on account of this improvident act of the plaintiffs [who discounted the bill], which is very unlikely, they may possibly maintain a special action on the case to recover a compensation to the extent of the injury they sustain." Wilkinson v. Johnston," 3 B. & C. 428. 140 CHAPTER VII. OF THE PRESENTMENT OF BILLS AND NOTES. Presentment for acceptance. Within what time. How long the bill should be left with the drawee for acceptance. Presentment for payment. By whom. To whom. Where. Of a bill accepted generally. Of a bill accepted payable at a banker's or other Of a bill accepted payable at a bankers, &c. since "there Of a bill drawn payable in London, &c., and accepted since stat. 1 & 2. G. 4. c. 78. payable at a banker's or other place, not saying "there only," &c. Of notes payable at a particular place in the margin. Of notes payable at a particular place in the body. Of notes payable at different places. When. Of bills and notes payable after date. Of bills and notes becoming due on Sunday, |