CHAPTER · III. The Cheque Summary of chief points of difference between cheques and bills. except his principal, but this protection does not extend to the latter (t). As we have already seen, the holder of a cheque cannot enforce payment from the bank, and he practically takes it on the faith of the drawer's solvency, or of other parties thereto (u). The object of the Cheque Bank Company was to make it morally certain that a cheque drawn on them would not be dishonoured for want of funds. To effect this the contract between them and their customers differs from the ordinary one, inasmuch as it is stipulated that cheques shall not be drawn upon them save upon their own blank forms issued for that purpose, each of which notifies the maximum amount for which it may be drawn. As these forms are not issued until funds to meet them have been deposited with the bank, and those funds can only be drawn out by using the forms, it follows that funds must be lying at the bank ready to meet each outstanding form. Accordingly, it is found that they pass readily even in places where the drawer is not known, and afford a great convenience to those away from home. Cheques are not accepted, hence the holder cannot sue the bank. The drawer is not discharged by the holder's failure to present in due time, unless the bank fail. Notice of dishonour to the drawer is rarely necessary, as absence of effects in the drawce's hands, the almost universal cause of dishonour, excuses it, as does countermand of payment. They must be drawn on a banker, and payable on demand, and are generally, though not necessarily, inland. And finally the banker is protected against a forged or unauthorized indorsement of a draft on him to order on demand. (t) 43 & 44 Vict. c. 33; amended and extended to British foreign dominions by 46 & 47 Vict. c. 58. A banker receiving post office orders from a customer has no better title to the proceeds when cashed than the customer, and is liable to the true owner for them. Fine Art Society v. Union Bank, 17 Q. B. D. 705. (u) To issue the cheques accepted, so that the holder could sue the bank, would probably be an infringement of the Rank Charter Acts. See post, Chap. v. What it is. A MERE acknowledgment of a debt does not amount to a promissory note. Such an acknowledgment is frequently made in an abbreviated form, thus, Mr. A. B. London, 1st January, 1866. IO U £100. C. D. An acknowledgment of a debt in this form is called an I O U. It is evidence of an account stated, but not of money lent (a). Not amounting to a promissory note (b), and being Requires no merely evidence of a debt due by virtue of some antece- stamp. dent contract, it requires no stamp (c). Nor indeed is a stamp required for any instrument which is merely an acknowledgment of money deposited to be accounted for, and not a receipt for money antecedently due (d). Therefore a paper stating that the party signing it had certain bills in his hands, which he held to get discounted cr return on demand, requires no stamp (e). But if the IO U contain an agreement that it is to be Unless it paid on a given day or on demand, it will be a promissory amount to a note or agreement. IV. CHAPTER note, and must be stamped as such. And if the contracting words be such as to make it not a promissory note, but an agreement, it must be stamped accordingly (f), unless it be under 57. in amount (g). Need not be the creditor. The following instrument was held to be a mere I O U, not to be a promissory note, and to require no stamp: "1839, Nov. 11, IO U forty-five pounds thirteen shillings, which I borrowed of Mrs. Melanotte, and to pay her five per cent. till paid " (h). An instrument in this form, "I owe Mr. John Gould the sum of 2007. for value received," requires no stamp (i). It is conceived that a mere I O U, given by a surety for the debt of another man, is void by the Statute of Frauds (k). But perhaps the Mercantile Law Amendment Act (19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, s. 3), which removes the necessity of the consideration appearing in writing, may obviate the objection (1). An IOU ought regularly to be addressed to the creditor addressed to by name; but though not addressed to any one it will be evidence for the plaintiff if produced by him (m). This rule was convenient and safe. For, before the alteration of the law making parties to the action competent witnesses, if the IO U were given (as it often is) when no one but the plaintiff and defendant were present, it would have been impossible for the plaintiff to prove how he became possessed of it; but if the IOU were given to a third party the defendant had ordinarily the means of proving it. Bill to discover con sideration. To restrain an action. It has been held that a bill in equity would lie to discover whether an IO U were given for a gaming debt (n). There are cases where the Court will restrain an action on an I O U (0). (7) An I O U jointly signed by debtor and surety was held evidence of a joint account stated with creditor. Buck v. Hurst, L. R., 1 C. P. 297. (m) Curtis v. Rickards, 1 M. & G. 46; 1 Scott, N. R. 155; Douglas v. Holme, 12 A. & F. 146; Fisher v. Leslie, 1 Esp. 427; Fesenmayer v. Adcock, 16 M. & W. 449. (n) Wilkinson v. L'Eaugier, 2 Y. & Col. 366. (0) Quarrier v. Colston, 12 L.J., Ch. 57; 6 Jur. 959. . 77 CORPORATIONS AND BANK- Banks of not more than Ten Banks of more than Ten Partners. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES Joint-Stock Companies under IN AN 84 Joint-Stock Companies under UNDUE INFLUENCE . 68 LUNATICS . 69 PERSONS DRUNK MARRIED WOMEN 71 subsequent Acts Married Women's Property PERSONS ACTING 75 OFFICIAL CAPACITY 76 LOAN SOCIETIES Act. CHAPTER Who may contract. Signature essential to liability. Agents, CAPACITY to incur liability as a party to a bill or note is co-extensive with capacity to contract; hence, in general, corporations, unless specially authorized so to do, infants, lunatics, married women not having a separate estate, cannot become liable as parties, Code, s. 22. But when a bill is drawn or indorsed by an infant, or by a corporation, not so authorized, the holder is entitled to enforce payment against other parties to the bill (a). No person is liable as drawer, indcrser, or acceptor, or maker of a bill, or note, unless he has signed it as such; but signing a trade or assumed name is as binding as a man's real name; and signing the name of a firm is equivalent to the signature by the person writing it of the names of all the partners (6). The signature need not be by the man himself, it may (a) Code, s. 22 (2). They may be channels to convey title and liability, though not to originate it, as the section makes no mention of acceptance, the primary contract on a bill, and hence by inference excludes the making, the primary contract on a note. Married women again are omitted, as if they possess a separate estate, their contracts prima facie relate to that, and if they do not, they can only act as agents for |