A bill that has been accepted must none the less be presented for payment,1 except as to the acceptor. There is an apparent exception, however, in the fact that an acceptance may be made payable at a particular bank or particular place and still remain a general acceptance. To answer the rule in such a case, it is sufficient, as to the other parties to the bill, that it be at such place for payment, or presented at such place for payment, upon its maturity. Such a presentation is, in fact, a proper demand.2 But as to the other parties to the bill, the rules governing an accepted bill are the same as those governing a bill not requiring acceptance, but merely presentation for payment. A waiver of acceptance is a waiver of presentation for acceptance. It does not dispense with presentation and demand for. payment.3 But as to the acceptor, his engagement, where he accepts, becomes absolute, for the acceptance is his promissory note. No demand is necessary as to him;4 it is his duty to look up the holder of the bill and pay it. But if he accepts payable at a particular place, and he is at the place ready to pay the bill upon the maturity of it, his readiness would relieve him from the payment of interest thereafter.5 But in no event does the holder lose the amount of the bill as against the acceptor by a failure to present the bill to him for payment.6 In the case of accepted checks the rule is that an accepted check which has been accepted to the holder after delivery releases the drawer, and by necessity releases the indorsers, since they are secondarily liable to the drawer.7 But a check accepted by the bank to the drawer does not release the drawer.8 Such an accepted check, therefore, should be treated as an ordinary check, and if the holder of the check presents it within a reasonable time, and, if it be not paid, gives notice thereof, the indorser will be held liable; the drawer, even if it be not presented within a reasonable time, will be exonerated only to the extent of his injury.9

3 Konig v. Bayard, 1 Pet. 250. 4Konig v. Bayard, 1 Pet 250;

Gazzam v. Armstrong, 3 Dana, 554; Wood v. Pugh, 7 Ohio, 488.

5 City Bank v. Girard Bank, 10 La. 563.

1 This is necessary in order to fix the liability of the drawer and in-dorsers. Allain v. Lazarus, 14 La. 327; Jamea v. Ocoee Bank, 2 Cold. 59.

2Tuckerman v. Hartwell, 3 Me. 147; Wing v. Beach, 31 111. App. 78. The same result follows on the acceptance of a bill, where the bill is payable at a particular placa Green v. Goings, 7 Barb. 652; Tuckerman v. Hartwell, 3 Ma 147; Brooks v. Higby, 11 Hun, 235. If the place is fixed, the demand must be made there. Brown v. Jones, 113 Ind. 46.

3 Webb v. Mears, 45 Pa. 222.

4Hunt v. Johnson, 96 Ala. 130; Jackson v. Packer, 13 Conn. 342; Blair v. Bank of Tennessee, 11 Humph. 84; Plato v. Reynolds, 27 N. Y. 586; Fall River Bank v. WiU lard, 5 Met 220.

Where a bill of exchange requiring presentation for acceptance'is presented for acceptance, and acceptance is refused, and the liability of the parties thereon fixed, no presentation for payment is required;10 the bill has been dishonored. If the holder presents the bill for acceptance, and leaves it with the drawee for acceptance, he need make no second demand either for acceptance or for payment,11 although the rule would be otherwise if he agreed to present the bill again.12 If the bill be one not requiring presentation, and the holder nevertheless presents it for acceptance, we have seen that, if acceptance is refused, he must notify the prior parties.13

5 See Sec. 238, post, as to promissory-note, and Freeman v. Curran, 1 Minn. 169.

6 See last note.

7 See Sec. 150, ante. 8 See Sec. 150, ante.

9 In re Brown, 2 Story, 502. See Thompson v. British North Amer. Bank, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 1.

10 Lenox v. Cook, 8 Mass. 460; Mason v. Franklin Bank, 3 Johns. 202; Wild v. Passamaquoddy Bank,

3 Mason, 505 (as to indorser); Wallace v. Agry, 4 Mason, 336; Lucas v. Ladew, 28 Mo. 342. The foregoing are cases of drafts requiring acceptance. But Exeter Bank v. Gordon, 8 N. H. 66; Plato v. Reynolds, 27 N. Y. 586, and perhaps Picquet v. Mayer, 14 La. 74, are as to bills not requiring acceptance.

11 Allen v. Kramer, 2 Bradw. 205.

12 Case v. Burt, 15 Mich. 82

13 See Sec. 237, post

Whether the bill could then be treated as a dishonored bill is very questionable, for the engagement of the drawer on a bill not requiring presentation is that the drawee will pay, not that he will accept; and hence it ought to be the rule that, if the instrument is one that requires no presentation for payment, to so present it, if the drawer or some prior party has not taken it up prior to maturity; but the decided cases are to the contrary, as the last note indicates. Where a check is presented for acceptance and acceptance refused, the check is at once dishonored, and notice should be given; and since refusal of acceptance of a check is refusal of payment, no further demand is necessary. The rule would not seem to be otherwise in those states which recognize the check as an assignment upon presentation to the bank.14