The right of using summary execution was afterwards extended to inland bills by the act 1696, c. 36., which enacts, "That the same execution shall be competent, and "proceed upon inland bills and precepts, as is provided "(by the said act) to pass upon foreign bills of exchange," and "which act is hereby extended to inland bills and pre"cepts in all points." Inland bills have, since the date of this last act, possessed in Scotland all the privileges allowed to foreign bills. On this principle, the Court', after taking the report of merchants as to the practice, decided, in an early case, that separate payments of such a bill, not appearing on the face of it, could not be pleaded against an onerous indorsee. And again, in the case of an inland bill between two parties only, (though it was pleaded that such a document could not be considered as granted in re mercatoria, but merely as a security for debt,) the Court, after a full discussion, held, that it was privileged as a bill, insomuch that an onerous indorsee was not liable to a plea of compensation competent against the original drawer.

Promissory-notes in Scotland were not at first allowed almost any of the privileges of bills. Thus, the Court found, that a promissory-note had not the privileges of a bill, either as to exemption from the solemnities required in writs, or as to summary execution; but they appointed parties to be heard on the question whether it was holograph of the granter. In a previous case 4, they had refused to sustain a note for L.26 (Scots ?) as holograph, in respect that the sum was filled up by a different hand. The privilege of summary diligence was also refused to such notes 5. In

1 Fairholm v. Cockburn, 24th June 1714, Morr. 1506.

? Tudhope v. Turnbull, 18th June 1748, Morr. 1437, and 1510.

* Arbuthnot v. Scott, 29th Jan. 1708, Morr. 12255.

Heriot v. Blyth, Nov. 1681, Morr, 17020.

5 King v. Eisdale, Morr. 12256.

one case, where the indorsee of a note was met by compensation on a debt due to the granter by the original payee', the defence, according to one report, was sustained; and even, according to another report, which bears that it was repelled, the judgment proceeded on the ground of the note having been granted in London, and falling, therefore, under the English act of 3. and 4. Anne, c. 9., which gives to promissorynotes all the privileges of bills. It was decided in another case 3, that the indorsation of a promissory-note, blank in the date, and not intimated, must be postponed to an arrestment laid in the hands of the granter by a creditor of the original payee. With regard to recourse by the indorsee of such a note against the indorser, it was decided in one case 4, that the indorsee was entitled to it, though there had been such a want of due negociation as would have cut off recourse upon a bill, it being "the opinion of the Court that "promissory-notes did not require exact negociation." In a later case, the Court adopted a different view of the matter, but one still more hostile to the privileges of such documents; for, while they admitted that promissory-notes, being in re mercatoria, were now to be considered as probative without the statutory solemnities, yet they held that the privilege of recourse upon them could not be given without a statute. But the act 12 Geo. III. c. 72, § 36. (made perpetual by 23 Geo. III. c. 18, § 55.) put an end to all these questions, by enacting, that "the same diligence and execution shall "be competent, and shall proceed upon promissory-notes, "whether holograph or not, as is provided to pass upon "bills of exchange and inland bills by the law of Scotland;

1 Bundie v. Kennedy, 12th Feb. 1708, Morr. 12256.

2 Pleadings in King v. Eisdale, before cited.

3 Gordon v. Forbes and Innes, 2d Feb. 1739, Morr. 712, and 12258; and More v. Paxton, 9th Dec. 1766, Morr. 12259.

4 Gellenders v. Birtwhistle, 17th July 1766, Morr. 12258.

5 Greig v. Green, 25th Jan. 1771, Morr. 12259.

"and that promissory-notes shall bear interest as bills, " and shall pass by indorsation; and that indorsees of pro"missory-notes shall have the same privileges as indorsees "of bills in all points." Promissory-notes are now therefore altogether in the same situation with bills of exchange. In England, even foreign bills were, till a comparatively recent period, confined to transactions between merchants. It is a singular fact in the history of that great commercial country, that so late as the 1st of William and Mary, it was sustained as a defence by the Court of King's Bench, against an action on a bill of exchange drawn in France, that the defendant was a gentleman, and could not, therefore, be bound by such a document, seeing bills were mercantile documents'. The judgment, however, was reversed in the Exchequer Chamber on a writ of error; and it was there found that foreign bills were binding generally on all classes. Inland bills, likewise, came gradually to acquire in England the same privileges with foreign bills, although a distinction is still made between them as to some of the measures necessary for recovering payment and preserving recourse. On this subject the 9 and 10 Will. III. c. 17, and the 3 and 4 Ann, c. 9, § 4, &c. contain certain provisions respecting inland bills, which shall be afterwards noticed. The last-mentioned act, § 1, 2, likewise makes promissory-notes indorsable in the same manner as inland bills of exchange, and confers on them the same privileges and the same remedies for recovery of payment which are competent by law upon inland bills. It has been found, in a recent case, that this act of Anne, being general in its application to all promissory-notes, confers on a promissory-note made in Scotland the same privileges as on a note made in England. Bills, therefore, whether foreign or inland, and promissory

1 Sarsfield v. Witherly, Carthew, 82.

2 Milne v. Graham, 1 Barnew and Cressw. 192, 2 Dowl. and Ryl. 293.

notes, are now on the same footing in England as well as in Scotland with regard to their general requisites and privileges, and most of the rules which apply to the one are applicable to the other.

In the present Chapter we shall consider,

I. Certain qualities and requisites connected with the general nature of bills or notes, and the purposes to which they are applicable.

II. The qualities essential to their form and constitution, and the rules according to which they are construed and receive effect.

III. Their completion by delivery, its consequences, and the obligations arising from it.

IV. The effect of alterations made on bills or notes before or after delivery, with reference to their obligatory force, whether at common law, or under the stamp acts.

Having thus discussed the general requisites and qualities of bills and notes, we shall examine shortly,

V. The leading peculiarities of those documents which fall under the several descriptions of bank-notes, bankers' notes, and drafts or checks on bankers.

I-1. No particular form of words is necessary to constitute a bill or note; it is enough if its purport be clearly expressed.

It is said, that, in one case ', even an indorsement on a bond was held to be a good bill for its contents; the bond itself, to which the indorsement referred, supplying what was necessary to complete its meaning.

In England, it has been held that an order " to deliver" a certain sum would constitute a good bill, and that a written

1 Alison v. Crawford, cited in Thoirs v. Fraser, Morr. 1470. 2 Per C. J. in Morris v. Lee, 2 Lord Raym. Rep. 1397.

promise to be "accountable "" or "responsible "" for a certain sum to a party or his order, or a promise that he or his order should receive 3 "a hundred pounds," would be a good promissory-note. But it has been decided 4, that a mere acknowledgment of debt, without a promise to pay, is not a bill or note.

It is indeed said, that, in a case 5 eight years previous to the case last cited, it was held at Nisi Prius that such an acknowledgment, being in reality a promissory-note, could not be received in evidence of a set-off, in respect that it was not stamped as a note. But this precedent would not probably be now followed. In Scotland, where promissorynotes, as well as bills, form the ground of summary diligence, the promise to pay must be express, and must not be left to depend on inference.

It has been held in England, that a note acknowledging to have borrowed a certain sum, "which I promise never "to pay," is a good promissory-note, and that documents in the form of bills, which were addressed to the drawees thus, "At (instead of To) Messrs John "Morson and Co. ";" or "At (instead of To) John "Perring and Coy.'s 8," were, notwithstanding, valid bills, and afforded good ground of action against the drawers. In Scotland, where the use of summary diligence on bills and notes renders it necessary to construe them according to their obvious meaning, the promissory

1 Per C. J. in Morris v. Lee, 2 Lord Raym. Rep. 1397.

2 Per Reynolds J. (S. C.) 8 Modern Rep. 364.

3 Per Fortescue J. (S. C.) 8 Modern Rep. 364. Vide farther on this subject, Chadwick v. Allen, 2 Str. 706; Ruff v. Webb, 1 Esp. C. N. P. 426; Cashbourn v. Dutton, Selwyn's N. P. 378, 5th edit.; Popplewell v. Wilson, 1 Str. 263.

4 Fisher v. Leslie, 1 Espinasse 426; Israel v. Israel, 1 Campb. 499.

5 Guy v. Harris, Bayley, 5, Chitty, 335.

6 Per Lord Hardwicke, in Simpson v. Vaughan, 2 Atkins 32.

7 Shuttleworth v. Stephens, 1 Camph. 407.

8 Allan v. Mawson, 4 Campb. 115.