Inland Bills and Noting...

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Do inland bills these days require noting/protest instead of merely notice of dishonor? Inland bills meaning where Payee and Drawer are both say in TEXAS. Foreign bills (international bills of exchange) meaning where Payee is in, say, TEXAS and Drawer is in, say, CALIFORNIA.

[logos]

I think a bill with a Payee and Drawer in TEXAS and CALIFORNIA, respectively, is considered inland these days, though in the past a bill with a Payee and Drawer in Texas and California, respectively, might have been foreign.

I've always though noting/protesting an inland bill was merely optional but wasn't done because the inconvenience would burden the financial industry. Others claim one cannot protest an inland bill in this country, though I haven't seen any documentation as to why that supposedly is.

Originally Posted by fulltitle

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Do inland bills these days require noting/protest instead of merely notice of dishonor? Inland bills meaning where Payee and Drawer are both say in TEXAS. Foreign bills (international bills of exchange) meaning where Payee is in, say, TEXAS and Drawer is in, say, CALIFORNIA.

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Originally Posted by logos

I think a bill with a Payee and Drawer in TEXAS and CALIFORNIA, respectively, is considered inland these days, though in the past a bill with a Payee and Drawer in Texas and California, respectively, might have been foreign.

I've always though noting/protesting an inland bill was merely optional but wasn't done because the inconvenience would burden the financial industry. Others claim one cannot protest an inland bill in this country, though I haven't seen any documentation as to why that supposedly is.

If that is true, it may follow that the relevant courts are ruling under external International Law and not seeing Texas and California but instead seeing the federal level pursuant to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. I can see where a bill with TX and CA parties would be seen as inland. But bills with Texas and California parties I figure should be seen as foreign bills.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

WITHOUT PREJUDICE


If that is true, it may follow that the relevant courts are ruling under external International Law and not seeing Texas and California but instead seeing the federal level pursuant to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. I can see where a bill with TX and CA parties would be seen as inland. But bills with Texas and California parties I figure should be seen as foreign bills.

You are correct in that a bill with Texas and California parties is FOREIGN. I have a Florida SC case that says when the bill crosses state lines it is foreign. It should be clearly marked on the face of the bill as well

[logos]

iamfree,

Is that Florida SC case the one that states that unless the FBoE is protested the plaintiff can't prosecute?

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by logos

iamfree,

Is that Florida SC case the one that states that unless the FBoE is protested the plaintiff can't prosecute?

Yes that is the one.