payable at never so distant a day, if it is a day which must come, it is good. Per Willes, C. J. Colehan v. Cooke, Willes, 396. But by 17 Geo. 3. c. 30. bills and drafts under 51. must be payable within 21 days after date, ante, p.5; and see 7 G. 4. c. 6. ante p. 6. Checks upon bankers do not in general express the time at which they are to be paid, and are therefore payable immediately. Down v. Halling,

4 B. & C. 333. ante, p. 9.

With regard to the place of payment, a bill may be drawn payable (in the body of the bill) at a particular place, or in the direction to the drawee, as "To Mr. A. B. payable in London," and it has been held in both cases, that the qualification as to the place of payment is part of the contract. Hodge v. Fillis, 3 Campb. 463. Roche v. Campbell, 3 Camp. 247. Bayley, 310. But where a bill thus drawn is accepted generally, or accepted at a particular place, omitting the words only" or "and not otherwise or elsewhere" the qualification as to the place of payment will not be extended to the acceptance, and such acceptance will be construed to be a general acceptance under 1 & 2 G. 4. c. 78. Selby v. Eden, 3 Bingh. 611. Fayle v. Bird, 6 B. & C. 531. See post.

With regard to the place of payment a note may be made payable, (in the body of the note) at a particular place, and the place of payment will form part of the contract. Roche v. Campbell, 3 Campb. 247. Suunderson v. Bowes, 14 East, 500. But where the qualification as to the place of payment is written, not in the body of the note, but, by way of memorandum at the foot, it has been held to form no part of the contract; and that to state such a note as payable at a particular place is a variance. Exon v. Russell, 4 M. & S. 505. Price v. Mitchell, 4 Campb. 200. However, in an action against the maker of a note, who had written upon it "payable at No. 32, Castle Street," when it was averred that the defendant made the note, &c., and that he then and there (not saying thereby) made it payable at No. 32, Castle Street; Abbott, J. held that the memorandum supported the statement in the declaration, and the plaintiff had a verdict; Hardy v. Woodroffe, 2 Stark. 319; and the same point was ruled by him in Sproule v. Legg, 3 Stark. 156. So when the memorandum at the foot of the note was printed, Lord Ellenborough ruled, that it was part of the contract. Trecothick v. Edwin, 1 Stark. 468.

As to specifying the place of payment of notes payable on demand under 201. see 7 G. 4. c. 6. s. 10., and of bills and notes drawn by banking establishments, exceeding six in number, 65 miles from London; see 7 G. 4. c. 6. s. 1. ante, p. 6, and Appendix, No. 3.

Payable to order] It is not, as already stated, ante, p. 23,

essential to the character of a bill or note, that it should be made payable to order. Smith v. Kendall, 6 T. R. 123. But in order to make a bill or note negotiable, it must be payable to a certain person or order, or to a certain person or bearer, or to bearer generally. Where the words "or order" have clearly been omitted by mistake, they may be inserted at any time without a new stamp. Kershaw v. Cox, 3 Esp. 246. Knill v. Williams, 10 East, 437. and see post, p. 39. (Note 6).

Value received.] The words "value received" are not material to be inserted in a bill or note; White v. Ledwich, Bayley, 34. Popplewell v. Wilson, 1 Str. 264; and if inserted in the bill or note it is no variance to omit them in the declaration. Per Ld. Ellenborough, Grant v. Da Costa, 3 M. & S. 35. So where the consideration of a bill or note appears on the face of it, is not necessary to state it in the declaration. Coombs v. Ingrum, 4 D. & R. 211. Where a bill is drawn payable to the order of a third person "for value received," it is not a variance to state in the declaration that it was for value received by the drawer. Grant v. Da Costa, 3 M. & S.351. But where a bill is drawn payable to the drawer's own order "for value received" it means value received by the drawee from the drawer. Highmore v. Primrose, 5 M. & S. 65. Priddy v. Henbrey, 1 B. & C. 675. So "value received," in a note, imports "value received from the payee." Clayton v. Goslin, 5 B. & C. 360. If the words "value received" appear on the face of a note, an action of debt may be maintained against the maker by the payee. Bishop v. Young, 2 B. & P. 78. So if those words appear on a bill of exchange payable to the order of the drawer, debt may be supported by the drawer, against the acceptor. Priddy v. Henbrey, 1 B. & C. 674. 3 D. & R. 165. S. C. Coal notes should be expressed to be for value received in coals; see ante, p. 10.

When a promissory note originally expressed to be "for value received" generally, was altered the next day on the suggestion of one of the parties, by adding the words " "for the good will of the lease and trade of Mr. E. K. deceased," it was held to require a new stamp, such words being material as evidence of a fact, and not having been originally intended to be inserted, nor omitted by mistake. Knill v. Williams, 10 East, 431. It is no variance to state a note " for value received in Mrs. L's estate" as a note "for value received" generally. Bond v. Stockdale, 7 D. & R. 140.

Stamp.] The stamps with regard to bills of exchange and promissory notes are regulated by the statute 55 Geo. 3. c. 184. (see Appendix, No. 6.) which (sec. 8.) contains a clause referring to and embodying all the powers, provisions, clauses,

regulations, directions, fines, forfeitures, pains and penalties, contained in and imposed by the several prior acts of parliament relating to the stamp duties. As to the stamp on banker's notes under 51. see 7 Geo. 4. c. 6. ante, p. 6. and Appendix, No. 3. Bankers' bills and notes above 5l. may be issued unstamped on paying a composition, by 9 Geo. 4. c. 23. (See Appendix, No. 5.)

A promissory note for 401. payable to bearer generally, and therefore in law payable on demand, is within the first class of promissory notes, in schedule, part 1, 55 G. 3. c. 184. and requires a 5s. stamp. Whitlock v. Underwood, 2 B. & C. 157. And a note for 11. payable to A. B. on demand, is also within the first class of promissory notes mentioned in the statute, schedule part 1. and requires a stamp of two shillings. Keates v. Wheldon, 8 B. & C. 7.

A bill payable to the drawer's own order and taken up by him, when due, and re-issued, does not require a fresh stamp, for it is not a new bill. Callow v. Lawrence, 3 M. & S. 95.

Stamp-penalties.] The party making, signing or issuing an unstamped bill or note, or causing it to be made, signed or issued, or accepting or paying it, or causing or permitting it to be accepted or paid, will be liable to a penalty of 50l., 55 G. 3. c. 184. s. 11. (See Appendix, No. 6.)

Negociating, circulating, or offering, or taking in payment notes payable to the bearer on demand, made or purporting to be made out of Great Britain, or purporting to be made by, or on behalf of any person residing out of Great Britain (excepting when made and payable in Great Britain only,) unless it be stamped in like manner as a note of the same tenor and value made in Great Britain, subjects the party to a penalty of 201. 55 G. 3. c. 184. s. 29.

Stamp-stamping after the making.] A bill or note made in Great Britain must be stamped with the stamp appropriated by law, and it cannot be stamped after it is written, 31 Geo. 3. c. 25. s. 19. See Butts v. Swann, 2 B. & B. 84. 88. Green v. Davies, 4 B. & C. 242. The last stamp act, 55 G. 3. c. 184. does not contain this clause, but by sec. 8. all powers, provisions, clauses, regulations and directions relating to former duties are extended to the duties by that act imposed. The 34G. 3. c. 32. authorising the commissioners to stamp bills, &c. after they were drawn, on payment of a certain penalty, has expired. Bayley, 61. Although a bill cannot lawfully be stamped after it is made, yet if it be in fact subsequently stamped by the commissioners, and there is nothing on the face of it to show that it was subsequently stamped, or, that the indorsee took it before it was stamped, and it is in the hands of a bona fide indor

see, the objection that it was not stamped at the time when it was drawn will not prevent the indorsee from recovering upon it. Wright v. Riley, Peake, 173. 4 B. & C. 242. But where

a note which ought to have been stamped with a 3s. stamp, was stamped with a three-penny receipt stamp, and a 17. agreement stamp, and there was indorsed upon it a receipt for a penalty of 51. and 17. duty, it was held, that as it appeared upon the face of the note, that it had been issued without a stamp equal in amount to that required by law, the commissioners had no power after it had been issued to affix to it another stamp, and that, therefore, it was not receivable in evidence, either in support of a count on the note, or of the money counts. The court distinguished the case from that of Wright v. Riley, in which there was nothing on the face of the bill, to shew that it was not stamped when it issued, and it was in the hands of an indorsee, who might have taken it after it was stamped; whereas in the present case, the action was brought by the executrix of the payee, against the maker. Green v. Davies, 4 B. & C. 235. See also Roderick v. Hovil, 3 Campb. 103. R. v. Chipping Norton, 5 B. & A. 412.

Stamp-foreign bills.] The stamp acts do not extend to foreign bills, therefore a bill of exchange drawn in Ireland on an Irish stamp, does not require an English stamp ; and where partners, resident in Ireland, signed and indorsed as drawers and payees, a copper-plate impression of a bill of exchange, leaving blanks for the date, sum, time when payable, and the name of drawee, and transmitted it to B in England for his own use, who filled up the blanks and negotiated it, it was held that this was to be considered a bill of exchange, by relation from the time of signing and indorsing in Ireland, and that consequently an English stamp was not necessary. Snaith v. Mingay, 1 M. & S. 87. So where a bill was drawn in Jamaica, on a stamp of that island, but a blank was left for the name of the payee, which was inserted in England, it was held that an English stamp was not necessary. Crutchley v. Mann, 5 Taunt. 529. 1 Mar. 29. S. C. ante, p. 23. So also, where the body of a bill was written in England, and accepted here, and was transmitted to a person in Antwerp, who signed it as drawer, Dallas, C. J. ruled that an English stamp was not required, since the bill was actually drawn abroad. Boehm v. Campbell, Gow, 56. Though a bill be dated abroad, yet it is competent to the acceptor, to prove that, in fact, it was drawn here, and that it is therefore void for want of a stamp. Jordaine v. Lashbrooke, 7 T. R. 601. Where in an action on a bill dated Paris, the defence was, that it had been drawn in London, and it was proved that the drawer was in London, on the 3d March, at 11 o'clock, a. m., the bill being dated the 1st March, Lord Ellenborough said, "It is not very pro

bable that this bill was drawn in Paris, 1st March, but if it were proved, ever so distinctly, that it was not drawn in Paris, 1st March, it would not follow that it was not drawn there at some other time, or that it was drawn in England. Drawing here with a foreign date to evade the stamp duties is a very serious offence, and the fact must be made out by distinct evidence." Abraham v. Dubois, Bayley, 67. 4 Campb. 269. See Bire v. Moreau, 2 C. & P. 376.

Where a note was made in Jamaica, but not stamped according to the laws of that island, it was held that it could not be received in evidence in our courts, and Lord Kenyon observed, "It is said that we cannot take notice of the revenue laws of a foreign country, but I think we must resort to the laws of the country in which the note was made, and unless it be good there, it is not obligatory in a court of law here." Alves v. Hodgson, 7 T. R. 241. 2 Esp. 528. S. C. But where certain receipts given in France were offered in evidence, but objected to as inadmissible, being unstamped, and the defendant's counsel offered to show that by the law of France such receipts required a stamp, Abbott, C. J. refused to admit such evidence, on the ground that the courts of this country will not take notice of the revenue laws of a foreign state, and, on an application for a new trial, the court of K. B. coincided in this opinion. James v. Catherwood, 3 D. & R. (See Note 7.)

A bill or note

Stamp-bills and notes bearing interest.] bearing interest does not require a larger stamp than if it did not bear interest. Thus, where a note at three months, bearing interest from the date, for 301., was stamped with a stamp applicable to a 301. note, it was contended that the interest ought to be added to the 301. and that a stamp applicable to a note for a greater sum than 301 was requisite; but the court held that the note was properly stamped, the words "sum of money" meaning the principal sum mentioned in the note, and not a sum compounded of principal and interest. Pruessing v. Ing, 4 B. & A. 204.

Stamp-date and sight.] The word "date" in the stamp act denotes the period of payment on the face of the bill itself. Therefore where a bill of exchange was originally drawn on 21st December, payable two months after date, and it was agreed between the holder and the drawee that the date should be altered from the 21st to the 31st, which was done; in an action by the holder against the acceptor, it was held sufficient that the bill was stamped with a stamp appropriated to bills not exceeding two months after date. Upstone v. Marchant, 2 B. & C. 10. 3 D. & R. 198. S. C. Peacock v. Murrell, 2 Stark. 558. But bills payable after sight do not run from the day of the date; but from the day when they are presented