brought upon it, even by an innocent indorsce for a valuable consideration. Master v. Miller. 4 Term Rep. 320. (Affirmed in Cam, Scac. 5 Term Rep. 367: 2 H. Black. 141. 1 Anst, 225. See BANKRUPT II.) 4 A bill was drawn on a proper stamp, dated 2d of September, payaable 21 days after date; it was afterwards altered and made payable 31 days after date; and on the 30th of September was again altered to 21 days after date, and the date brought forward to the 14th of September ; held, that the bill should have had a new stamp, though the alterations were made with the consent of the acceptor before the bill was negotiated. Bowman v. Nicholl. Rep. 537. 5 T. 5 A promissory note for 100l. payable to plaintiff, or order, and originally expressed to be for value received, generally, being altered the next day, upon the suggestion of one of the parties, by the addition of the words, for the good will of the lease and trade of Mr. K. deceased, requires a new stamp; such words being material, and not having been originally intended to be inserted, and omitted by mistake. Knill v. Williams. 10 East, 431. X. Void, illegal, or unproductive. (And see 1 East, 92, and 4 East, 55, tit. USURY; and 2 Bos. & Pull. 180, tit. WAGER.) If a draft or bill given in payment of a debt be dishonoured, the party receiving it may consider it as a nulity, and act accordingly. Puckford v. Maxwell. 6 Term Rep. 52. 24. wishing to send goods to B. at X. employed C. to carry and deliver them to B., and engaged to pay C. for the freight; C. on delivering them according to the order, took a bill of exchange from B. drawn on A., which bill was never paid; held that . was liable to pay the amount of the freight to C. notwithstanding the bill of exchange. Tap 3 4 5 ley v. Martens. 8 Term Rep. 45i. If the seller of goods take notes or bills for them, without agreeing to run the risk of the notes being paid, and the notes turn out to be worth nothing, this will not be considered as payment. Owenson v. Morse. 7 Term Rep. 64. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Plaintiff (below) proved, that having sold goods to the defendant, he received from him a check upon J. S. a banker, directing the latter, two months after date, to pay to the plaintiff a bill at two months for the amount of the goods; that the plaintiff and defendant both kept accounts with J. S. and the check was indorsed by the plaintiff, and paid by him into the banking house of J. S., who entered it short in the plaintiff's account; that on the 18th of March 1793, J. S. became bankrupt; that between the payment of the check into the house of J. S. and the bankruptcy of J. S., no settlement of accounts between the plaintiff and J. S. had taken place, nor was the amount of the check ever carried out as cash, though in that interval plaintiff had overdrawn his account. The defendant offered to prove that between the payment of the check into the house of J. S. and the bankruptcy of J. S. the accuunt between him and J. S. was settled, at which time he was debited for the whole amount of the cheek, and credited for interest thereon from the day of settlement to the day when the bill, mentioned in the cheek, if drawn, would have become due. Held, 1st. that the check did not, under all the circumstances, amount to pay ment for the goods; 2dly, that the evidence offered by the defendant was not admissible. Brown v. Kewley, (in error.) In Cam. Seac. 1 Bos. & Pull. 518. Where the drawers of a banker's check or inland bill of exchange issued it nine months after it bore date, upon a consideration which af terwards failed, as between them and the persons to whom they delivered it, they cannot be permitted to object this circumstance in an action brought by a subsequent holder for a valuable consideration, and without notice; though by the general rule, any person receiving a negotiable instrument after it is due is deemed to have taken it upon the credit of the person from whom he received it, and subject to the same equities as between him and the party sued on such instrument. Boehm v. Sterling. 7 Term Reports, 423. 6 In an action by an indorsee of a bill of exchange against the acceptor, the latter may call the payee as a witnees to prove that the bill was void in its creation. Jordaine v. Lashbrook. Term Rep. 601. A. being employed as a broker for B. in stock-jobbing transactions, paid the differences for him; a dispute arising between them respecting the amount of A.'s demand, the matter was referred to C., who awarded 3061. to be due; on which A. drew on B. for 100l., part of the above, and indorsed the bill to C. after B. had accepted it; held that C. could not recover on the bill, for the bill itself was given for the illegal demand, and C. was privy to it. Steers v. Lashley. 6 Term Rep. 61. And see Brown v. Turner. 7 Term Rep. 630. 8 No action can be maintained by the plaintiff on a note given to him by the defendant as an apprentice-fee with his son, who was to be bound to the plaintiff, if it appeared that the indenture executed was void by the stat. 8 Ann. c. 9, for want of the insertion of such premium therein, and a proper stamp in respect of the same; although the plaintiff did in fact maintain the apprentice for some time, and until he absconded. Jackson v. Warwick. 7 Term Rep. 121. 9 A. a merchant in London draws a bill of exchange on B. at Pisa, pay able to the order of C. a French mer chant resident in France; C. indorses it to D. of Nice, and D. to E. at Leghorn; the bill not being paid when due, E. draws another bill for the amount of the former on A. in favour of F. of Leghorn, which is indorsed to G. a merchant in London, in the course of trade, and aecepted by A. The stat. 34 G. 3, c. 9, s. 4, prevents G. from maintaining an action on the latter bill against A.; and if such action be brought, the court will stay the proceedings. Bendelack v. Morrier. 2 H. Black. 338. 10 A. in England draws a bill of exchange on B. in a foreign country, which, after having been negotiated through another foreign country, is presented to B. who refuses to pay it, on account of the law of the country in which he resides having prohibited such payment; the drawer is liable for the whole amount of the re-exchange between the different countries. Mellish v. Simeon. 2 H. Black. 378. (And see ante II.) 11 A warrant was directed to an officer of excise by the commissioners, commanding him to apprehend a person convicted in several penalties and take him to prison, and keep him there until the amount of the penalties was paid; the officer having arrested the party, discharged him on a promissory note for the amount of the penalties payable at a future day; and the commissioners afterwards approved of his conduct; held that the discharge was a good consideration for the note, and that an action might be maintained thereon. Pil kington v. Green. 2 Bos. & Pull. 151. 12 If a promissory note be given without any consideration, it is a nudum pactum, and void as between the parties. Fowler v. Shearer. 7 Mass. 14. 13 The land of A. was advertised for sale by the sheriff, on an execu tion against A. at the suit of B. C., 16 who had purchased the land without knowing of the judgment and execution, agreed with B., who attended the sale, that if he would not bid against him, he would pay B. the amount of his execution, and give him his note for the further sum of 150 dollars, and B. acceded to the terms and desisted from bidding. In an action on the note, against C. by the second indorsee, to whom it had been negotiated after it had become due, and with a knowledge of the circumstances under which it was given, it was held, that the consideration of the note might be inquired into, and that the consideration being unconscientious, and against public policy, the note was void. Jones v. Caswell. Johns. Cas. 29. 3 14 Where A. made a note, payable to B. who indorsed it merely for the accommodation of A., who passed the note to C. to raise money on it, by having the same discounted in the market, and C. discounted the note at a premium of 3-4ths per cent. per month, and after deducting the discount, applied the proceeds to the payment of money lent by him to A. and, afterwards, in the course of his business, passed the note to D. who brought an action against B. the first indorsor; it was held, that the note, though indorsed by B. for the accommodation of A. passed immediately from A. to C. and that the transaction, in its inception, was usurious, and the note, therefore, void. Wilkie v. Roosevelt. 3 Johns. Cas. 66. 15 Where, on the return of non est inventus, on the ca.. sa., against the principal in a suit, the bail gave a note for the amount of the judgment, which was afterwards, reversed on a writ of error, it was held, that as the bail were not fixed before the judgment was reversed, there was a failure of the consideration of the uote, and the plaintiff could not recover. Tappan v. Van Wagenen. 3 Johns. Rep. 465. Where the vendor of goods re ceives a promissory note of a third person, in payment, at his own risk, and there is a fraudulent representation on the part of the vendee, as to the note, the vendor may bring his action immediately against the vendee for goods sold and delivered. Wilson v. Foree. 6 Johns. Reports, 110. 17 Where A. as administrator of B. deceased, gave a promissory note to C. by which he "promised to pay C. 61 dollars and 72 cents. for value received by B. and his heirs, on demand, with interest until paid," the note was held to be void for want of consideration. Ten Eyck v. Vanderpoel. 8 Johns. Rep. 120. 18 Giving a promissory note is no payment of a book debt. It only suspends the right of action during the time allowed for the payment, by the note, and the note not having been paid, the plaintiff was held entitled to recover the amount of his book debt, with interest from the time the note was payable. Putnam v. Lewis. 8 Johns. Rep. 389. 19 Where a bet was laid after the poll was closed, on the event of the election of governour, and the party gave his negotiable note for the amount of the bet, payable in 30 days, which was deposited with a stake-holder and afterwards delivered to the winner, who indorsed it after it became due; it was held that the indorser took the note, subject to all the defence existing against it, in the hands of the orig inal payee, and that the note being given for such a wager, was void. Lansing v. Lansing. 8 Johns. Rep. 454. 20 A promissory note, given in consideration of the assignment of a patent right, which had been fraudulently obtained, was held void, although certain materials had been furnished, and certain instructions given, by the promissee to the promiser, in the act described in the patent. Bliss & al. v. Negus. Mass. 46. XI. Goldsmiths' Notes. 1 A goldsmith's note must be demanded the same day, or early the following morning. East India Company v. Chitty. 2 Strange, 1175. 2 A goldsmith's note left and cancelled, in order to receive the money, and a renewed note taken, upon a stop, the person taking it, liable for deficiency. Haward v. The Bank of England. 1 Str. 550. 3 A party presenting goldsmith's bills in the morning and calling in the afternoon for the money being usual, and payment stopped in the mean time, have recourse over to indorsers. Turner and Another v. Mead and Another. 1 Str. 416. 4 An acceptance to pay at a goldsmith's, must be tendered within the same time that a note must. Bishop v. Chitty. 2 Strange, 1195. 5 Within what time a goldsmith's note must be demanded, left to the jury. Hoar v. Dacosta. 2 Strange, 910. 6 If the party who receives a goldsmiths bill tenders it the next day, it is not his loss, if the goldsmiths fail. Moore v. Warren. 1 Strange, 415. Salk. 442. A person who does not demand a goldsmith's note in two days, takes the credit on himself. Manwaring v. Harrison. 1 Str. 508. XII. Bank Checks. i Bank checks are considered as inland bills of exchange, and may be declared on as such, or they may be given in evidence under the money counts. Cruger v. Armstrong and Barnwall. 3 Johns. Cas. 5. 2 The holder of such a check or bill is, prima facie, the rightful owner, and is not bound to prove a consideration, unless circumstances of suspicion appear. Ibid. 3 The holder of a check is bound to use due diligence in obtaining the. money of the bank, and must pre 8 Where a check was drawn in March, 1800, and was not presented until October following; and the drawer, after the date of the check, had drawn large sums from the bank, and payment was refused, because the drawer had no money when the check was presented; it was held that the drawer was liable, notwithstanding the delay in presenting as it did not appear that he had sustained any damages by the delay. Conroy v. Warren. 3 Johns. Cas. 259. Bank checks are not within the act of Congress (cong. 5, sess. 1, c. 1, s. 11,) of 6th July, 1797, laying a duty on stamped paper. Ib. 9 Where C. received a check on the bank, drawn by B. it was held, that in an action by C. against B. on the check, the consideration for which the check was given might be inquired into. The People v. Howell. 4 Johns. Rep. 296. 10 If a check, given in payment of a pre-existent debt, proves bad, the party giving the check in payment, remains liable for the original debt. Ibid. 11 Where a check purporting to be drawn by B. was presented by A. the agent of C. to the bank and paid; but the bank, afterwarde sus 2 3 Salic. 70. Fecit notam per quam promisit solvere, imports a siguing. Elliot v. Cowper. 1 Strange, 609. 2 L. Kayin. 1376. 3 Upon demurrer to a declaration on the following note, it was held to be a note within the statute; “I do acknowledge that Sir Andrew Chadwick has delivered me all the bonds and notes for which 400l. were paid him, on account of Colonel Synge; and that Sir Andrew delivered me Maj. Graham's receipt and bill on me for 10l. which 10l. and 15l. 5s. balance due to Sir Andrew I am still indebted, and do promise to pay. Judicium pro Quer. Chadwick v. Allen. 2 Str. 706. 4 A bill of exchange given upon an usurious contract is void in the hands of an indorsee, though for valuable consideration, and without notice of the usury. Lowe v. Waller. 2 Doug. 736. 5 Note of hand given to an infant, payable when he shall come of age, and specifying the particular day, is a good note within 3 and 4 Ann. e. 9, s. 1. Goss v. Nelson. 1 Burrow's. 226. A note, given fraudulently, to carry on a marriage treaty, shall be 7 9 good against the drawer, though given without any consideration. Montefiori v. Montefiori. 1 Blackstone, 363. A. and B. having exchanged their acceptances of bills drawn by each on the other at so many days' date; held that the delivery of the respective bills for acceptance, and the redelivery of the same by the acceptors to the respective drawers, was a negotiation of the bills; and that such bills could not, after they had been so exchanged for valuable consideration (as the exchange of acceptances is) for 20 days be post dated without a new stamp, as upon new bills; although during all that time each had remained in the hands of the original drawer. Cardwell v. Martin. 9 East, 190. Where after an assignment was made of all his estate by an insolvent debtor to trustees, for the benefit of all his creditors; and B. a debtor of the insolvent, purchased a promissory note of the insolvent after it was due, but the exact time was not stated, it was presumed to have been purchased after the assignment; for every presumption is to be made against the purchaser Johnson of a note after it is due. v. Bloodgood. 1 Johns. Cas. 51. A note of an insolvent debtor purchased after the assignment of all his estate to trustees, cannot be set off by the debtor of the insolvent against the debt for which a suit is brought by the assignees. Ib. 10 If an indorser of a promissory note pay it after the maker has been discharged under the insolvent act, he may recover the amount from the maker, whose discharge will be no bar to the action. Frost v. Carter. 1 Johns. Cas. 73. 11 In the case of bills of exchange and promissory notes time is computed by calendar, and not by lunar months. Leffingwell and Pierpoint v. White. 1 Johns. Cas. 99. 12 A proceeding against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, under a com |