ACCEPTOR SUPRA PROTEST ; 2 Q. B. 16.
The acceptance and delivery of negotia ble paper on Sunday is void between the parties, but if dated falsely as of another day, it is good in the hands of an innocent holder ; Harrison v. Powers, 76 Ga. 218.
It may be made before the bill is drawn, in which case it must be in writing; Wilson v. Clements, 3 Mass. 1; Goodrich v. Gordon, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 6; Kendrick v. Campbell, 1 Bail. (S. C.) 522; Williams v. Winans, 14 N. J. L. 339; Vance v. Ward, 2 Dana (Ky.) 95; Read v. Marsh, 5 B. Monr. (Ky.)' 8, 41 Am. Dec. 253; Howland v. Carson, 15 Pa. 453; Beach v. Bank, 2 Ind. 488 ; Lewis v. Kramer, 3 Md. 265; Coolidge v. Payson, 2 Wheat. (U. S.) 66, 4 L. Ed. 185; Cassel v. Dows, 1 Blatchf. 335, Fed. Cas. No. 2,502. It may be made after it is drawn and before it comes due, which is the usual course, or after it becomes due; 1 H. Bla. 313; Wil liams v. Winans, 14 N. J. L 339; or even after a previous refusal to accept; 5 East 514; Mitchell v. Degrand, 1 Alas. 176, Fed. Cas. NO. 9,661. It must be made within twenty-four hours after presentment, or the holder may treat the bill as dishonored; Chit. Bills, 212, 217. And upon refusal to accept, the bill is at once dishonored, and should be protested; Chit. Bills, 217.
It may be in writing on the bill itself or on another paper ; 4 East 91; Nimocks v. Woody, 97 N. C. 1, 2 S. E. 249, 2 Am. St. Rep. 268; and it seems that the holder may insist on having a written acceptance, and in default thereof consider the bill as dishonor ed; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst. 406; or it may be oral; 6 C. & P. 218 ; Leonard v. Mason, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 522; Williams v. Winans, 14 N. J. L. 339; Walker v. Lide, 1 Rich. (S. C.) 249, 44 Am. Dec. 252; Edson v. Fuller, 22 N. H. 183; Pierce v. Kittredge, 115 .Mass. 374; Scudder v. Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 23 L. Ed. 245 ; Sturges v. Bank, 75 Ill. 595; 11 Moore 320 (by the Law Merchant; Poll. Contr. 164) ; an acceptance by telegraph has been held good; Coffman v. Campbell, 87 Ill. 98 ; ,Central Say. Bank v. Richards, 109 Mass. 414; Garrettson v. Bank, 39 Fed. 163, 7 L. R. A. 428; In re Armstrong, 41 Fed. 381; Garrettson v. Bank, 47 Fed. 867; North Atchison Bank v. Garretson, 51 Fed. 168, 2 C. C. A. 145 ; but must now be in writing in many states. The usual form is by writing "accepted" across the face of the bill and signing the acceptor's name; 1 Pars. Contr. 223 ; 1 Man. & R. 90; but the drawee's name alone is sufficient, or any words of equiva lent force to accepted. See Byles, Bills 147; 1 Atk. 611; 1 Man. & R. 90; Parkhurst v. Dickerson, 21 Pick.qMass.) 307; Orear v. McDonald, 9 Gill. (Md.) 350, 52 Am. Dec, 703. So if the drawee writes the word "ac
cept" and signs his name; Cortelyou v. Ma ben, 22 Neb. 697, 36 N. W. 159, 3 Am. St. Rep. 284.
The drawee cannot make his acceptance after the bill has been delivered to the hold er's agent, though it had not been communi cated to the holder ; Fort Dearborn Bank v. Carter, 152 Mass. 34, 25 N. E. 27. See Trent Tile Co. v. Bank, 54 N. J. L. 599, 25 Atl. 411.
Unless forbidden by statute, a parol prom ise upon sufficient consideration to accept a bill of exchange binds the acceptor ; Scud der v. Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 23 L. Ed. 245; Hall v. Cordell, 142 U. S. 116, 12 Sup. Ct. 154, 35 L. Ed. 956; Sturges v. Bank, 75 Ill. 595; 11 M. & W. 383; Neumann v. Schroeder, 71 Tex. 81, 8 S. W. 632; ,,Short v. Blount, 99 N. C. 49, 5 S. E. 190; Kelley v. Greenough, 9 Wash. 659, 38 Pac. 158 ; Barney v. Worth ington, 37 N. Y. 112; Bank of Rutland v. Woodruff, 34 Vt. 92; [1894] 2 Q. B. 885; • contra, Haeberle v. O'Day, 61 Mo. App. 390; Erickson v. Inman, 34 Or. 44, 54 Pac. 949; but the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act in force in nearly all the states (see NE00 TIABLE INSTRUMENTS) requires a written ac ceptance ; see much learning in Walker v. Lide, 1 Rich. (S. C.) 249, 44 Am. Dec. 253; Allen v. Leavens. 26 Or. 164, 37 Pac. 488, 26 L. R. A. 620, 46 Am. St. Rep. 613 Lind ley v. Bank, 76 Ia. 629, 41 N. W. 381, 2 L. R. A. 709, 14 Am. St. Rep. 254.
As to what law governs the mode of ac ceptance, see 61 L. R. A. 196, n., where the cases are examined and the conclusion reached that the weight of authority is in favor of the law of the place where the agreement to accept was made, rather than that of the place of payment.
Where the holder of an overdue bill of ex change agrees by parol to accept payment in instalments, the failure of acceptor to carry out his contract does not release the drawer; Trotter v. Phillips, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 279.
An acceptance made payable at a bank au thorizes its payment and charge to the ac ceptor's account ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 218; Byles, Bills 198. But the acceptor is not liable un less he assented to its being so made paya ble; id. 188; 14 East 582 ; and he may prove that he was ready to pay at the place nam ed; Green v. Goings, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 652. The acceptance of forged paper and its payment by the drawer to a bona fide hold er gives no' right of action to recover back the money ; Hortsman v. Henshaw, 11 How. (U. .S.) 177, 13 L. Ed. 653; so also of bills accompanied by a forged bill , of lading; Hoffman & Co. v. Bank, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 181, 20 L Ed. 366.
See CHECK. As to acceptance of offer, see OFFER.
See BILL OF EXCHANOE ; PROTEST; AC CEPTOR.