1824. Renner In the case of a lost note, it is not necessary that its contents should be proved by a notarial copy. All that is required is, that it should be the best evidence the party has it in his power to produce. To admit secondary evidence of a lost note, it is not necessary that Bank of Columbia. there should be a special count in the declaration upon a lost note. V. Feb. 24th. March 5th. This cause' was argued by Mr. Webster and Mr. Jones," for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Key, for the defendants in error. Mr. Justice THOMPSON delivered the opinion of the Court. This case comes up on a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia; and by the record it appears, that the action in the Court below was prosecuted against Renner, the plaintiff in error, as en orser of a promissory note, drawn by James Foyles, and discounted at the Bank of Columbia. The note bears date on the 9th day of January, 1817, for 4600 dollars, a They cited Rushton v. Aspinwall, Doug. 679. Chitty on Bills, 62. 465. Bayley on Bills, 185, 186. 7 East's Rep. 231. Lyndo v. Burgos, Per Sir W. Grant, 1 Wheat. Selw. N. P. 280. Heylin v. Adamson, 2 Burr, 678. Thompson v. Ketchum, 8 Johns. Rep. 189. Hoare v. Graham, 3 Cowp. 57. 1 Phillips on Evid. 432, 433. 496. 498. Lewis v. Thatcher, 15 Mass. Rep. 431. Edie v. E. I. Company, 2 Burr, 1216. Davis v. Todd, 4 Taunt. 672. b He cited 4 T. R. 153. 173. Rep. 443. 1 Caines' Rep. 43. Rep. 423. 2 Caines' Err. 196. 2 Caines' 18 Johns. Rep. 230. 12 Johns. 13 Johns. Rep. 470. 1 Phillips on Evid. 490. 492. 6 Mass. Rep. 449. Rep. 26. 366. 12 1 Harris & Johns. 423. 4 Mass. Rep. 251. 5 Cranch, 49. 9 Reuner and is payable sixty days after date. In the de- 1824. claration it is averred, that demand of payment of the maker was made on the 14th of March, which was on the fourth day after the expiration of the sixty days, which the note had to run. Several questions, arising out of the record, have been presented for the consideration of the Court. The principal one, however, is that which relates to the time of demand of payment of the maker of the note, and grows out of a bill of exceptions taken upon the trial. This has been pressed upon the Court as a question of great importance, and the decision of which, in its application to the concerns of the Bank, will have a very wide and extensive effect. We shall proceed to the consideration of this point, in the first place, leaving the others, which are of minor importance, to be noticed hereafter. The testimony given at the trial was for the purpose of showing that the Bank of Columbia had, from its first establishment, in 1793, adopted the practice of demanding the payment of notes discounted by it, on the fourth day after the time limited for the payment thereof, according to the express terms of the note. And that such was the universal custom of all the banks in Washington and Georgetown. That this custom was well known and understood by the defendant, when he endorsed the note in question. After this testimony had been received, without objection, the counsel for the defendant below called upon the Court to instruct the jury, that upon the evidence so given by the plaintiffs, of a demand upon the V. Bank of Co lumbia. Renner 1824. maker of the note, on the fourth day after the time limited by the note for the payment, the defendant was not liable on his endorsement; Bank of Co- which instruction the Court refused give, and a bill of exceptions was thereupon taken. lumbia. This Court must, therefore, assume as established facts, (and, looking at the evidence before the jury, no doubt could be entertained on the subject,) that the custom of the Bank of Columbia, and all the other, Banks in Washington and Georgetown, from their first institution, had been, to demand payment of notes due them, on the fourth day after the time limited therein; and that this custom was known and well understood by the defendant, Tenner, when he endorsed the note in question and it may be added, with full knowledge and expectation, that this note was to be dealt with in the same way; for it was a renewal of a discount, continued for a considerable time before, on other notes similarly drawn and endorsed, some of which had been demanded in like manner, and protested, and afterwards paid and taken up by himself. Under such circumstances, it would seem, that nothing short of some positive and unbending principle of law, could shield the defendant from responsibility. But, so far from trenching upon any such principle, we think his liability completely established, by well settled 'The general rule of law is, rules of law. to demand pay. It seems to be assumed as the settled law of ment on the third day of grace; but it promissory notes, that in order to charge an enby evidence of dorser, demand of the maker must be made on the may be varied a different Idage. third day after that limited in the note; and that this is so stubborn a rule, that parties are not per- 1824. mitted to violate it, even by their mutual agree ment. We admit, in the most unqualified manner, that the usage of making the demand on the third day of grace, has become so general, that Courts of justice will notice it ex officio; and in the absence of any proof to the contrary, will presume that such was the understanding of all parties to a note, when they put their names upon it. But that this rule has any attributes so inviolable, as not to be touched by the parties to negotiable paper, cannot be admitted. It has its origin in custom, and that custom, too, comparatively, of recent date; and is not one of those, to the contrary of which the memory of man runneth not, and which contributed to make up the common law code, which is so justly venerated. So far from this, that the allowance of any days of grace, is in derogation of the common law rule, applicable to other contracts. They are, emphatically, the mere creatures of usage, varying in different countries, to suit the views and convenience of men in business, originally gratuitous, and not binding on the holder. The common law would require payment on the last day limited by the contract, and would also give to the maker the whole of that day. It is a settled principle of the common law, applicable to all contracts, that a party has until the last day limited by his agreement, to perform his engagement, and even until the last hour of the day. The common law knows of no fractions of a day; custom, however, and that introduced, too, principally by banks, has limited Renner V. Bank of Co lumbia. V. Bank of Columbia. 1824. the day to a few hours of business. But this, and whatever other rules have been adopted by consent, and merely for the convenience of commercial men, are departures from the common law doctrine. When, therefore, the allowance of only three days of grace, is said to be the law of the contract, by bills of exchange and promissory notes, nothing more can be intended, than that custom has so long sanctioned this rule, that all dealers in paper of this description, are understood to govern themselves by it. The law of the contract, proporly speaking, is to pay when due; and that time is to be ascertained, either from the contract per se, or that taken in connexion with some known custom, which the parties are presumed to have tacitly consented, should be made a part of the contract. And it is in this view only, that three days of grace are allowed, where that custom is recognised as the rule; for a note, which upon its face has sixty days to run, is in truth and in fact, a contract for sixty-three days, and interest is taken for that time. And how is it ascertained that it is a note for sixty-three days, but by looking out of the contract, and finding what was the undorstanding of the parties? Where the custom has existed for a long time, and has become general, Courts of justice, as before observed, will notice it ex officio; and where it has not, it is matter of proof. If this is not the light in which these transactions are to be considered, all banks are chargeable with usury; for all take interest beyond what is allowed by law, if time is to be determined by the note itself. The general rule of law is, |