Leading Cases in the Commercial Law of England and Scotland

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1854 edition. Excerpt: ...in not communicating to him that they had been induced to take the bills upon the representation made to them of his promise to accept, (such acceptance not appearing upon the bills themselves.) If they had done so it would have enabled the defendant to have explained to them how the transaction stood. Or had he even known the fact of such representation having been made, (the contrary of which he had reason to collect from Woodward's subsequent letter to him, advising him to refuse to accept the bills when presented, ) the defendant might have resisted the foreign attachment sued out by the Parrys. LAWRENCE, J.--The defendant must at least have known from Wo0dward's letter that the bills were negotiated out of his hands. Scarlett in Reply.-The circumstance of the plaintiffs not presenting the bills for acceptance, rather shows that they considered them to have been already accepted. Pillans v. Van Mierop, 3 Burr. 1663, is decisive that an engagement to accept is an acceptance in law; and Wilkinson v. Lutwidge, 1 Stra. 648, there cited by Yates, J., shows that such acceptance may be by collateral writing. And this is recognised by the very'exception made by the Statue of Anne as to costs. Then if it were such an acceptance as was binding between the parties at the time when it was given, it was necessarily transferred with the bills. If indeed Woodward had passed the bills after sending the letter to the defendant discharging his acceptances, that would have been a fraud upon him, and would not have bound him as acceptor: because while Woodward was the holder he might legally give such discharge, but after he had negotiated the bills, any discharge by him was inoperative. N o laches can be imputed to the plaintiffs for want of...