The Negotiability of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange in the Time of Chief Justice Holt

Dylag, Matthew

doi:10.1080/01440365.2010.496931

Cited by 16 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For more background seeTournay (1851),Bayley (1826),Russell and MacLachlan (1859),Byles (1874),Jenks (1893),Beutel (1938),Rogers (1995),Dylag (2010) andGeva (2011).15 Thus, the "real bills doctrine", which said bills represented "real" transactions, was essentially a norm rather than a law. "Accommodation bills" were bills that were more explicitly not "backed"; SeeRogers (1995), p. 223 ff.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Private Money Production without Banks

Gorton¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I test the Dang, Gorton, and Holmström (2018) (DGH) theory that the optimal design of private money is debt backed by debt. I do this in the context of English inland bills of exchange (where all parties to the bill were in England), which were used as a medium of exchange during the Industrial Revolution in the north of England in the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries. These bills circulated via indorsements, committing each indorser's personal wealth to back the bill. A sample of bills from the period 1762-1850 is studied to determine how frequently they changed hands (liquidity/velocity) and to determine how their credibility was established. Some bills were backed by banks and others by the joint liability of indorsers only. I test the DGH theory by asking: Were bank-backed bills more liquid than the joint liability-backed bills?

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%