PROMISSORY promissory note is defined by the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, as " an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer.'" In connection with this definition it should be noticed that an instrument in the form of a note, but which is payable to the maker's order, is not a promissory note unless and until he has indorsed it. A promissory note is not invalid merely because it also contains a pledge of collateral security with authority to sell or dispose of it ; but, though no particular words are necessary to make an instru ment a promissory note provided the promise and above-mentioned essentials can be fairly implied therefrom (Eddison v. Collingridge), yet it must be something very different from a mz•re agreement between the parties or an acknowledgment or memorandum. The following has been held, in Fancourt v. Thorne, to be a valid note as distinguished from an agreement :—" On demand I promise to pay H., or order, 1)500, for value received, with interest; and I have lodged with H. the counterpart leases signed by D., for ground let by me to them as a collateral security for the .1?500 and interest." On the other hand a document running as follows :—" I have received £20 which I borrowed of you, and I have to be accountable for the said sum with interest," has been held not to be a valid note (Horne v. Redfern). Nor have the following documents any validity as notes, though they may have some value as evidence :—" Nottingham, Aug. 3, 1844. Borrowed of Mr. J. W. .e200 to account for or on behalf of the Alliance Club, at two months' notice, if required" ( White v. North); "1839, Nov. 1. I.O.U. X45, 13s. Od. which I borrowed of Mrs. M., and to pay her five per cent. till paid" (Gould v. Coombes). In Kirkwood v. Smith a promissory note was held to be invalid because it contained the following clause : "No time given to, or security taken from, or composition or arrangements entered into with either party hereto, shall prejudice the rights of the holder to proceed against any other party." This decision, however, was overruled by the Court of Appeal in the case of Kirkwood v. Carroll. A note which is, or on the face of it purports to be, both made and payable within the British Islands is an inland note. Any other note is a foreign note. Until delivery thereof tw the payee or bearer a promissory note is inchoate and incomplete. Two or more persons may join in making a promissory note, and they may be liable thereon jointly, or jointly and severally according to its tenor ; and should a note, signed by two or more persons, run, "I promise to pay," it will be deemed to be their joint and several note. A payment by any one of the several makers of a joint and several note operates as a payment of the note by the others (Beaumont v. Greathead). If a note is drawn and signed as follows : " I, J. C., promise to pay J. F., or his order, with interest, at
six months' notice, (Signed) J. C., or else H. B," that note will have no validity as against H. B. ; and a merely joint note signed " For J. C., R.M., J. P., and T. S.—R. M." would confer upon the payee no separate right of action against R. M. (Galway v. Matthew). A note payable on demand, and indorsed, must be presented for payment within a reasonable time of the indorsement. If it is not so presented the indorser is discharged. In deter mining what is such a reasonable time, regard must be had to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade, and the facts of the case. And further, where a note payable on demand is negotiated, it is not deemed to be overdue, for the purpose of affecting the holder with defects of title of which he had no notice, merely because it appears that a reasonable time for presenting it for payment has elapsed since its issue. A promissory note which is made payable, in its body, at a particular place, must be presented for payment at that place in order to render the maker liable. In any other case, present ment for payment is not necessary in order to render the maker liable. But such presentment is always necessary in order to render an indorser liable. And as to an indorser, it should be noticed that where a note is in its body made payable at a particular place, presentment at that place is necessary in order to render him liable; but when a place of payment is indicated by way of memorandum only, presentment at that place is sufficient, though not al ways necessary, for a presentment to the maker elsewhere, if sufficient in other respects, will also suffice to render an indorser liable, If the particular place is a house, it is a sufficient presentment on the maker of the note if a demand for payment is made at the house (Saunderson v . Judge). There is no need for an actual presentment in a case where the maker of a note has become bankrupt and closed his premises (Howe v . Bowes). By merely making a promissory note the maker is held by the law—(1) to expressly engage that he will pay it according to its tenor ; (.9.,) to be precluded from denying to a holder in due course the existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument equally with a bill of exchange, and the provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act, with the necessary modifications, apply generally, so far as they relate to bills of exchange, to promissory notes. In applying these provisions the maker of a note corresponds with the acceptor of a bill ; and the first indorser of a note corresponds with the drawer of an accepted bill payable to order. But some of the provisions of that Act as to bills of exchange do not apply to notes, such being those relating to presentment for acceptance, acceptance, acceptance supra protest, and bills in a set. Where a foreign note is dis honoured, protest thereof is unnecessary.