Subject_1 BILL OF EXCHANGE. Subject_2 DIVISION II.
The Porteur's Action against the Person upon whom the Bill is Drawn.
Subject_3 SECT. I.
Of Bills not Accepted.
Jamieson v. Gillespie
Date: 28 June 1749 Case No. No 83.
Found, that a bill need not be protested for not acceptance, before the last day of grace.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
It has been found, that a bill payable at usances, need not be presented for acceptance sooner than the term of payment. It has also been found, that, when the term of payment comes, it must be that very day presented for acceptance; for, that notwithstanding there are days of grace for payment, there are none for acceptance: And, no longer ago than 6th July 1743, Ramsay against Hogg, (infra h. t. Div. 4. Sec. 2.) where the species facti was of a bill drawn, payable at London forty days after date, not protested by the indorsee till the day after expiry of the three days of grace; when, at one and the same time, it was protested for not-acceptance, and for not payment: The Lords willing, it would seem, to avoid determining the question, Whether it was sufficient to protest the next day after the days of grace; (a question that is at present in dependence in another case,*) found in the words following:
“That, in respect it was not alleged, that the practice with respect to bills of exchange in London, differs from the practice in this country; which is, That bills must be protested for not acceptance, on or before the day of payment; the pursuer could have no recourse.” And, in the terms of that decision, the Ordinary, in the present case, found, “That the bill not having been presented for acceptance, on or before the day of payment, nor earlier than the last day of grace; when, once for all, it was protested for not payment; the bill was not duly negotiated, and that no recourse lay.”
But the pursuer having reclaimed, the Lords doubted, whether the practice of merchants, even in this country, was such as had been taken for granted in the case of Ramsay and Hogg; and the merchants of Edinburgh, to whom the Lords recommended to give their opinion, declared that the bill in question was duly negotiated, by presenting the same for payment, and protesting for want of
* See Div. 4. Sec. 2.
it on the last day of grace; and that there was no necessity for previously presenting for acceptance, and protesting for want of it on or before the day of payment; with whom the merchants of London also agreed.
The Lords, therefore, receded from the judgment they had given in 1743, in the case of Ramsay and Hogg, and found, ‘It was sufficient to protest the bill for not payment, within the days of grace; and repelled the defence of not duly negotiated, for not having presented the bill for acceptance when the same became due.’ See This case by D. Falconer, Div. 4. Sec. 2.