Case Name: Mechanics' Bank v. A. Yager
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1885-04
Citations: 62 Miss. 529
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mechanics’ Bank v. A. Yager.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 529–530

Head Matter:
Mechanics’ Bank v. A. Yager.
Bill or Exchange. Acceptance. Section 1133, Code 1880, construed,.
Where the drawee of a hill of exchange writes his name across the face of the bill, this is a compliance with the requirement of $ 1133 of the Code of 1880, that “the acceptance of a bill of exchange must be in writing, duly subscribed, in order to charge the acceptor.”
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Washington County.
Hon. J. B. Chrisman, Judge, specially presiding, by interchange with Hon. B. F. Trimble.
The Mechanics’ Bank, of St. Louis, Mo., brought this action against A. Yager as the acceptor of a bill of exchange drawn by J. W. Eicks & Co., on the defendant, in favor of the plaintiff. At the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the bill sued upon, and the defendant objected to the admission thereof, on the ground that “ it was not accepted as required by § 1133 of the Code of 1880.” There was written across, the face of the bill, in red ink, the name, “A. Yager,” but the court sustained the defendant’s ob-62 Miss. — 34 jection and excluded the bill from the evidence; to which action of the court the plaintiff took an exception.
The verdict and judgment were, of course, in favor of the defendant; whereupon the plaintiff appealed.
E. N. Thomas and A. P. Keeseeker, for the appellant.
“ There are three points to be considered in the construction of all remedial statutes — the old law, the mischief, and the remedy.” 1 Blackstone’s Com. 87. Guided by these principles, let us undertake the construction of this statute. 1st. The old law was a parol acceptance. 2d. The mischief was the fraud and disputes which such an acceptance would produce, because of the difficulty of establishing it by proof. 3d. The remedy, which would cure most effectively this inconvenience in the old law as it stood in this State prior to the enactment of this section in the Code of 1880, was to require the acceptor, when the bill was presented, to subscribe to the same by writing his name across the face of it, or to indicate his acceptance by an unconditional promise in writing subscribed by himself. This is the law the legislature intended to enact and did enact.
No counsel for the appellee in this court.

Opinion:
Campbell, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Writing his name across the face of a bill of exchange by the drawee is a compliance with § 1133 of the Code of 1880. Spear v. Pratt, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 582; Peterson v. Hubbard, 28 Mich. 197.
The statute requires the acceptance to be in writing, and subscribing his name by the drawee on the bill is acceptance in writing of an unmistakable character, and fully satisfies the requirement of the statute.
Reversed and remanded.