
    *Duerson’s Adm’or v. Alsop & als.
    January Term, 1876,
    Richmond.
    i. Creditor’s Bills — Prayer for Account in. — 1Though a creditor flies a bill to subject the personal and real estate of his deceased debtor to the payment of his debt, saying' nothing of other creditors, yet if he prays that the administration account may be settled, that an account of all debts and liabilities of the estate may be taken and their priorities fixed, that the amount and value of the real estate may be ascertained, and that all other accounts and orders which are proper may Re taken and made, this is a creditor’s Rill.
    2. Same-Same — Decree (or Account under. — Under such a prayer a decree for a general account may Re made; all the creditors permitted to come in and prove their deRts, and an order entered staying all other suits, and all the assets administered in the one suit.
    3. Same — Under Whose Control. — Although a Rill is in Rehalf of all creditors, it is yet under the control of the party bringing the suit, at least until there is a decree for an account. And if his claim is proved or admitted, and the executor confesses assets, the plaintiff may at the hearing have a decree for payment, and he is not compelled to take a decree for an account.
    4. Negotiable Paper — Law Applicable. — In relation to negotiable paper, the rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the law as it was when the contract was made, and not by the law as it was when the paper becomes payable.
    5. game — Statutory Excuse, during War, ot Demand, Protest and Notice. — The ordinance of the Virginia Convention of the 24th of June 1861, dispensed with demand, protest and notice upon all checks, bills and notes payable at a bank located in any city or town, if, at the time of the maturity of such instruments, the town or city was occupied, invested, or access thereto interrupted, by the public enemy. By an act of the legislature, passed on the 10th of May 1862, this ordinance was amended so as to require notice of the dishonor of the bill or note to be given within ten days after the removal of the obstruction created by the presence of the enemy. A note was made and endorsed on the 11th of December 1861. payable, &c., at a bank in *Fred ericksburg in six months, when it fell due the town of Fredericksburg was in possession of the united States forces; but they left in a few months afterwards; but no notice of nonpayment was given at any time to the endorsers. The rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the ordinance which wa,s in operation when the note was made and endorsed; and notice of non-payment was not necessary to bind the endorsers.
    6. Sama — Holder tor Value — Presumptions.—A holder of a note endorsed for the accommodation of the maker, which fell due in June 1862, gives no notice that he holds it to one of the endorsers who died in 1863. or to his representative until 1870, makes no effort to collect it from the maker, though down to 1868 he was able to pay it, and died insolvent in 1870; and waits until the other endorser is dead insolvent. Under these circumstances the presumption that the holder of a note is a holder for value fails, and he must show that he gave value for it.
    7. Same — Suit on — Parties.—In such a case, in a suit by the holder of a note to subject the estate of a deceased endorser to satisfy it, the representatives of the deceased maker and of another endorser should be made parties.
    In January 1871, John T. Alsop instituted a suit in equity in the circuit court of Spotsylvania county, against John C. Cam-mack, administrator of Robert C. Duerson, deceased, and the heirs at law of said Duerson, to subject his real estate to the payment of a debt which the plaintiff claimed to be due to him. -In his bill he states, that on the 11th of December 1861, at the town of Fredericksburg, a certain John James Chew made his note by which he promised to pay six months after date, to the order of George F. Chew and Robert C. Duerson, the sum of nineteen hundred dollars, payable and negotiable at the office of discount and deposit of the Bank of Virginia at Fredericksburg; and that after-wards the said George F. Chew and Robert Duerson endorsed the said note to the plaintiff. That the said note was not paid when it fell due, and that the town of Fredericks-burg was then in the possession and occupation of the troops of *the United States, by reason whereof, under the ordinance of the convention of Virginia passed on the 24th of June 1861, demand, protest and notice of non-payment were dispensed with, and the endorsers remained bound, as if protest and notice of non-payment had been given. That both plaintiff and Duerson resided outside of the town of Fredericksburg when the note fell due, and all access to the town was cut off by the federal troops.
    The plaintiff further charges, that there is not personal property belonging to Duer-son’s estate in the hands of his administrator or under his control,' sufficient to satisfy the principal and interest of said note, no part of which has been paid to the plaintiff; and therefore he is compelled to seek the aid of a court of equity, to subject the real estate of said Duerson to the payment of said note.
    The prayer of the bill is that the administration account may be settled; that an account of all debts and liabilities of said estate may be taken and the priorities fixed; that the amount and value of the real estate may be ascertained; and that all other accounts and orders which are proper in the cause may be taken and made, that the real estate of which Duerson was possessed at his death may be sold, or so much thereof as shall be necessary to satisfy the debt due the plaintiff; and for general relief.
    The plaintiff filed the note as an exhibit with his bill. It is in the usual form, signed by John James Chew endorsed by George F. Chew and Robert C. Duerson, and at the foot is Cr. Dr. G. F. C. R. C. D.
    
      Cammack, the administrator of Duerson, demurred to the bill for want of equity, and also answered. He says Duerson died in 1863, and,his widow qualified as his admin-istratrix in August of that year, and proceeded *to administer the assets of his, estate until her death in 1865; and in October of that year respondent qualified as administrator de bonis non of said estate. That though plaintiff lived near Fredericks-burg, add' went to that town nearly every week of his life, he never made any claim against'Duerson in his lifetime, or against his estate‘during the lifetime of his admin-istratrix. That though he is well acquainted with plaintiff, respondent never heard of this claim until the latter part of December 1870, when he received a letter from plaintiff’s attorneys- informing him that they had beén retained to bring a suit upon the note. - He knows nothing of the facts, and calls fofr-proof: Insists it was the duty of the plaintiff to give notice of the non-payment of the note directly the United States troops ceased to occupy the town, which occurred in August 1862, very soon after the note fell due, and there was no obstacle thereafter to free communication by mail or otherwise to and from said bank, and betweén all the parties to said note; yet the plaintiff "did not then or afterwards make demand ’’ of payment of said note at said ofíicé of discount and deposit of said bank, nor give notice of non-payment to said endorsers ' or their personal representatives. He insists that the ordinance of the Virginia convention, dispensing with demand and "notice df non-payment in the cases specified, was unconstitutional; that after the evacuation of the town of Fredericks-burg, demand of payment should have been made, and notice of protest for non-payment given; that the permanent residence of Duerson-was in the town, and his family remained there, so that notice through the post- office was neither necessary nor proper, but should have been left at his residence; and that long before the note fell due, viz.: on-the 16th of May, 1862, an act was passed by the general assembly *of Virginia amending and re-enacting the said ordinance, by virtue of which Duerson could not be held bound as endorser of said note, unless notice of dishonor had been given within ten days after the evacuation of the town of Fredericksburg by the United States-forces.
    The respondent denied that there was no personal estate of Duerson sufficient to satisfy all legal and just claims against said estate. . It was true these assets consisted mainly of choses in action; but upon these judgments had been recovered; and most of them were regarded as perfectly solvent; and these solvent assets, when realized, as to which there was no reasonable doubt, were more than sufficient to satisfy every demand against the estate, so far as respondent knew or believed. •
    The defendant further relied on the great delay of the plaintiff in setting up his claim, and his neglect in either attempting to obtain payment of the note from the maker John James Chew, who was possessed of a considerable property during and for some time after the war and who lived until 1870, or to give to the endorsers or their representatives, any notice of the claim. And then after Duerson had been dead for years, and both the Chews were dead and their estates insolvent, after the death of all the parties to the note, and when there was no one living except the plaintiff to explain his strange delay he asserts this stale demand against the estate of respondent’s intestate.
    The parties agreed certain facts which were admitted as evidence. It appears that the maker and both the endorsers of the note lived in Fredericksburg when it was made; and that the plaintiff Alsop lived about eight miles from the town, and has resided *at the same place ever since. The note was an accommodation note endorsed for the benefit of the maker, and was never deposited in bank; and no demand of payment or notice of non-payment was given at its maturity. That the town of Fredericksburg was occupied by the federal troops on the 18th of April 1862, and was evacuated on the 30th of August 1862. That the maker John J. Chew, and George F. Chew, one of the endorsers, remained in the town during said occupation: Duerson, who was sheriff of the county of Spotsyl-vania, left his residence on the approach of said troops, but remained in said county and l/ouisa during said occupancy, and shortly after said evacuation returned to his residence in Fredericksburg, where his family had remained all the time. Both Duerson and Alsop were within the Confederate lines during said occupation. Duer-son died in 1863: his widow qualified as his administratrix on the 13th of August of 1863; and she died in 1865; and Cammack-qualified on the 12th of October 1865. He then resided, and still resides, in the county of Douisa. That Alsop lived in the county-of Spotsylvania, and that the military lines lay between his house and the town.
    It further appeared that John J. Chew, the maker of the note, owned real estate and slaves, and that he paid in 1866 and 1868 debts amounting to upwards of $5,000; he died in January 1870, and his estate was insolvent. And there was no proof that Duerson or his representatives had ever heard that the note was unpaid; and it was admitted that Cammack never heard of the note until the receipt of the letter of the plaintiff’s counsel.
    The cause came on to be heard upon the 12th of June 1871, when the court overruled the demurrer to *the bill, and decreed that Cammack out of the assets, &c., should pay to the plaintiff the sum of $1,900, with interest thereon from the 14th of June 1862, and his costs. And liberty was reserved to the plaintiff to proceed against the real estate in the bill mentioned, if this should become necessary. From this decree Duerson’s adm’or applied to a judge of this court for an appeal; which was allowed.
    Wm. Green and S'. V. Winston, for the appellant.
    Marye & Fitzhugh, for the appellee.
    
      
       Creditor's Bills — Prayer for Account in. — in Williams v. Newman, 93 Va. 724, 26 S. E. Rep. 19, the court, citing the principal case, said: “It is well settled that a suit in chancery, brought by one creditor against the estate of a decedent, although filed on behalf of himself only, may, by decree convening all the creditors and directing the statement of proper accounts, be converted into a general creditor’s bill, and from the date of such a decree it will be considered, and will carry with it all the incidents and consequences attending the filing of a technical creditor's bill.” See also, the following cases, citing the principal case for the same rule; Beverly v. Rhodes, 86 Va. 418, 10 S. E. Rep. 572; Rice v. Hartman, 84 Va. 252, 4 S. E. Rep. 621; The Piedmont, etc., Co. v. Maury, 75 Va. 510; Hurn v. Keller, 79 Va. 418; Carter v. Hampton, 77 Va. 637.
    
    
      
       Negotiable Notes — Holder for Value — Presumptions. —Under certain circumstances the presumption that the holder of a negotiable note is a holder for value fails, and the burden of proof shifts upon him to show that he is such. Bank v. Hatcher, 94 Va. 231, 26 S. E. Rep. 505, citing principal case; also, Vathir v. Zane, 6 Gratt. 246; Wilson v. Lazier, 11 Gratt. 477.
    
   Staples J.

Before considering the main question arising in this case, it is proper to notice a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court. It is insisted, that this is a single creditor’s bill, brought to enforce a legal demand, as to which there is no obstacle in the way of a recovery and relief in a court of law.

The bill alleges there is not personal property belonging to Duerson’s estate, in the hands of his administrator or under his control, sufficient to satisfy the debt claimed by the appellee, and it asks for a decree subjecting the real estate in the possession of the heirs to sale for that purpose. It further asks, that the administration account may be settled; that an account of all the debts and liabilities of the estate may be taken, and their priorities fixed; and that all other accounts and orders which are proper in the cause may be taken and made.

Under this prayer a decree for a general account may be entered, all the creditors permitted to come in and prove their debts, an order entered staying all other suits, and all the assets administered in the one *suit. The bill is therefore substantially a creditors’ bill, although it does not profess to be filed in behalf of all the creditors of the decedent.

Whatever doubt there may be as to the right of a single creditor at large to bring a suit in a court of equity for an account of assets and the payment of his debt, there is no difficulty as to the jurisdiction where the bill is filed in behalf of the complainant and all other creditors who may come in and prove their claims. Poindexter’s ex’ors v. Green’s ex’ors, 6 Leigh 504; Wilkins v. Finch, adm’r, Philips Eq. 3555. Upon such a bill a general account of the assets is ordered, the priority of debts and liens ascertained and settled, multiplicity of suits avoided, and final and complete relief administered.

Although the bill in such case is in behalf of all the creditors, it is yet under the control of the party bringing it, at least until there is a decree for an account. If his claim is proved or admitted, and the executor confesses assets, the plaintiff may at the hearing have a decree for payment, and he is not compelled to take a decree for an account. Daniel Ch. Prac. 236; Adams Equity 257, 258.

In this' case the administrator admits assets under his control sufficient to pay all the liabilities of the estate. They consist, however, almost entirely of choses in action upon which judgments have been recovered. If the appellee had sued at law a recovery there would not have availed him, as no execution could have been levied upon such choses in action.

At the time of filing the bill, the appellee could not know the precise condition of the estate, the nature and extent of its liabilities. He had therefore a right to file his bill asking a discovery of assets and an account. The administrator having confessed assets sufficient *when collected to satisfy the appellee’s demand, it was the privilege of the latter to waive the account, and take a decree for payment out of these assets, with a right to apply to the court for any additional relief which might become necessary. In all this the proceeding was in conformity with the practice and the established doctrine of the equity courts.

The main question in this case is, whether the rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the ordinance of the Virginia convention adopted on the 24th of June 1861, or by an act of the legislature passed on the 16th of May 1862, amendatory of the provisions of the ordinance.

The effect of the ordinance was to dispense entirely with demand, protest and notice upon all checks, bills and notes payable at a bank located in any city or town, if at the time of the maturity of such instruments the town or city was occupied, invested, or access thereto interrupted by the public enemy.

The effect of the act of the legislature, on the other hand, was to require notice of dishonor of the bill or note to be given within ten days after the removal of the obstruction created by the presence of the enemy.

The note, which is the subject of controversy, was made on the 10th of December 1861, whilst the ordinance was in force. It fell due on the 10th June 1862, after the ordinance had ceased to operate, and whilst the act of May 1862 was in full force. At the time of the maturity of the note the town of Fredericksburg was in possession of the federal forces, and consequently no demand was ever made, or notice given of the dishonor of the note. Under this state of facts, if the ordinance of the convention controls the rights of the parties, the holder of the note is entitled to recover, notwithstanding the failure to make demand and give ^notice of non-payment. If the act of May 1862 governs, the in-dorsers are discharged by reason of the failure of the holder to comply with the provisions of that act.

This question is to be solved by determining whether demand and notice are regulated by the laws in force when the endorsement is made, or by those in force at the time of the maturity of the note. The learned counsel for the appellant maintains that the proceedings to be taken upon the dishonor of a negotiable note, with a view to fix with liability the indorsers, is the law of the place, and the time when and where such dishonor takes place. In support of this proposition much reliance is placed upon two cases. One of these is Barlow v. Gregory, reported in 31 Conn. R. 261. It was there held, that a statute establishing- a legal holiday was applicable to antecedent transactions, and did not impair the obligation of the contract, although the effect might be to exclude one of the days of grace to which the maker of a negotiable note was entitled. This decision was placed mainly upon the ground, that laws establishing legal holidays are in the nature of police regulations, and may be sustained upon the score of public health and morality; that days of grace constitute no part of the original contract, but are mere matters of indulgence granted the debtor, in regard to which the parties have made no stipulation; and'further, that in looking forward to the time of payment, the parties are required to have respect to the general holidays which may then be established, and they are presumed to contract with reference to the custom of observing such holidays.

Now what is said by the learned court with respect to the allowance of days of grace, as a mere matter of *favor to the debtor, is undoubtedly correct; but when it is asserted that the parties have made no stipulation with reference to days of grace, the proposition is not sustained by the authorities. On the contrary, nothing is better settled than that the usage in regard to the allowance of days of grace, prevailing at the place of payment, is a part of the contract. Jones v. Fales, 4 Mass. R. 245; Planters Bank v. Markham, 9 How. Miss. 405; Mills v. Bank of the United States, 11 Wheat. 431; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. R. 213, 342; Story on Prom. Notes, sec. 215, note.

Be this as it may, the Connecticut court having reached the conclusion that the allowance of days of grace is no part of the original contract, it could of course have no difficulty in arriving at the further conclusion, that one of these days might be excluded from the computation by the occurrence of a legal holiday, established even after the execution of the note.

But the court does not say, that demand and notice, and the circumstances under which they may be required or dispensed with, are not incidents of the original contract, or that they are governed by the laws in force when the notes become payable, or that the parties are presumed to contract with reference to such laws. The decision is confined to the narrow ground, that as the observance of holidays tends to the preservation of public health' and morals, the parties in making their contract are required to have respect to such-as may from time to time be established by law. Thus restricted, there is perhaps no particular objection to the dictum laid down by the supreme court of Connecticut.

The other case cited by the learned counsel is that of Rouquette v. Overman, decided by the court of queen’s bench, and found in the Law Reports 1875, 10 Queen’s *Bench L. R. 525. The action was upon a foreign bill of exchange, drawn and endorsed in England, upon a house in Paris, and accepted there. The national assembly of France having by various decrees or orders extended the time of payment upon bills of exchange in consequence of the existence of the German war, the bill in controversy was not protested, nor was notice given of its dishonor until the expiration of the time fixed by the legislative decree. The question before the court was, whether the indorser, residing in England, was bound by the law of France made after the date of his indorsement, or must be discharged by the failure to make protest and give notice at the maturity of the note. It was held that the indorser was not discharged. Chief Justice Cockburn, in delivering the opinion of the court, sets out with the concession, that although time of payment is the essence of the contract, it was competent for the sovereign power of France to change or extend it at its pleasure, so far, at least, as subjects of that country were concerned.' He then proceeds to show, that as the holder of the bill could not be required to present it to the acceptor for payment until it became legally payable according to the law of the place where payable, so he could not be required to give notice of dishonor until payment had been legally demanded of the acceptor and refused. And ®as the acceptor resided in France, and as according to the law of that country payment could not be legally demanded of him until the day fixed by the legislative decree, there could of course be no protest and no notice given the indorser until then.

Now it is very clear, that no such case as this could have arisen in Virginia since the adoption of the federal constitution; for the obvious reason that a law *changing the time of payment fixed by the parties would be treated as a law impairing the obligation of the contract. And yet the acknowledged power in the government of France to pass such a law was the basis upon which the entire argument of the learned judge was founded; He did not maintain that the indorser had contracted with reference to some new law which might be in operation when the bill matured. The decision is based upon the idea, chiefly, that as the liability of the indorser, is to be measured by that of the acceptor whose surety he is, it followed that an indorser residing in England might be reached by a law of France through the medium of the acceptor 'who resided in France.

It will be seen from this simple statement, I am hot called on to controvert the decision of the queen’s bench or the reasoning upon which it is based.

It is worthy of observation, however, that the decision is in direct conflict with that of the supreme court of the United States in the case of Musson v. Lake, 4 How. U. S. R. 262.

The great question in that case was whether the contract between the holder and indorser was to be governed by the law of Bouisiana, where the bill was payable, or by the law of Mississippi, where it was drawn and indorsed. The supreme court of the United States, after stating' the proposition, that due presentment of a foreign bill of exchange to the drawee, protest and notice are conditions entering into and making a part of the contract between the parties, and that the law imposes the performance of them upon the holder as conditions precedent to the liability of the in-dorser — say, “The acceptors resided at New Orleans: they became parties to the bill by accepting it there. So far, therefore, as their liabilities *were concerned, they were governed by the law of Louisiana. But the drawer and indorsers resided in Mississippi: the bill was drawn and indorsed there, and their liabilities, if any, occurred there. The undertaking of the defendant was, that the drawee should pay the bill; that if the holder after due diligence failed to obtain payment from them, he w;ould pay i-t, with interest and damages. This part of the contract was, by the agreement of the parties, to be performed in Mississippi, where the suit was brought. The construction of the contract, and the diligence necessary to be used by the plaintiffs, to entitle them to a recovery, must therefore be governed by the laws of the latter state. The laws of Louisiana could not affect the contract of the parties residing in Mississippi.” In support of this view numerous cases are cited by the learned judge delivering the opinion.

The questions arising in the two cases just cited have been the prolific source of controversy among judges and writers on commercial law in every country where that law is recognized. That controversy does not, however, turn upon the question whether the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by laws in force when the indorsement is made, or by those in force when the bill matures. The real point of contention is, whether the contract of the indorser is to be considered as made with reference to the law of the place where the indorsement takes place, or with reference to the law of the place where the note or bill is to be paid. But whichsoever it may be, whether the law of the place of indorsement or the law of the place of payment is to govern, the rights and obligations are to be determined by existing laws, the laws in force when the contract is made. It is with reference to these the parties are presumed to contract, *and not with reference to some future laws of which they can know nothing.

Wherever the law merchant prevails, demand and notice are incidents of the contract of indorsement; they are conditions precedent to a right of recovery on the bill or note. This position is sustained by abundant authority.

In Rothschild v. Currie, 41 Eng. Com. Law R. 43, a case much relied on in the argument, Lord Denman, chief justice, said: “Is then notice of the dishonor parcel of the contract? The manner in which by the 165th section it is connected with the citation in judgment would at first raise an impression that it was not, but only a step in the remedy at law; but, upon consideration, we think it is parcel of the contract. The indorser contracts to pay the bill, not primarily or absolutely, but oh two conditions : one, the dishonor by the drawee or acceptor; the other, the due notification to him of such dishonor.” This, it will be conceded, is very high authority. The authority of the case has been questioned in other respects, but the soundness of the view just stated has not been expressly denied by any case I have seen. See also Berry v. Robinson, 9 John. R. 121; Aymar v. Sheldon, 12 Wend. R. 439; Story’s Conflict of Laws, sec. 360; 1 Rob. Prac. 79; Williams v. Wade, 1 Metc. R. 82; Short & Co. v. Trabue & Co., 4 Metc. R. 299.

In Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. R. 213, 341, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking with reference to the drawer of a bill of exchange —and the remark is equally applicable to the indorser — said, he ought to have notice that his bill is dishonored, because this notice enables him to take measures for his own security. It is reasonable that he should stipulate for this notice and the law presumes that he did stipulate for it.” *But if the argument made here in behalf of the appellant be sound, while the indorser stipulates for notice as a measure essential to his security, he at the same time agrees that he will dispense with it provided the legislature (as has been done in one of the states) abolishes the law merchant before the maturity of the bill or note. And so the holde,r agrees tha.t he will make demand of payment and give due notice of the dishonor; but it is said he at the same time impliedly agrees to do some other act if the legislature should, in the meantime, require it: what it is of course is wholly unknown to him. What confidence can be placed in negotiable instruments clogged with conditions of this character? The great value of these securities is, that they are governed by well established rules of law recognized throughout the commercial world, and well understood by the parties at the time of assuming their respective liabilities.

It is no answer to this view to say, that such changes will be rarely made in the law, so as to affect antecedent contracts. The mere recognition of such a doctrine will be mischievous in the extreme. Rx-perience attests that laws materially affecting vested rights are not unfrequently passed, through legislative bodies without discussion or even suspicion of their nature and effect. In cases of negotiable securities, the inducements to such legislation would be peculiarly great. Under the operation of a statute imposing new duties in regard to demand and notice, of which parties in distant states can know nothing, securities to the amount of millions may be rendered absolutely worthless. In all other transactions mankind are presumed to contract with reference to existing laws. In the language of a distinguished writer, “These are necessarily referred to in all contracts, and forming a *part of them as the measure of the obligation to perform, by one party, and the rights acquired by the other.” Cooley on Con. Limitation 284; Sherrill v. Hopkins, 1 Cow. R. 103, 107; Don v. Lippmann, 5 Clark & Fin. R. 1-13; Homestead cases, 22 Gratt. 266.

There is no valid reason why a different rule should be accepted with respect to negotiable instruments. On the contrary, every consideration of sound policy requires that the principle should be applied in its utmost rigor to these securities.

The case' in hand strongly exemplifies these views. The ordinance of the convention. already mentioned, provides, that where any city or town, in which a bank is located, shall be occupied by the public enemy, the parties to negotiable paper payable in such town or city shall remain bound after the maturity of the paper, without demand, notice or protest, as if they had keen regularly made or given. Parties making or indorsing notes or bills, after this ordinance went into operation, are presumed to know of its existence. They are supposed to contract with direct reference to its provisions. It entered into and became an essential element of the contract. It is as if the indorser had agreed in writing with the holder, that in the contingency mentioned he would waive demand, protest and notice. Suppose he had in fact done so, in the absence of an ordinance, will it be maintained that it was competent for the legislature by a subsequent enactment to require that notice should be given as a condition precedent to a right of recovery? And yet the waiver in the present case is as positive and unmistakable in its terms as though it had been written at large on the paper containing the promise to pay. The bank might well say, it would not have discounted the note, the holder might say he would not have purchased *it in those unsettled times, but for the security afforded by the ordinance. Both might well say, that they rested with absolute confidence upop this security, and failed to give notice of the dishonor; that they never knew of the existence of the act of May 1862 in sufficient time to conform to its'requirements; or, if they did, they were under no obligation to regard it; for, if the act was to be con'strued as applying to antecedent transactions, it was an effort of the legislature to impose conditions not expressed in the original contract.

It is to be observed that the act in question is not simply a repeal of the ordinance, not the restoration of the law merchant. It is the adoption of a new rule different from the law merchant, different from the ordinance. Under that act it was not sufficient to give notice of the dishonor of the note within a reasonable time after the removal of the impediment, but a peremptory limit of ten days was prescribed, applicable alike to each and every case, without regard to the circumstances which might surround the holder or the state of the country.

It is difficult to believe that the legislature could ever have designed that this law should apply to bills and notes executed orevious to its enactment. If such was the purpose, the effect was to impair the obligation of the contract, and to violate the constitution.

Since the foregoing was written I have examined the decision of this court in the case of Farmers Bank of Va. v. Gunnell’s adm’or, made at the March term 1875, and not yet reported. That decision will be found to sustain the views already presented in regard to the ordinance of the convention, and upon the question of the steps to be taken upon the dishonor of a negotiable note.

*The learned counsel for the appellant, both in the petition for an appeal and in his oral argument, has maintained-that the convention of 1861, having no legislative power, could not pass a “valid ordinance of the character at present under consideration.

The act of the Virginia legislature calling a convention was ratified by the people. That act, among other things, provided that the members of that body after assembling in Richmond “shall proceed to adopt such measures as they may deem expedient for the welfare of the commonwealth.” These are very comprehensive terms: they show that the design was not to confine the convention merely to the consideration and adoption of such measures as affected the relations of the state with the federal government, but to confer upon it important powers affecting the internal affairs, the domestic economy of the commonwealth. The measures to be adopted from time to time by the convention must, of necessity, have included many matters of ordinary legislation. It was necessarily, to a very great extent, the judge, and the exclusive judge, of what was essential and proper to be done under all the circumstances surrounding the state. The courts would hesitate long before undertaking to declare that a body thus constituted had transcended the just limits of its authority. It could only be done where the act was a palpable inval sion of the reserved rights of the people.

Targe and numerous classes of the people' were interested in the banks. The state was vitally concerned in their just and wise administration. These institutions were important agencies in the fiscal affairs of the commonwealth, in supplying both people and government with a sound currency. In the then existing condition of affairs, with invading armies ^Occupying many of the towns and cities of the state, and threatening others with incessant raids, some such provision as that adopted by the convention might justly have been regarded as expedient both for the commonwealth and the banks. At the time of the adoption of the ordinance the legislature was not in session, and the convention was necessarily required to adopt many measures more appropriate perhaps to an ordinary legislature. Without therefore entering into a discussion of the question of the powers of a convention to exercise the functions of a legislative body, under ordinary circumstances, it is sufficient to say that the convention of 1861 did not exceed its powers in adopting the ordinance now under consideration.

The next and only question to be considered, is as to the right of the appellee to recover without proof that he has paid value for the note. As a general rule the possession of a negotiable instrument is prima facie evidence of a good title. And although it may be an accommodation note, the holder is presumed to have given value for it. On the other hand, circumstances may be shown to exist which will remove this presumption, and cast upon the holder the onus of proving that he is a holder for value.

In Mills v. Barber, 1 Mees. & Wels. R. 425, it was held that if the instrument be connected with some fraud, and a suspicion of fraud be raised from its being shown something has been done with it of an illegal nature, as that it has been clandestinely taken, or has been lost or stolen, in such case the holder must show that he has paid consideration for it.

And in another case where the drawer of the bill proved that he indorsed it in blank, and delivered it to W to get it discounted for him; which Wpromised *to do, and bring him the money on the following Monday; but never returned with the bill or the money, and the drawer heard no more of it until called upon by H to pay it; it was held that H must prove that he gave consideration for the bill. Hall v. Featherstone, 3 Hurl. & Nor. 284; Story on Bills Sec. 193, note.

In the nature of things it is impossible to lay down any fixed unvarying rule, as to the circumstances which will be deemed sufficient to throw upon the holder the burden 0Í showing that he has given value for the note. The courts must determine in each case, whether the transaction is of such a character as to rebut the presumption usually arising from the possession of the instrument.

The note which is the subject of the present controversy matured in June 1862. When or how the appellee obtained possession of it, does not appear. He does not state what consideration he paid for it, or indeed that he paid any consideration at all; although his long delay rendered some explanation of the kind peculiarly proper and even necessary. The only statement bearing upon this point contained in the bill is, that John J. Chew made the note on the 11th December 1861, payable to the order of George F. Chew and Robert C. Duerson; and that afterwards the said Chew and Duerson indorsed the same to the appellee. It is not very clear from this, whether the appellee obtainedt he note from the indorsers or from the maker. The fair implication is, that it was the former, and yet it is manifest from the face of the note itself, it was accommodation paper for the benefit of the maker. The note, although payable at the bank in Fredericksburg, was never placed in that bank; and, so far as this record discloses, has never been *seen by any one, or even heard of, since the date of its execution, until very shortly before this suit was brought, in December 1870. Duerson, one of the in-dorsers, against whose estate this claim is asserted, died in 1863. George F. Chew, it seems, is also dead: when his death occurred does not appear; it was certainly before the institution of the suit. John J. Chew, the maker, it would seem, even after the close of the war, was possessed of sufficient property to pay the note. He died in the year 1870, utterly insolvent. Notwithstanding all the parties lived in or near Fredericks-burg, notwithstanding the death of maker and indorsers, and the failure or threatened distribution of their estates, the appellee, from 1862 to 1870 inclusive, so far as the record informs us, never disclosed to any one that he was the owner of this large debt. It was not until the death of every person who could throw any light upon the transaction, that he brings forward the note, and claims to recover against one of the in-dorsers. Very curious to say, these circumstances seem to have attracted but little attention in the courj: below. They are alluded, to in the answer of Duerson’s administrator, not so much to throw discredit upon the title of the appellee, as to fix upon him the imputation of gross laches in the assertion of his demand to the manifest prejudice of the indorsers. The appellee having brought his suit within the time allowed by the several statutes passed since the war, I do not perceive how he can be barred upon the ground of any supposed laches. But his long delay in connection with the other circumstances, already alluded to, removes the presumption arising from the mere possession of the note, and makes it incumbent upon him to show that he paid consideration for it, or at least facts and circumstances, from which it may be inferred that he has paid such consideration.

*1 do not think the bill ought to be dismissed by this court, because it must be admitted that the pleadings and issues in the court below do not appear to have distinctly presented this point. It was for the first time raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in his argument here. The appellee should therefore have an opportunity of showing, if he can, that he has paid consideration for the note. With that view the decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for an issue, to be tried by a jury, or for an inquiry before a commissioner as to that court may seem best under all the circumstances.

The other judges concurred in the opinion of Staples, J.

The decree was as follows:

The court is of opinion, for reasons stated in writing- and filed with the record, that the circuit’ court erred in decreeing in favor of the appellee, without requiring him to show that he is a holder for value of the note in controversy, and without also requiring the appellee to make the representatives of John J. Chew and of George S'. Chew parties to the suit.

It is therefore decreed that for the said errors the decree of the said circuit court be reversed and annulled, and that the ap-pellee pay, &c.

It is further decreed, that the cause be remanded to the said circuit court, in order that the proper parties may be made, and the appellee may have an opportunity of establishing by proper proof that he is such holder for value. And to that end the said circuit court may direct an inquiry before one of its commissioners, or an issue to be tried before a jury, as it may deem most advisable.

Decree reversed.  