sity does not prevent. Ib. Where a bill was presented for acceptance on the 18th, and the holder's clerk called on the 20th, when the drawee desired it might be left another day, and on the 21st it was returned unaccepted, upon its being contended, that there ought to have been notice of the delay, in the acceptance or non-acceptance on the 19th of April, Lord Ellenborough observed, that the law of merchants, at Hamburgh, and which prevails all over the continent of Europe, is, that when a bill is kept more than twenty-four hours after acceptance, it amounts to an acceptance, and he should wish this point to be settled, and that it should be inquired, whether when bills are left for acceptance, there is not a specific time when they should be returned, and whether if the holder allows further time, he should not inform his indorser, and put him in as good a situation as himself. Ingram v. Foster, 2 Smith, 242, and see post, Chap. VIII., as to the effect of leaving a bill with the drawee. (Note 28.)

To whom presentment for acceptance should be made.]—Presentment for acceptance must be made to the drawee, or to some agent authorised by him. In an action against the drawer, on the refusal of the drawee to accept, it appeared that the witness had carried the bill to a place, which was described to him as the drawee's house, and that he offered it to a person in a tan-yard, who refused to accept it. The witness did not know the drawee's person, nor could he swear that the person to whom he offered the bill was he, or represented himself to be so. Lord Ellenborough held, that this evidence did not amount to proof of a demand upon the drawee. Cheek v. Roper, 5 Esp. 175. If 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 not, or in the margin only, or in the acceptance only. Bayley, 174. (Note 29.) The cases with regard to the presentment of bills for payment, where the party is dead, or has absconded, or cannot be found, apply also to presentment for acceptance. See post, 147.

Presentment for payment.]—The person to whom, and the time and place at which presentment of a bill, note, or check, for payment should be made, will now be stated. In presenting a bill, or note, for payment, it ought not to be left; or if it be, the presentment is not considered as made until the money is called for. Hayward v. Bank of England, 1 Str. 550. Bayley, 186.

By whom.]-A bill must be presented for payment by the party entitled to receive payment upon it, or by his agent. If the holder be dead, and the executor has not yet proved the will, it is said by Marius (in Malyne, 32.), that the bill must

nevertheless be presented for payment at the regular time, but according to Molloy, pl. 34., no protest in such case ought to be made; and it would seem, that the drawer and indorsers would not be discharged, provided presentment be made, and notice be given of the dishonour, by the executor or administrator, in a reasonable time.

To whom.] Presentment for payment must be made to the drawee or acceptor of a bill, or to the maker of a promissory note. If the acceptor or maker has absconded, or is not to be found after due inquiry, the bill or note is to be considered as dishonoured, of which notice must be given. Thus it is said, the custom of merchants is, that if B., upon whom a bill of exchange is drawn, absconds before the day of payment, the man to whom it is payable may protest it, to have better security for the payment, and to give notice to the drawer of the absconding of B. 1 Lord Raym. 743. It must appear that due diligence has been used to discover the party, which is a question of fact for the jury. Bateman v. Joseph, 12 Eust, 434, ante, p. 145. Thus where the maker of a note shut up his house and went away the month before it became due, in an action against the indorser, Lee C. J. ruled that the plaintiff had not gone far enough, not having shewn that he had inquired after the maker, or attempted to find him out. Collins v. Butler, 2 Str. 1087. Where a note was made payable at Guilford, and the holder presented it when due, at two banking houses at Guilford, the maker then living in London, Abbott J. was of opinion, that a presentment at Guilford was a presentment to the maker himself. Hardy v. Woodroofe, 2 Stark. 319. See more as to using due diligence to discover the residence of a party, post, Chap. IX.

Mol

Where the drawee, acceptor, or maker is dead, the bill or note must be presented to his executors or administrators. toy, b. 2. c. x. s. 34. Unless where the bill is made payable and is presented at a particular place, in which case, it is not necessary to present it also at the house of the executor. Philpott v. Bryant, 3 C. & P. 244. In case there be no representative, the holder should demand payment at the house of the deceased. Poth. pl. 146. Mar. 134.

Where a bill is accepted by an agent, and at the time when it becomes due, the principal is still absent, it must be presented for payment to the agent. Philips v. Astling, 2 Taunt. 206.

Where of a bill accepted generally.] A bill accepted generally may be presented to the drawee or acceptor wherever he can be found, for the holder is not bound to present it at any particular place; see Turner v. Hayden, 4 B. & C. 3; and in order to charge the acceptor, no presentment whatever is neces

sary, though a demand is usual and ought to be made, before proceedings are instituted, as the suing a solvent acceptor without such a demand, might make a difference in the costs, on a prompt application to the court. Macintosh v. Haydon, R. & M. 363. If the acceptor cannot be personally met with, and the holder intends to charge the drawer or indorser, he must present the bill at the counting-house, or dwelling-house of the acceptor; Saunderson v. Judge, 2 H. Bl. 511; or usual place of abode. Fenton v. Goundry, 13 East, 465. Thus where it was necessary to prove a demand upon the acceptor, and a witness stated that he carried the bill to a house described as the house where the acceptor was described to live, but that there were no orders left; and the witness never saw the acceptor, Lord Ellenborough told the jury, that if a bill was payable at a certain house, it was sufficient to demand the money there, and that that had been done here, for it was the duty of the drawer of a bill to leave provision for the payment of it. Brown v. M'Dermott, 5 Esp. 265. See Cromwell v. Hynson, 2 Esp. 511. post, Chap. VIII. But where to prove a presentment to one Hammond, the drawee of a bill, a witness was called, who stated that he carried the bill to the place which was described to him as Hammond's house, and that he offered it to some person in a tan-yard, who refused to accept it; but that he did not know Hammond's person, nor could he swear that the person to whom he offered the bill was he, or represented himself so to be, Lord Ellenborough ruled that this evidence was insufficient. Cheek v. Roper, 5 Esp. 175. A neglect to present a bill will not discharge the acceptor. Ante, p. 90.

Where of a bill accepted, payable at a banker's, or other place only, and not otherwise or elsewhere.] Where a bill is accepted, payable at a banker's house, or other place only, and not otherwise or elsewhere, according to the provisions of stat. 1 and 2 G. 4. c. 78. such acceptance is declared to be a qualified acceptance, and the acceptor shall not be liable to pay the said bill, except in default of payment, when such payment shall have been first duly demanded at such banker's house, or other place. Therefore, whether the holder intend to charge the acceptor himself, or some other party to the bill, a presentment at the banker's house, or other place, is necessary. Thus, before the passing of the above statute, when it was, after many conflicting decisions, ultimately decided in the House of Lords, that a bill accepted, payable at a banker's, was a special acceptance, it was also held, that in an action against the acceptor, presentment of the bill at the banker's must be averred and proved. Rowe v. Young, 2 B. & B. 165. See post, Chap. VIII. So also in another case, which occurred before the above statute, the Court of Common Pleas held, that a bill accepted, payable "at Messrs. T. & Co. No. 6,

Church Street," was a qualified acceptance, and that the declaration, in an action against the drawer, not containing an averment of presentment at the special place, was bad. Ambrose v. Hopwood, 2 Taunt. 61.

When a bill was specially accepted, payable at a banker's, it was ruled by Lord Ellenborough, that a presentment to the banker's clerks, in the clearing house, was a presentment at the banker's within the meaning of the acceptance. Reynolds v. Chettle, 2 Campb. 596. And see Robson v. Bennett, 2 Taunt. 396.

Where of a bill accepted, payable at a banker's, &c. since stat. 1 and 2 Geo. 4. c. 78. not saying, "there only, and not otherwise or elsewhere."] Since the passing of the statute 1 and 2 Geo. 4. c. 78. a bill accepted, payable at a banker's, or other place, but omitting to state there only, and not otherwise or elsewhere, is a general acceptance. The holder, therefore, is not bound to present the bill at the place mentioned in the acceptance; Turner v. Hayden, 4 B. & C. 1.; but the mention of that place in the acceptance, is to be regarded as a memorandum, by the acceptor, that the bill may be presented to him there, and a presentment and refusal there would be sufficient to charge the drawer and indorsers. Macintosh v. Haydon, R. & M. 363. Stedman v. Gooch, 1 Esp. 4. The result of the statute 1 and 2 Geo. 4. is, that though the bill be, by the acceptance, made payable at a particular place, still the acceptance is to be esteemed a general obligation, and the acceptor may be called on elsewhere, as well as at the place indicated. But, though the legislature has provided, that the acceptor may be called on elsewhere, it has not made it compulsory on the holder to go elsewhere. Per Best, C. J. De Bergareche v. Pillin, 3 Bingh. 477. The acceptor will not be discharged, in case the holder neglects to present such a bill at the bankers', and they afterwards fail with money of the acceptor in their hands. Turner v. Hayden, 4 B. & C. 1. ante, p. 91.

Where of a bill drawn payable in London, &c. and accepted (since stat. 1 & 2 Creo. 4. c. 78.) payable at a banker's, or other place, not saying, "there only, and not otherwise or elsewhere."] Where a bill is drawn, since the passing of the statute 1 & 2 Geo. 4. c. 88, payable in London, &c. and accepted by the drawee, payable at a banker's, or other place, in London, but not there only, and not otherwise or elsewhere, the acceptance has been held to be a general acceptance. Selby v. Eden, 3 Bingh. 611. Fayle v. Bird, 6 B. & Č. 531. post, Chap. VIII. Such a bill, therefore, need not be presented at the place mentioned in the acceptance, though it may be presented there, and a refusal there would be sufficient to charge the drawer or indorsers. See the cases cited in the last paragraph.

Where of notes payable at a particular place in the margin.] Where the place at which a note is to be payable is written in the margin of the note, such memorandum is no part of the contract, and it is not necessary to present the note for payment at that place, though, if so presented and dishonoured, the indorsers of the note will be liable. A note, with a memorandum at the foot, by which it was made payable at the house of Saunderson & Co. came by indorsement into the hands of Saunderson & Co. who sued the indorser, and at the trial were nonsuited, on the ground, that they had made no actual demand upon the maker; but the court of C. P. granted a new trial, considering such a demand unnecessary. Per Cur. "It was no part of the contract in this case, that the note should be paid at the house of Saunderson & Co., and, therefore, that was not necessary to be stated in the declaration. But the maker merely appointed the house of his banker as the place where he was to be called upon for payment, and where it would be paid. Yet, this was both an undertaking, that there should be cash there, and, also, an order to the bankers to pay it. It is not necessary that a demand should be personal; it is sufficient if it be made at the house of the holder of the note; and it is the same thing in effect, if it be made at the place where he appoints it to be made. If Judge (the indorser) had been the holder of the note, it would have been enough for him to have presented it at the house of Saunderson & Co.; and as they at whose house it was to be paid, were themselves the holders of it, it was a sufficient demand for them to turn to their books, and see the maker's account with them, and a sufficient refusal to find that he had no effects in their hands." Saunderson v. Judge, 2 H. Bl. 509. So, where a promissory note was made payable (in a memorandum at the foot of it, see 14 East, 501.) at a particular place, Bayley, J. ruled, that in an action against the maker, there was no necessity to prove, that it was presented there for payment. Wild v. Rennards, 1 Campb. 425. (n.) So, in an action against the maker of a note, payable, by a memorandum at the foot, at Vere & Co.'s it was contended, that it was necessary to shew a presentment at Vere & Co.'s; but, per Gibbs, Č. J. "I am of opinion, that the words at the foot of this promissory note, are only a memorandum where payment may be demanded. Had they been inserted in the body of the note, they certainly would have formed a part of the contract, and evidence of a presentment at Vere & Co.'s would have been necessary to charge the defendant." Price v. Mitchell, 4 Campb. 200. So, in action against the maker of a note, in the margin of which, under the name of the maker, was written, " payable at Bruce & Co.'s," Gibbs, C. J. ruled, that this was a mere memorandum, not coupled with, or qualifying, the promise, and that a presentment of the note at Bruce & Co.'s need not be proved. Richards v. Lord Milsington, Holt, 364. (n.)