in the name of both (a). An infant may sue on a bill or note drawn, made, or indorsed in his favour (b). women. A married woman cannot bind herself by drawing, accepting, Married or indorsing bills or notes, without authority from her husband (c). Where, however, she is treated as a feme sole, as where she is separated from her husband, or has obtained a judicial separation, or is divorced from her husband, or has a separate maintenance, she may bind herself by bills or notes (d). Where a feme sole has become liable on a bill or note, if she Liability of marries the husband becomes responsible upon it, and must be sued jointly with her (e). And when a bill or note is payable to a feme sole, if she marries it becomes her husband's property, and she cannot indorse it over while she is covert, except as agent to her husband (ƒ). The husband may both negotiate it and sue upon it, in the joint names of himself and his wife (g). the husband for bill made by a feme sole before mar riage. Mutual partners for liability of bills, unless they are unnecessary for In all partnerships for trading purposes each partner is Partners. presumed by law to have authority to draw, make, indorse, or accept bills and notes in the name of the firm for partnership affairs (h). The mutual authority of partners to bind each other by bills and notes is, however, limited to partnerships for trading purposes. Partners not in trade have no authority as regards third persons, to bind the firm by bills and notes (). Thus, unless it can be shown that it is necessary, or that it is usual, the members of a mining (k), farming concern (), or attorneys acting as partners, cannot bind the rest by drawing or accepting bills (m). But in all cases where this mutual authority is presumed to exist, any private stipula (a) Burgess v. Merill, 4 Taunt. 468; Glossop v. Coleman, 1 Stark. 25. (b) Warwick v. Bruce, 2 M. & S. 205; Holliday v. Atkinson, 5 B. & C. 501; Teed v. Elworth, 14 East, 210. (c) Marshall v. Rutton, 8 T. R. 545; Barlow v. Bishop, 1 East, 432; Cotes v. Davis, 1 Camp. 485. (d) Marshall v., Rutton, 8 T. R. 545; Lewis v. Lee, 3 B. & C. 291; Hulme v. Tenant, 9 Ves. 189; Stewart v. Lord Kirkwall, 3 Madd. 387. (e) Mitchinson v. Hewson, 7 T. R. 348. (f) Rawlinson v. Stone, 3 Wils. 5; Barlow v. Bishop, 1 East, 432. (g) M'Nerlage v. Holloway, 1 B. & Ald. 218; Sherrington v. Yates, 12 M. & W. 861. (h) Mason v. Rumsey, 1 Camp. 384; Headley v. Bainbridge, 3 Q. B. 316; Bramah v. Roberts, 3 Bing. N. C. 963. (i) Headley v. Bainbridge, 3 Q. B. 321. (7) Greenslade v. Dower, 7 B. & C. (m) Levy v. Pyne, C. & M. 423. the business. To be binding on partners, the bill must be signed in the name of the firm. Joint-stock companies. tion in the deed that one partner shall not draw, indorse, or accept bills for the firm will not affect third persons, except such as had special notice of such limitation (a). In order that a partner may bind the firm by his signature in a bill or note, he must sign it in the name of the firm. Where one of two partners signs a bill in his own name, the partnership is not bound, though the proceeds were carried to the partnership account (b). Where, however, the name of the individual partners is that of the firm, the signature must be taken as that of the firm (c). And where a partner indorses a bill or note in a name differing from that of the partnership, the firm is not responsible, unless the name, though inaccurate, yet substantially describes the firm, or there be evidence of the consent of the firm to such variation (d). And where a person not a partner accepts a bill drawn on the partnership, and in its name, he may, by making others believe that he is a partner, acquire a personal liability on the bill so accepted (e). Joint Stock Companies.-The directors or members of jointstock companies, unless expressly authorised by the charter of incorporation or by the deed, have no power to bind the company by bills or notes. That joint-stock companies may be bound by bills or notes, the same must be signed by some persons acting under the express or implied authority of the Bills signed by company. Bills drawn or accepted by directors of joint-stock directors on behalf of com- companies must be drawn and accepted by and in the names pany binding on the comof the directors, and by them expressed to be on behalf of the pany. company (ƒ). When the company is trading with limited liability, the officers signing the bills or notes in behalf of the company must add the word "limited" after the Banking com- name (g). Banking companies of more than six persons, carpanies. rying on the business of banking in London, or within sixtyfive miles thereof, may draw, accept, or indorse bills not being payable on demand (h). Banking companies residing at a Issue of bank notes payable on demand. (a) Lord Galway v. Mathew, 10 East, (c) South Carolina Bank v. Case, 8 (d) Williamson v. Johnson, 1 B. & C. 146; Faith v. Richmond, 11 A. & E. 339; Kirk v. Blurton, 9 M. & W (e) Gurney v. Evans, 3 H. & N. 122. 165; greater distance than sixty-five miles from London, may issue their notes, payable on demand, at the place where they are issued, and also in London, or at any other place at which such bill or note is made payable for the sum of £5 or upwards, but such bill or note cannot be re-issued in London, or within sixty-five miles thereof (a). Banking companies of six or fewer than six persons, existing under the Act of 1824, as banks of issue, may issue notes for any sum not less than £5, payable to bearer on demand, or to order, not exceeding seven days' sight or twenty-one days' date, on unstamped paper, except within the City of London, or three miles thereof (b). Corporations. The right of corporations other than banking Corporations. corporations to draw, accept, or indorse bills or notes, depends on the terms of the charter under which they are constituted. Where no provision exists to that effect, if the nature of their constitution is such as to render the drawing of bills necessary for the purpose of the corporation, then it would be implied that they possessed authority to do those acts without which the corporation could not exist (c). A general power to transact all matters requisite for the management of the affairs of the corporation would not imply the power to make or indorse bills or notes (d). A person may draw, accept, or indorse bills or notes by his Agents. agent or attorney. The power of an agent to draw, accept, or indorse bills or notes so as to charge his principal, may result from some general or implied authority, or from a clear and distinct evidence of his assent or acquiescence (e). But a power to transact all business does not authorise the agent to negotiate bills or to indorse them on account of the principal; nor does an authority to draw import in itself an authority to indorse bills or notes (ƒ). An agent acting with a limited authority, and for a particular Agent acting (a) 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 98, s. 2. (b) 9 Geo. 4, c. 23, s. 1; 20 & 21 Vict. c. 49; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 32, ss. 10 -12. (c) Harmer v. Steele, 4 Exch. 1; 14 M. & W. 831. (d) Mayor of Ludlow v. Charlton, 6 M. & W. 821. (e) Saunderson v. Griffith, 5 B. & C. 915. (f) Fearn v. Filica, 7 M. & G. 513; Murray v. East India Company, 5 B. & Ald. 204; Higg v. Smith, 1 Taunt. 347; Robinson v. Yarrow, 7 Taunt. 457; Lee v. Zagury, 8 Taunt. 114. with limited authority cannot bind principal by bill. How an agent should sign. Aliens. purpose, has no authority to bind the principal by bills or notes. That an agent may not contract a personal liability on the bill An agent signing on behalf of a company trading with limited liability, must add the word "limited" after the name of the company, in default of which he becomes liable to a penalty of £50, and personally liable for the amount of the bill unless the same is duly paid by the company (g). An alien enemy could not acquire in a transfer a valid right by bill or note. But though the right of an alien enemy during war to sue on a bill or note is suspended, it would revive on the restoration of peace (h). An alien friend has the same right to make, accept, draw, or indorse a bill or note as a native-born subject. A neutral may enforce the payment of bills and notes though Neutrals. given to him in an enemy's country (a). Persons in holy orders may be parties to bills and notes, Ecclesiastics. though they are prohibited from trading (b). A bill or note drawn, made, or indorsed by an imbecile or a Imbeciles. lunatic, or by a person in a complete state of intoxication, can not be enforced (c). FOREIGN LAWS. France. All persons legally competent to contract may be parties to a bill of exchange. Bills of exchange signed by married women, and by single women who are not traders, have no other force than as simple promises. Bills signed by minors not traders, are void as against them (d). Bills signed by non-traders are equivalent to simple promises. sponsibility bills. Who may be parties to bills. Germany.-Everyone who can bind himself by contract may Extent of rebe a party to a bill of exchange. The obligee of a bill is respon- contracted by sible in his person and property for the fulfilment of his obligation, though there are exceptions in different States, upon the liability of various classes of persons to imprisonment for debt (e). Russia.-Every person who is not legally disqualified to contract may bind himself by bills. Married females, and women not separated from their parents, cannot bind themselves by bills without the permission of their husband or of their parents. The parties authorised by law to engage in bills are merchants of the three classes, gentlemen registered in the corporation or guild of merchants, foreign merchants, burgesses, or foreigners belonging to guilds of different crafts in the metropolis, and peasants trading under a patent (ƒ). non-traders. Spain. Where neither the drawer, acceptor, or indorsee of a Bills issued by bill of exchange is a merchant, the obligation contracted is governed only by the civil law, and the parties are under the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals. If, however, it be proved that (a) Houriet v. Morris, 3 Camp. 303. (b) Hankey v. Jones, Cowp. 745; Ex parte Meymot, Atk. 196; 57 Geo. 3, c. 59; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 29. (c) Alcock v. Alcock, 3 M. & G. 268; Molton v. Camroux, 4 Exch. 17; eavan v. M'Donnell, Exch. 309; Campbell v. Hooper, 24 L. J. Ch. 644. (d) French Code de Commerce, $$ 113, 114. (e) German Law on Bills of Exchange, §§ 1, 2. (f) Russian Code, § 299. |