BACKING- BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

Evening Star, Issue 3782, 8 April 1875, Page 2

BACKING- BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

To the Editor.

Sie,—ln regard to the effect of a “ plaintiff endorsiug a bill before the defendant endorses it,’ it will, no doubt, be in the remembrance of many of your readers that three or four years ago a case of “ Sargood v MTntosh ” was tried betore Mr Justice Chapman on a bill of exchange drawn by the plaintiff, and which the defendant bad agreed to endorse as surety, when it was (and very correctly) stated that “ the plaintiff, by putting his name to the bill m the capacity of drawer, must of necessity endorse the bill over to the defendant, and, by so doing, he made himself responsible to the defendant, and consequently his act of endorsation nullified the claim which the plaintiff had 'hen set up against the defendant;” and bis Honor said 11 there was no doubt that, pntna facie, if the plaintiff put his name to the bill as drawer, then, instead of the defendant being answerable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was answerable to the defendant; and that it was a perfect astonishment to him (the Judge) that mercantile men of any experience should have drawn a bill when it was required to make the defendant liable.”

Just at this time let there be no misunderstanding.—l am, &0., John Stamper.