case jenny against heal a bill in these word sir you be to pa that to Mr a l  upon demand out of the money in your hand belong to the governor and company  of the Devonshire miner be not a bill of exchange within the custom of  merchant S c ld ray S c I stram upon a writ of error of a judgement give in  the common plea the case be thus the plaintiff Jenny in the year sell his land  to the defendant who give he a modern report er p bill for the price or value  thereof in these word direct to one Pratt sir you be to pay to Mr Jenny so  much c out of the money belong to the governor and company of Devonshire miner  c and the money not be pay the plaintiff Jenny bring his action in the common  plea upon this note as a bill of exchange and on demurrer the plaintiff have  judgement modern report but now the defendant in the original action bring a  writ of error it be argue for the plaintiff in the action that this be a good  bill of exchange for it have all the quality of such a bill that be it have  three person the drawer the payer and the drawee and a set form of word be not  necessary in bill S of exchange nor be it necessary that it must be between  merchant and for this the case of Bellasis v hesther a Lutw a be cite where  the objection be that the custom of merchant be not set forth in the  declaration but only that the defendant and one Greevson be person negotiant  in merchandise and that Greevson draw a bill on the defendant Payable to the  plaintiff secundum use trader and this be hold good and that to set forth the  custom at large will be surplusage neither be it necessary to show that it be  between merchant as the draw or sign every bill of exchange imply a  consideration for so do so the express that the money shall be pay out of any  certain fund do not make it worse and though it may be object that this be  only a direction to the cashier to pay the money yet it be still a bill of  exchange on the other side it be say that this be not a good bill of exchange  for since the bare sign a bill imply a consideration in the person sign who be  the drawer which be contrary to the ancient law the plaintiff ought to show  that the defendant sign this bill as a bill of exchange or as a negotiable  bill for the rise and progress of these bill S be admit and introduce for the  ease and accommodation of trade if the governor of the SouthSea company or of  the bank of England have sign a note in this form which be no more than a  appointment or direction to their cashier to pay money this will not bind they  now the reason why bill S of exchange charge the drawer be because he have  some consideration for draw the bill but in the present case the drawer have  no consideration beside it be as contingent bill it be Payable out of the  money belong to the Devonshire i now if the cashier have not money sufficient  to pay and discharge this note and for that reason have refuse to accept it  certain be can not be charge for nonacceptance because he be only to accept if  he have money belong to the Devonshire i modern report in all the old bill S  of exchange the word value receive be insert though now not a show fort bar  king b a necessary and the want of those word be the only objection insist on  in the court of common plea on the demurrer to the declaration and the form of  the bill be not so much as mention beside it do not appear that this bill do  relate to trade though that be not necessary but where the contrary appear it  can be a bill of exchange the court this note be no more than a direction or  appointment to the cashier to pay the money and do not answer the necessity of  trade for it be not negotiable as a bill for money therefore it will be  inconvenient to charge the drawer for if he may be charge on such a note then  any man who give his b such a order to a steward to pay out of the drawer rend  be good b steward a order or authority to pay money may be charge for  nonpayment beside it be the substance of the drawer which be always consider  in bill S of exchange for it be that which make they negotiable but this new  invention of draw bill S on cashier to pay money out of fund make no  difference between the best and worst man as to his substance it be true there  be three person name in this note of which the cashier of the company be one  and this be all which make it like a bill of exchange though there be such  bill S between two person as where they be make Payable by themselves for so  be goldsmith note now if this note have be accept by the cashier and he have  die without pay the money certain his executor modern report er p can not be  charge it be true that custom have carry bill S of exchange a great way but  never so far as to make they Payable out of any particular fund and for these  reason the judgement in the common plea be reverse see Josselin v lassere Mod  Banbury v Lisset stram Pearson v Garrett skin comb Beardsley v Baldwin stram  Robert v peak burr Dawkes v Delarain will Bl Rep Kingston v long Bailey  Peirson v Dunlop dougl Carlos v Tancourt term Rep see also kid on bill S of  exchange to c