how years later (i.e., seven years after issue of note) the holder sues the Statute, maker on the note. The action is barred.1 Aliter if the payment defeated. of interest had been voluntary. 4. An acknowledgment in writing signed by the party sought to be charged defeats the operation of the statute, e.g., the maker of a note twenty years after its maturity signs his name on the back and adds the date. The holder can sue the maker within six years after this acknowledgment." NOTE. When the statute begins to run nothing stops it. It is clear then that if a dishonoured bill be indorsed to an infant the time still runs on.3 On the other hand, if the holder of a bill at the time of dishonour be an infant, and he subsequently indorse it while still an infant to an adult, it is conceived that the statute runs from the indorsement. It seems that an acknowledgment to the holder enures for the benefit of a subsequent holder.* 1 Morgan v. Rowlands (1872), 7 L. R. Q. B. 493; see also Harding v. Edgecumbe (1859), 28 L. J. Ex. 313, payment by agent. 2 Bourdin v. Greenwood (1872), 13 L. R. Eq. 281. See as to acknowledgments, Re River Steamer Co. (1871), 6 L. R. Ch. at 828, Mellish, L. J.; Chasemore v. Turner (1875), 10 L. R. Q. B. 500, Ex. Ch. 3 Rhodes v. Smethurst (1840), 6 M. & W. 351, Ex. Ch. Byles, p. 358; Cf. Cripps v. Davis (1842), 12 M. & W. 159. CHAPTER IX. PROVISIONS PECULIAR TO CHEQUES. [EXPLANATORY HEAD-NOTE.-The term "bill" as used in the articles of this digest includes cheques as well as ordinary bills of exchange; and subject to the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of the digest relating to bills of exchange payable on demand apply equally to cheques. See Introd., p. iv., and head-note to Chap. I.] Cheque defined. Art. 254. A cheque is a bill of exchange1 drawn by a customer on his banker2 payable on demand.3 4 NOTE. See cheques compared with and distinguished from ordinary bills of exchange by Parke, B., Erle, J., and Byles, J.,5 Palles, C. B., and the Supreme Court of the United States." All cheques are bills of exchange, but all bills of exchange are not cheques, therefore an authority to draw cheques does not necessarily include an authority to draw bills (cf. Art. 74). Apart from statute the distinctions between cheques and ordinary bills of exchange arise from the relationship of banker and customer necessarily subsisting between the drawer and drawee of a cheque. See further the notes to Arts. 5, 11, 16, 67, 79, 105, 133, 160, 162. A cheque is intended for prompt presentment, while a note payable 1 Cf. Eyre v. Waller (1860), 29 L. J. Ex. 246; Hopkinson v. Forster (1874), 19 L. R. Eq. 74; 33 & 34 Vict. c. 97, § 48. 2 Cf. 23 & 24 Vict. c. 111, § 19; and 39 & 40 Vict. c. 81, § 3. 3 Id., and Forster v. Mackreth (1867), 2 L. R. Ex. 163. 4 Ramchurn v. Lachmeechund (1854), 9 Moore P. C. at 69. 5 Keene v. Beard (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. at 380, 381, as modified by Hopkinson v. Forster (1874), 19 L. R. Eq. at 76, Jessel, M. R. 6 Lynn v. Bell (1876), 10 Ir. R. C. L. at 490. 7 Merchants Bank v. State Bank (1870), 10 Wallace at 647. on demand is deemed to be a continuing security. In France, Cheque cheques are regulated by the "Loi du 23 Mai, 1865," which defines defined. a cheque as "L'écrit qui sous la forme d'un mandat de paiement sert au tireur à effectuer le retrait à son profit ou au profit d'un tiers de tout ou partie des fonds portés au crédit de son compte et disponibles." Art. 255. A cheque may be drawn for any sum. Sum There is no maximum or minimum2 limit. payable. Art. 256. A cheque is not intended for acceptance, Acceptbut for prompt presentment and payment." NOTE. At common law there is no objection to the acceptance of a cheque if the holder likes to take it in lieu of payment, but the Bank Charter Acts would in most cases render this illegal (cf. Art. 69). Marked Cheques.-As between banker and banker marking a cheque may perhaps amount to a binding representation that it will be paid, but it is clearly not an acceptance which the holder could take advantage of (cf. Art. 32). As to certified cheques in the United States see Daniel, §§ 1601-1611. 4 ance of cheque. able time Art. 257. A cheque is deemed to have been pre- Reasonsented within a reasonable time when presented for preaccording to the following rules : (1.) If the person who receives a cheque and the banker on whom it is drawn are in the same (2.) If the person who receives a cheque and the places, the cheque must, in the absence of 1 Brooks v. Mitchell (1841), 9 M. & W. at 18, Parke, B.; Chartered Bank v. Dickson (1871), 3 L. R. P. C. at 579, Ld. Cairns. 2 23 & 24 Vict. c. 111, § 19; Cf. Art. 11 n. 3 Cf. Ramchurn v. Lachmeechund (1854), Moore P. C. at 69, Parke, B. 4 Cf. Robson v. Bennet (1810), 2 Taunt. 388; and see Pollard v. Bank of England (1871), 6 L. R. Q. B. 623; Goodwin v. Robarts (1875), 10 L. R. Ex. at 351, 352. 5 Cf. Arts. 169, 201, excuses for delay, and Firth v. Brooks (1861), 4 L. T. N. S. 467. 6 Alexander v. Burchfield (1842), 7 M. & Gr. 1061. sentment. Reason able time for presentment. special circumstances,1 be forwarded for presentment on the day after it is received, and the agent to whom it is forwarded must, in like manner, present it or forward it on the day after he receives it.2 Explanation. In computing time non-business days must be excluded.3 Exception. When a cheque is crossed, and the party sought to be charged himself made the crossing, or assented thereto, any delay caused by presenting the cheque pursuant to such crossing is excused.* ILLUSTRATIONS. 1. C., in London, receives a cheque drawn on a London banker on Monday. On Tuesday, instead of presenting it himself he pays it in to his bankers who present on Wednesday. C. has not presented the cheque within a reasonable time. Aliter, it seems, if the cheque was crossed when C. received it.3 2. C., on Monday, in London, receives a cheque drawn on a Jersey bank. On Tuesday C. pays it in to a London bank. The London bank on the same day forward it by post direct to the Jersey bank requesting payment. C. has duly presented the cheque. 6 NOTE. The result of the cases seems to be this. A party who receives a cheque has a clear day for presenting or forwarding it. If, instead of presenting it himself he forwards it to someone else to present the question is, was he acting reasonably in so doing. A principal of course is responsible to third parties for the act of his agents, e.g., if a person forwards a cheque to an agent, and the agent instead of presenting it himself unreasonably forwards it to another agent the loss as regards third parties falls on the principal, though he may have a remedy over against his agent. The question whether a cheque has been presented within a reasonable time may arise between drawer and holder, or between indorser and indorsee, 1 Cf. Arts. 169, 201, excuses for delay, and Firth v. Brooks (1861), 4 L. T. N. S. 467. 2 Hare v. Henty (1861), 30 L. R. C. P. 302; Prideaux v. Criddle (1869), 4 L. R. Q. B. 455. 3 Cf. 34 & 35 Vict. c. 17, and Arts. 20, 195, 196. 4 Cf. Alexander v. Burchfield (1842), 7 M. & Gr. at 1067. Since this case the crossing of cheques has received legislative sanction. See Art. 265. 5 Id. Heywood v. Pickering (1874), 9 L. R. Q. B. 428. 2 able time for pre or between transferor by delivery and transferee, or between Reasoncustomer and banker. In each case it must be determined as between the particular parties. See a different standard of reasonable time as between vendor and vendee where the vendor of goods was paid by the cheque of the vendee's agent.3 sentment. ment to drawer. Art. 258. The drawer of a cheque is not dis- Presentcharged by the holder's omission to present it for charge payment within a reasonable time as defined by Art. 257, unless the drawer has suffered actual damage through the delay.* ILLUSTRATIONS. 1. A. draws a cheque in favour of C. in 1870. It is presented for payment in 1872, and dishonoured. No reason for the delay is shown. A. is not discharged. The holder can sue him.5 2. A cheque drawn by A. on a London bank is hauded to the payee in London on Monday. On Wednesday morning the bank on which it is drawn stops payment, A. having at that time funds there sufficient to meet it. The cheque is presented on Wednesday afternoon. A. is discharged. Explanation. When a cheque is not presented within a reasonable time of its issue, and the drawer sustains actual damage through the delay, it is (probably). no excuse that such delay was caused by the bona fide negotiation of the cheque through different hands." 8 NOTE.-In Laws v. Rand (1857), it is suggested that the omission to present a cheque within six years of its issue would in any 1 See e.g., Moule v. Brown (1838), 4 Bing. N. C. 266. 2 See e.g., Hare v. Henty (1861), 30 L. J. C. P. 302. 3 Hopkins v. Ware (1869), 4 L. R. Ex. 268. 4 Alexander v. Burchfield (1842), 7 M. & Gr. 1061; Robinson v. Hawksford (1846), 9 Q. B. 52; Laws v. Rand (1857), 27 L. J. C. P. 76; Bailey v. Bodenham (1864), 33 L. J. C. P. 253; Heywood v. Pickering (1874), 9 L. R. Q. B. at 432. 5 Laws v. Rand (1857), 27 L. J. C. P. 76. 6 Alexander v. Burchfield (1842), 7 M. & Gr. 1061. 7 Byles, 10th ed., p. 21; Daniel, § 1595; see Art. 254 n.; but Cf. Bailey v. Bodenham (1864), 33 L. J. C. P. 253, where, however, the point was not argued and the drawer was held to be discharged on another ground. 8 27 L. J. C. P. 76; Cf. Pott v. Clegg (1847), 16 M. & W. 321, for a reason. Р |