ACCEPTANCE OF BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1344, 5 June 1878, Page 3

ACCEPTANCE OF BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

Thc|“ Economist” of April 6th says: — “ A J3ill to declare the law relating to the acceptance of bills of exchange has been brought forward in the House of Commons by Sir John Lubbock. As the Bill is short we print the principal clauses : ‘ Whereas by the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, it is enacted “ that no acceptance of any bill of exchange, whether inland or foreign, made after the 31st day of December, 1856, shall be sufficient to bind or charge any person, unless the same he in writing on such bill, or if there be. more than one part of such bill on one of the said parts, and signed by the J acceptor or some person duty authorised by him.” ‘And whereaa doubts have arisen as to the true effect and intention of the siid enactment, and as to whether the signature of the drawee alone can constitute a sufficient acceptance of the bill so as to satisfy the requirements of the statute, and it is expedient that the meaning of the said enactment should be further declared :

‘Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the adyico and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows : ‘ An acceptance of a bill of exchange is not and shall not bo deemed to be sufficient under the provisions of the said statute by reason only that such acceptance consists merely of the signature of the drawee written on such bill.’ b

This Bill, which has already passed its second reading, is intended to settle the doubts raised by the recent decision in the case of Hindhaugh v. Blakely, which ruled that a bill of exchange upon which the acceptor had merely written his name was not legally accepted. The matter is an important one to the mercantile community, and we trust that so useful a measure as ja now proposed will meet with the support it deserves.”