« السابقةمتابعة »
§ 3. Stultzman v. Yeagley, 32 U. C. Q. B. 630 (1872); Foster v. Jolly, 1 C. M. & R. 703 (1835); or, that it should be payable by instalments or in any other manner than expressed in the instrument: Besant v. Cross, 10 C. B. 895 (1851): or, that a note payable on demand should not be payable until the death of the maker: Woodbridge v. Spooner, 3 B. & A. 233 (1819); or, that it should be only to secure the payment of interest during the life of the payee Hill v. Wilson, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 888 (1873); or, that an indorser at the time of indorsing had agreed to waive his right to have notice of dishonour: Free v. Hawkins, 8 Taunt. 92 (1817); Leake on Contracts, p. 179.
But parol evidence is admissible to shew that the date of the bill or note is not the true date: section 13; or, that the delivery is incomplete or conditional only so that the contract is not operative: section 21, s-s. 3; or, to impeach the consideration for the contract: Abrey v. Crux, L. R. 5 C. P. 37 (1869); Downie v. Francis, 30 L. C. J. 22 (1885) Fisher v. Archibald, 2 N. S. D. 298 (1871);. Black v. Gesner, 3 N. S. (2 Thom.) 157 (1847); Gray v. Whitman, ibid. (1857); Lindsay v. Zwicker, 2 N. S. D. 100 (1870); or to shew that the contract has been discharged by payment, release or otherwise: Carden v. Finley, 8 L. C. J. 139 (1860); Phillips v. Sanborn, 6 L. C. J. 252 (1862); Gole v. Cockburn, 8 L. C. J. 311 (1864); Lalonde v. Rolland, 10 L. C. J. 321 (1864); Converse v. Brown, 10 L. C. J. 196 (1865). A contemporaneous agreement in writing referring to a bill or note between the same parties may be binding: Jenkins v. Bossom, 13 N. S. (1 R. & G.) 540 (1880); Young v. Austen, supra; Brown v. Langley, 4 M. & Gr. 466 (1842); Salmon v. Webb, 3 H. L. Ca. 510 (1852); Lindley v. Lacy, 34 L. J. C. P. 7 (1864); Maillard v. Page, L. R. 5 Ex. 312 (1870); but the mere fact that a bill or note refers to a collateral
writing or agreement which is conditional in its terms will not affect the bill in the hands of a holder without notice. of its contents: Jury v. Barker, E. B. & E. 459 (1858); Taylor v. Curry, 109 Mass. 36 (1871).
"Addressed by One Person to Another."-"Person" here includes any body corporate and politic, party, and the representatives of such person, or any number of persons R. S. C. c. 1, s. 7 (21) and (22). The person addressing the bill is called the drawer, and the one addressed, the drawee. After acceptance of the bill the latter is called the acceptor. This part of the definition is not strictly complied with when the drawer and drawee are the same person, or when the drawee is a fictitious person section 5, s-s. 2. The holder may treat such an instrument as a bill or a note at his option. An instrument regular in form, except that it is not addressed to any drawee is not a bill of exchange: Forward v. Thompson, 12 U. C. Q. B. 103 (1854). The drawee need not be named; it is sufficient that he be described with reasonable certainty, so that the bill can be duly presented to the proper person: section 6.
"Signed."-The instrument is not a bill of exchange until signed by the drawer. He may sign a blank paper which may be subsequently filled up section 20; or it may be accepted first and signed by the drawer afterwards section 18. Even if accepted it is not a bill if it lack the drawer's signature: McCall v. Taylor, 19 C. B. N. S. 301 (1865); but if still in his hands it may be a security for the payment of money within section 75 of the Imperial Larceny Act, 1861, which corresponds to section 60 of the Canadian Larceny Act, R. S. C. c. 164: Reg. v. Bowerman, L. R. (1891) 1 Q. B. 112.
It may be signed in pencil: Geary v. Physic, 5 B. & C. 234 (1826); Brown v. Butchers' Bank, 6 Hill 443 (1844);
§ 3. Closson v. Stearns, 4 Vt. 11 (1831); Reed v. Roark, 14 Tex. 329 (1855); or with a cross or mark: Noad v. Chateauvert, 1 Rev. de Leg. 229 (1846); Patterson v. Pain, 1 L. C. R. 219 (1851); Thurber v. Deseve, M. C. R. 125 (1854); Anderson v. Park, 6 L. C. R. 479 (1855); Collins v. Bradshaw, 10 L. C. R. 366 (1860); Coupal v. Coupal, 5 R. L. 465 (1873); Hubert v. Moreau, 12 Moore, 219 (1827); Baker v. Dening, 8 A. & E. 94 (1838); re Bryce, 2 Curtis, 325 (1839); re Field, 3 Curtis, 752 (1843); re Amiss, 2 Robertson, 116 (1849); Willoughby v. Moulton, 47 N. H. 205 (1866); Shank v. Butsch, 28 Ind. 19 (1867). Contra, Lagueux v. Casault, 2 Rev. de Leg. 28 (1813), and Jones v. Hart, ibid. 29 (1819), overruled.
In written contracts of various kinds it has been held or intimated that the following were sufficient, where it was clear that the parties intended to adopt them as their signatures initials, a trade or assumed name, a stamp, or a printed or engraved signature. See Saunderson v. Jackson, 2 B. & P. 238 (1800); Phillimore v. Barry, 1 Camp. 513 (1808); Schneider v. Norris, 2 M. & S. 286 (1814); Hyde v. Johnson, 2 Bing. N. C. 780 (1836); Jacob v. Kirk, 2 M. & Rob. 221 (1839); re Christian, 2 Robertson, 110 (1849); re Hinds, 16 Jur. 1161 (1852); Caton v. Caton, L. R. 2 H. L. 143 (1867); Bennett v. Brumfitt, L. R. 3 C. P. 28 (1867); ex parte Birmingham Banking Co., L. R. 3 Ch. App. 653 (1868); Merchants' Bank v. Spicer, 6 Wend. 443 (1831); Weston v. Myers, 33 Ill. 424 (1864); 1 Randolph § 63, 64; 1 Daniel, § 74.
The signature of a party need not be written with his own hand; it is sufficient if it be by some other person by or under his authority: sections 25 and 90.
As to notarial promissory notes en brevet in Quebec, where the maker neither signs nor makes his mark, see note to section 82.
In the case of a corporation, the seal alone would be sufficient; but a seal is not necessary or even usual: section 90, s-s. 2. Bills of a company incorporated under the general Act or by letters patent may be drawn by any agent, officer, or servant in general accordance with his powers under the by-laws: R. S. C. c. 118, s. 35; c. 119, s. 76.
The drawer usually signs at the foot of the bill, but his signature may be in the body of it or on any part so long as he signs as drawer: Byles p. 97.
" On demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time."-Every bill of exchange falls under one or other of the above classes. The words are used in a special or technical sense and are explained respectively in sections 10 and 11. See these sections and the notes and illustrations under them. Bills are usually made payable "on demand or at sight," or a certain time" after date or" after sight."
"A sum certain in money."-A sum is certain within the meaning of the Act although payable with interest, or by stated instalments, or according to a certain rate of exchange section 9. It must be for money alone; but it may be in the money of any country: Chitty on Bills, 153. A promissory note must also be for a sum certain in money section 82. Money is not defined in the Act, and
is used in its ordinary sense.
"What is money? It is not necessarily either gold, silver or paper. It is just what the people of the country, where the instrument is made, choose to treat as money, in other words, as currency. If the note be for the payment of what is deemed money, it is wholly immaterial in the money of what country the note is payable": Third National Bank v. Cosby, 41 U. C. Q. B. per Harrison, C.J.
13. up. A ST. Kong Canada would be specie or Dominion notes: see B. 5. C. e. 80. an Ast respecting the currency; and e. 31, an Ant respecting Dominion Notes.
In the United States words of description prefaced to the word "money" have been held n so vitiate the instrument containing them, nor the addition of the words go.d or "apecie." Under the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Legal Tender cases, it makes no difference if a note be made payable in any partienar kind of money, as gold or silver, any money obligation can be discharged by legal tender notes: Legal Tender cases, 12 Wail. 457 1870. This doctrine was re-affirmed in Dooley v. Smith, 13 Wall. 605 1971; Bigler v. Waller, 14 Wail. 298 1871; and Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 15 Wall. 195 (1872). Notes payable in "current funds” and in "currency" have been held in many States to be promissory notes payable in money.
The following have been held to be valid bills or notes as being for a sum certain in money:
1. A note made in Canada promising to pay at Chicago "$×93, American currency": Third National Bank v. Cosby, 41 C. C. Q. B. 402 (1877).
2. "To P.-Please pay to H. the sum of $138.40 for flooring supplied to your buildings on D. road and charge to my account, E.": Hall v. Prittie, 17 Ont. A. R. 306 (1890).
3. A promise to pay in cash or goods if the holder chooses to demand the former: McDonnell v. Holgate, 2 Rev. de Leg. 29 (1821). But see Nos. 3, 4, and 14, pp. 43 and 44.
4. A note payable in American silver at par, before the proclamation declaring such silver uncurrent: Joseph v. Turcotte, 2 R. C. 479 (1871).