« السابقةمتابعة »
for payment," is sufficient: Bank of U. C. v. Street, 3 U. C. Q. B. § 49. 29 (1846); Blinn v. Dixon, 5 U. C. Q. B. 580 (1848); Robson v. Curlewis, 2 Q. B. 421 (1842). Also a verbal message to the drawer to the same effect: Metcalfe v. Richardson, 11 C. B. 1011 (1852).
4. What is or is not a sufficient notice of the dishonor of a bill or note, when the facts are undisputed, is a question of law: Bank of U. C. v. Smith, 4 U. C. Q. B. 483 (1847).
5. A notice to an indorser stating that the note was duly protested for non-payment, is sufficient without saying that it was presented: Blain v. Oliphant, 9 U. C. Q. B. 473 (1852).
6. A notice describing the note, and adding, "you will in consequence of non-payment be held responsible" is sufficient: Harris v. Perry, 8 U. C. C. P. 407 (1859).
7. A notice giving other particulars of the note but not mentioning the amount is sufficient, when there is no evidence of the existence of another note: Handyside v. Courtney, 1 L. C. J. 250 (1857).
8. A notice to a female indorser, beginning, “Sir," is sufficient if it reach her: Mitchell v. Browne, 9 L. C. J. 168 (1865), overruling Seymour v. Wright, 3 L. C. R. 454 (1852).
9. Where the notice of dishonor does not state that a foreign bill has been protested, the indorser will not be liable: Delaney v. Hall, 3 N. S. (2 Thom.) 401 (1858); see Rogers v. Stevens, 2 T. R. 713 (1788); Gale v. Walsh, 5 T. R. 239 (1793); Robins v. Gibson, 1 M. & S. 288 (1813). Contra ex parte Lowenthal, L. R. 9 Ch. 591 (1871).
10. Where it was alleged that a notice of dishonor was sent by telegraph, but the contents of the telegram were not proved, and no evidence given of its having been received, the indorser was held to be discharged: McLean v. Garnier, 15 N. S. (3 R. & G.) 276 (1882).
11. A verbal notice by the holder at the drawer's house to his wife is sufficient without saying where the bill is lying: Housego v. Cowne, 2 M. & W. 348 (1837).
Return of bill sufficient.
12. If there be more than one bill to which the notice may refer, the onus is on the defendant to prove this fact: Shelton v. Braithwaite, 7 M. & W. 436 (1841); Gates v. Beecher, 60 N. Y. (Sickles) at p. 527 (1875).
13. A notice to an indorser describing the bill and stating that it lies at a certain place dishonored, is sufficient: King v. Bickley, 2 Q. B. 419 (1842).
14. The holder's clerk wrote to an indorser that J. C.'s acceptance due that day was unpaid, and requesting his immediate attention to it. Held, a sufficient notice of dishonor : Bailey v. Porter, 14 M. & W. 44 (1845). To the same effect, Armstrong v. Christiani, 5 C. B. 687 (1848); Everard v. Watson 1 E. & B. 801 (1853); Paul v. Joel, 3 H. & N. 455; 4 H. & N. 355 (1859); Bain v. Gregory, 14 L. T. N. S. 601 (1866).
(f.) The return of a dishonored bill to the drawer or an indorser is, in point of form, deemed a sufficient notice of dishonor: Imp. Act, s. 49 (6).
(g.) A written notice need not be signed, and an insufficient written notice may be supplemented and validated by verbal communication. A misdescription of the bill shall not vitiate the notice, unless the party to whom the notice is given is in fact misled thereby: Imp. Act, s. 49 (7).
The spirit of the Act is in favor of holding any notice sufficient which would reasonably inform the party that the bill on which his name appears, has been dishonored.
1. A notice to a firm about a note alleged to be indorsed by them, held not to be sufficient to bind a partner who was the real indorser Bank of Montreal v. Grover, 3 U. C. Q. B. 27 (1846).
2. The following errors have been held not to vitiate the § 49. notice, the correct particulars being sufficient to identify the bill or note a mistake in the due date of the bill or in its date; Blinn v. Dixon, 5 U. C. Q. B. 580 (1848); Thorn v. Sandford, 6 U. C. C. P. 462 (1857); Low v. Owen, 12 ibid. 101 (1862), Cassidy v. Mansfield, 24 ibid. 383 (1874); Robinson v. Taylor, 4 N. B. (2 Kerr) 198 (1843); Mills v. Bank, U. S. 11 Wheat. (U. S.)431 (1826); Smith v. Whiting, 12 Mass. 6 (1815);-giving a wrong amount: Thompson v. Cotterill, 11 U. C. Q. B. 185 (1854); Bank of Alexandria v. Swann, 9 Pet. (N. S.) 33 (1835); -giving the name of a party incorrectly: Girvan v. Price, 8 N. B. (3 Allen) 409 (1857); Harpham v. Child, 1 F. & F. 652 (1859); Dennistoun v. Stewart, 17 How. (U. S.) 606 (1854);-transposing the names of the drawer and acceptor; Mellersh v. Rippen, 7 Ex. 578 (1852);—calling a bill a note, or vice versa : Stockman v. Parr, 11 M. & W. 809 (1841);-naming the wrong bank or place where the bill was payable or was lying: Bromage v. Vaughan, 9 Q. B. 608 (1847); Rowlands v. Springett, 14 M. & W. 7 (1845).
3. A notice by holder to indorser in these terms:- "Messrs H. are surprised to hear that Mrs. G.'s bill was returned to the holder unpaid," followed by a visit from the indorser to the holder the same day, when he expressed his regret and promised to write to the other parties, was held sufficient: Houlditch v. Cauty, 4 Bing. N. C. 411 (1838).
4. For other instances of imperfect written notices accompanied or followed by verbal communications, see East v. Smith, 4 D. & L. 744 (1847); Chard v. Fox, 14 Q. B. 200 (1849); Jennings v. Roberts, 4 E. & B. 615 (1855); Viale v. Michael, 30 L. T. N. S. 463 (1874).
5 An unsigned notice in writing from the right person is sufficient Maxwell v. Brain, 10 L. T. N. S. 301 (1864).
(h) Where notice of dishonor is required to be Notice given to any person, it may be given either to the party or party himself, or to his agent in that behalf: Imp. Act, s. 49 (8).
The agent should be some person designated for that purpose by the party, or in charge or employed at his office or residence.
1. Delivery of a notice to a man cutting wood in the indorser's yard is insufficient, there being no evidence that the the man was an inmate of the family, or that the indorser received the notice: Commercial Bank v. Weller, 5 U. C. Q. B. 543 (1848).
2. Where the maker of a note gave the wrong address of his accommodation indorser, a notice to the latter at the address given was held to be binding on him: McMurrich v. Powers, 10 U. C. Q. B. 481 (1853).
3. Where an indorser goes to fill an office temporarily but leaves his family in his old home, a notice left there is sufficient : Ryan v. Malo, 12 L. C. R. 8 (1861).
4. Verbal notice to the solicitor of an indorser is insufficient Cross v. Smith, 1 M. & S. at p. 554 (1816).
5. Notice to the person who has indorsed the bill under a power of attorney is probably good notice to the indorser: Firth v. Thrush, 8 B. & C. at p. 391 (1828).
6. Notice to a clerk in the office of the indorser who is a merchant, is sufficient: Allen v. Edmundson, 2 Ex. at p. 724 (1848).
7. Notice to a referee indicated by an indorser is not sufficient to bind the latter: ex parte Prange, L. R. 1 Eq. at p. 5 (1865).
8. Where a party has no office, and boards at a private boarding house, a notice left there with a fellow-boarder, in his absence, is sufficient: Bank of U. S. v. Hatch, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 250 (1832).
(i.) Where the drawer or indorser is dead, and the party giving notice knows it, the notice must be given to a personal representative, if such there
is and, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, § 49. he can be found: Imp. Act, s. 49 (9).
Sub-section 4 provides that a notice posted shall not be invalid by reason that the party to whom it is addressed is dead. As the present clause is imperative where the death is known and a representative can be found, that subsection will be limited to the cases where the party giving notice does not know of the death or cannot find such representative. Chalmers, p. 160, says there was no English decision on the point.
See also illustrations under sub-section 4, post p. 287.
1. A notice of non-payment, merely "To the exccutrix or executor of the late Mr. Jones, Toronto "is bad: Bank of B. N. A. v. Jones, 8 U. C. Q. B. 86 (1851).
2. Where an indorser died intestate and no administrator had been appointed when the note matured, a notice addressed to him at his last residence was held good: Gillespie v. Marsh, 1 U. C. C. P. 453 (1852).
3. Where S. an indorser died and notices were sent addressed to the "Administrators of S.'s estate, at B." and also at C., where the deceased had lived, and it appeared that they reached them, the estate was held liable: McKenzie v. Northrop, 22 U. C. C. P. 383 (1872).
4. The indorser, a married woman, died intestate. A notice was addressed to the husband as executor of his wife and received by him. The wife's estate was held liable: Merchants' Bank v. Bell, 29 Grant 413 (1881).
5. Where an indorser has recently died and no administrator or executor can be found, a notice addressed to the "legal representative" of deceased, is sufficient: Pillow v. Hardeman, 3 Humphrey (Tenn.) 538 (1842).