BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND NOTES (METROPOLIS) BILL. (Hansard, 16 November 1852)

§ The EARL of DERBY
then moved the Second Reading of the Bill with respect to the presentation and payment of Bills falling due on Thursday next.

LORD CAMPBELL
said, that, entirely approving the Bill, he wished to make one observation with a view of removing some apprehensions which had been expressed with respect to it. It had been suggested that foreign acceptors and endorsers of bills might be released from their liabilities if the bills due on the 18th were presented on any other than the day on which they originally became due. He apprehended, however, that it was a maxim of modern law that that which was done in each country must be taken according to the law of that country. Now, the 17th inst. would be the day for the presentation of bills falling due in England on the 18th, according to the law of this country; and he thought, therefore that the acceptor and endorser would be as much liable if the bill were then presented as if it were presented on the 18th.

LORD TRURO
said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Bill; but he was afraid that some inconvenience might arise. There could be no doubt that the provisions of this Bill, by which bills falling due on the 18th instant might be presented the day previously, would be attended with no evil consequences in relation to British bills. Let them, however, take the case of bills drawn in foreign parts on British subjects. Suppose that one of these bills 166 was in the hands of a British subject, who had to look to the foreign endorser in default of the English acceptor, or suppose the English holder got payment from the foreign endorser, hut that endorser had to look to a prior endorser, and that that remedy had to be enforced in a foreign court —the effect of this Bill would be to alter the nature of the contract which had been made abroad between the parties to the bill. Now a bill of exchange drawn upon a British subject, so far as concerned a British subject, enured according to the British law. Although, however, the general principle of the law was that contracts depended on the law of the country where they were made, there was an exception. If a bill was drawn in one country upon the subject of another in that country, the law of the country where the bill was to be paid was that which regulated the liability of the acceptor. But in this case the foreign endorser had engaged that the acceptor should pay if the bill was presented according to the tenor of the bill; and it was very doubtful if the foreign courts would enforce the contract as altered by an ex post facto law in this country. He wished therefore to suggest that it would behave all holders of bills due on the 18th, whose bills were not paid on Wednesday, to present them again on Friday. Generally speaking, presentation was excused for a reasonable cause, and it had been held that, whore there was a physical restraint on the party holding the bill—such as riots on the day when the bill was duo —nonprcsentation on the day on which it fell due was excused, provided the bill was presented as soon as the physical restraint was withdrawn, and at the earliest practicable moment. Now the effect of this Bill was, if not to render the presentation of bills on the 18th instant unlawful on the day on which they fell due, at least to show that the Legislature intended they should not be presented on that day. That might not be considered equivalent to a restraint by force by the foreign courts. It was therefore important that holders of foreign bills falling due on Thursday should present them on Friday, as the earliest period possible after they fell due, in order to place themselves in the best possible situation,

LORD CAMPBELL
said, that he must express his confidence that the foreign endorsers and drawers were liable, according to what would be a good presentation by the law of England when that presentation had to be made. Now, as there were three 167 days of grace there was no necessity for a presentation on the day when the hill fell due; and, therefore, according to the law of England, the presentation would now he good either on the 17th or 19thinst.

LORD TRURO
said, he referred only to foreign contracts.

LORD BROUGHAM
said, that when two Judges gave opinions not exactly the same, he hoped they would not consider themselves hound by the opinions which they might there express, if the point was ever brought before them judicially.