Promissory What not laches. What is notice of dishonour. East, 3; so upon a note payable on demand or "at sight," an action cannot be maintained until after presentment, Dixon v. Nuttall, 1 Cr. M. & R. 307; S. C. 4 Tyrw. 1013; and if a particular place be mentioned in the body of a note, a presentment there is necessary to charge even the maker, Sanderson v. Bones, 14 East, 500; and a demand there is a demand on the maker, Saunderson v. Judge, 2 H. Bl. 509; but the holder of a banker's note payable at two places has the right to present it at either, and if payment be refused at one, held that there is no laches if it be proved that if payment had been demanded at the other, which was more convenient, the note would have been paid, Beeching v. Gower, Holt, N. P. C. 313; so where a servant received on behalf of his master, in payment of goods sold, country bank notes on Friday afternoon, and paid them to his master after banking hours on Saturday, held that there was no laches in not presenting them before the stopping of the bank on the Saturday, James v. Holditch, 8 D. & R. 40; see Williams v. Smith, 2 B. & A. 496; also further as to the consequence of not presenting in time, and other matters in which the law is the same for notes as for bills, ante, Pref. BILLS, sect. 125 et seq.; as to making a note payable at a particular place, see ante, sect. 16. 9. Notice of Dishonour. 27. Notice of dishonour as to notes relates solely to non-payment, and not to non-acceptance or protest, as in the case of bills, see ante, Pref. BILLS, Sect. 133. Indorser of a note is not obliged to give notice of dishonour when there are no effects in the maker's hands, Corney v. Mendez de Costa, 1 Esp. 302; so in an action on a note payable at a banker's, held that it was not necessary to prove notice to the maker, Pearce v. Pemberthey, 3 Campb. 261; see also Reynolds v. Davies, in error, 1 B. & P. 625; and as to what have been deemed sufficient notices of dishonour, see Hedger v. Steaven, 2 M. & W. 799; Smith v. Boulton, 1 H. & W. 3; Edmonds v. Cates, 2 Jur. 183; and not sufficient, Strange v. Price, 10 Ad. & Ell. 125; S.C. 2 P. & D. 278; 3 Jur. 361. Where a note is in the hands of an indorsee, and he demands payment thereof from the maker, who neglects or omits to pay the same, notice of such refusal or default ought to be given by the indorsee himself to the prior indorsee or indorsees (if more than one), otherwise they will be discharged, Anderson v. George, Selw. N. P. 389, 10th ed.; see also further as to notice, ante, Pref. BILLS, Sect. 134 et seq. 10. Remedy on Promissory Notes. B. & P. 120; for Promissory interest. 28. The usual remedy on a promissory note, as on a bill, is an Form of action. action of assumpsit, Mainwaring v. Newman, 2 which the new rules have provided concise forms. Interest is given Payment of upon a note of hand from the time of its becoming payable, Lithgow v. Lyon, 1 Coop. 22; if the note be payable on demand, interest runs not from the date of the instrument, but from the time of the demand, Barough v. White, 4 B. & C. 327. As to the Statute of Limitations Statute of Limitations, &c. in respect to notes payable on demand, that begins to run commonly from the date of the note, Christie v. Fonsick, Selw. N. P. C. 352, 10th ed.; but where the note was payable two years after demand, held that the statute did not begin to run until two years after demand of payment had been made, Thorpe v. Booth, 1 Ry. & Moo. 388; S. C. nom. Thorpe v. Combe, 8 D. & R. 347; see further as to staying proceedings and defences to the action, ante, Pref. BILLS, sect. 158. [Stamp (a)]. £100. No. CCLIX. Common Form of a Promissory Note. London (b), 1 Jan. 1844. Two months after date (b) I promise to pay (c) to C. D. or order (d) [at Messrs. A. B. & Co. bankers, Lombard Street (e)] the sum of one hundred pounds value received (ƒ). Payable at Messrs. A. B. & Co. (h) Indorsed (i) E. F. (first indorser) A. B. (maker) (g). G. H. (second indorser) (a) As to the stamp duty on promissory notes, see ante, sect. 20. (b) As to the date of place and time, see ante, sect. 10, 11. (c) As to the effect of these words, see ante, sect. 12. (d) As to the effect of these words, see ante, sect. 14, 15, et seq. (e) Effect of inserting the place of payment in the body of the note, see ante, sect. 16. (f) As to these words, see ante, sect. 17; and as to the consideration, sect. 21. (g) Effect of the maker's signature, see ante, sect. 18. (h) Effect of inserting the place of payment at the foot of the note, see ante, sect. 16, 25. (i) Law as to transfer by indorsement and delivery, see ante, 22-24. Checks. Definition and nature of the instrument. Particular properties of checks. Place where dated. Date or time. SECT. 1. A check or draft on a banker is a written order, requesting him to pay on demand to some person therein named a certain sum of money. It is a negotiable instrument, and in many respects resembles a bill of exchange; but checks are exempt from stamp duty if the provisions of 9 G. 4, c. 49, are complied with, see infra, sect. 2; also Dig. p. ii. tit. BANK (BANKERS). A check is a legal tender if not objected to, Wilby v. Warren, Tidd, 9th ed. 187; but it is not deemed money within the Annuity Act, Poole v. Cabanes, 8 T. R. 328. What relates to checks may be considered under the following heads: 1. The form of the instrument; 2. Acceptance; 3. Presentment; 4. Notice of dishonour; 5. Remedy on a check. 1. Form of the Instrument. 2. As to the form of the check it is necessary to observe1st. The place where it is dated or supposed to be drawn, which, in order to exempt a check from stamp duty, must, by the 9 G. 4, c. 49, s. 15, be issued from a place within fifteen miles from the resi dence or house of business of the bankers, see 9 G. 4, c. 49, s. 15; Dig. ub. sup.; the place must therefore be truly specified in the check, otherwise it has been held to be void for want of a stamp, Waters v. Brogden, 1 Y. & J. 457. 3.-2d. Date or time of drawing; a check will, by the same sta tute, be void for want of a stamp if it be not dated on or before the day on which it is issued, Allen v. Keeves; see Dig. ub. sup.; see also further as to the dating such instruments, ante, Pref. BILLS, Checks. sect. 30. 4.-3d. The banker on whom drawn; to bring a check within the Banker on whom drawn. exemption of the statute it must be drawn upon a banker, Castleman v. Ray; see Dig. ub. sup. 5.-4th. The payee; a check to come within the exemption above Payee. mentioned must be payable to bearer on demand, but the name of the payee need not be stated. If drawn in the words "Pay No. 1 or bearer," or "office or bearer," it is sufficient, and this word makes it transferable by mere delivery, see ante, BILLS, sect. 95; but a check without the word "bearer" is not a valuable security within the 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 5; R. v. Yates; sce Dig. ub. sup. As to the effect of crossing the check with a banker's name, see infra, sect. 7. 6.—5th. The drawer's signature; as a rule where a check is drawn Drawer's sigby several persons not partners, as assignees of a bankrupt, all ought to sign the instrument; but equity will, in cases of bankruptcy and under particular circumstances, direct that the money may be drawn out by checks signed by one or more only of the assignees, as where one is dead and the other abroad, Ex parte Collins, 2 Cox, 427; or where one has absconded, Ex parte Hunter, 2 Rose, 363. nature. 7.-6th. Crossing the check with banker's name; it is the custom Crossing check. in London, when the name of a particular banker is written across a check, to pay that check to no one except to the banker whose name is so written, Stewart v. Lee, 1 Moo. & Malk. 158; the effect of this is, that bankers refuse to pay a check so crossed to any but a banker, but it does not preclude the holder of a check from changing the name of the banker and substituting that of another; and sometimes the word "Co." only is put in the first instance, with the space for the particular name to be filled up afterwards, ib.; this does not, however, secure the payment to any particular party or restrict the circulation of the instrument, ib. 8.-7th. Indorsement is not a usual or necessary part of this in- Indorsement, strument, as it passes by mere delivery; but the effect of indorsement is the same as in the case of bills, to make the indorser liable to the holder if the check is dishonoured; and it seems that where a check given by a debtor in favour of his creditor has been indorsed by the latter, this has been admitted in evidence against him that he has received payment, Egg v. Barnet, 3 Esp. 196; but proof of delivery and payment of a check to the plaintiff is not sufficient evidence of a debt to support a set off, unless it be shewn upon what consideration and under what circumstances the check was given, Aubert v. Walsh, VOL. I. 00 Checks. Liability of banker. Marking amounts to acceptance. Banker's liability as to the payment of checks. Presentment must be made with due diligence. 4 Taunt. 293; see also Cary v. Gerrish, 4 Esp. 9; Bleasby v. Crossley, 3 Bing. 430. 2. Acceptance and Payment. 9. A banker is bound to pay his customer's checks when he has effects in his hands, otherwise he is liable to an action, there being an implied contract between a banker and a customer that the former should pay the checks of the latter, Marzetti v. Williams, 1 B. & Ad. 415. If one banker, holding a check drawn upon another banker, presents it after four o'clock and it is not then paid, but is marked for payment the next day according to the custom of London bankers, this marking is held to be an acceptance, Robson v. Bennett, 2 Taunt. 388; but this is binding only as between the banker and his customers, Boddington v. Schlencker, 1 Nev. & Man. 540. 10. Where a check, drawn by a customer for a sum of money described in the body of the check in words and figures, was afterwards altered by the holder, who substituted a larger sum for that originally inserted, but in such a manner that no person in the ordinary course of business could have observed it, held that the banker could not charge the customer beyond the sum for which the check was originally drawn, Hall v. Fuller, 5 B. & C. 750. So where a check really drawn by a customer was by him torn in pieces, but afterwards a stranger, picking up the pieces, pasted them together and presented the instrument so soiled and joined to the banker, held that the latter, who paid the check, could not charge the customer with the payment, Scholey v. Ramsbottom, 2 Campb. 485; but where the wife of a customer, at the request of her husband, filled up a check in such a careless manner as to facilitate a fraudulent alteration thereof by the husband's clerk, held that the loss must fall on the customer, it being his fault to employ a person not sufficiently conversant with business, Young v. Grote, 4 Bing. 353. So where a banker gave up bills which he had received from his correspondent upon receiving from the acceptor a check for the amount on another banker, held that he was not guilty of negligence, although it turned out that the check was dishonoured, it being done in the ordinary course of business among bankers, Russell v. Hankey, 6 T. R. 12; but if the holder of a check takes banker's notes instead of cash, and the banker fails, the drawer is discharged, Powell v. Roche, 6 Esp. 76. 3. Presentment. 11. The holder of a check is bound to present it with due diligence, Rickford v. Ridge, 2 Campb. 537; and it seems to be now established that the holder has the whole of the banking hours of the |