5. A note made in Nova Scotia promising to pay a sum of 3. money in Boston "in currency ": Souther v. Wallace, 20 N. S. 509 (1888). Affirmed in Supreme Court of Canada, where held that "It is no objection to the validity of a promissory note that it is for the payment of a certain sum in currency, which must be held to mean United States currency when the note is payable in the United States": 16 S. C. Can. 717 (1889).

6. A note made in New Brunswick promising to pay "$ payable in United States currency ": St. Stephen Ry. Co. v. Black, 13 N. B. (2 Han.) 139 (1870).

7. A note payable “in bankable currency": Dunn v. Allen, 24 N. B. 1 (1884).

8. A note payable "in legal tender money ": North-West National Bank v. Jarvis, 2 Man. L. R. 53 (1883).

The following instruments have been held not to be valid bills or notes:

1. A promise to pay £14 in carpenter's or joiner's work as required": Downs v. McNamara, 3 U. C. Q. B. 276 (1847). 2. A promise to pay £83 in ten days for value received, with a memorandum endorsed, when made, that it was to be "paid by a mortgage ": Newhorn v. Lawrence, 5 U. C. Q. B. 359 (1849).

3. A promise to pay £25" in cash or mortgage," even in case of election to pay in cash: Going v. Barwick, 16 U. C. Q. B. 45 (1858).

4. A promissory note at six months for $400, with a memorandum that it is to be paid in lumber, and if not so paid within the time, then in cash: Boulton v. Jones, 19 U. C. Q. B. 517 (1860).

5. A promise to pay in Kingston, Canada, £72" with exchange on New York ": Palmer v. Fahnestock, 9 U. C. C. P. 172 (1859).

§ 3.

66

6. A promise dated in the United States to pay bearer $482 in Canada bills ": Gray v. Worden, 29 U. C. Q. B. 535 (1870).

7. A promise to pay in Cobourg, Canada, $200, in current funds of the United States: Bettis v. Weller, 30 U. C. Q B. 23 (1870)—Overruled Third National Bank v. Cosby, 43 U. C. Q. B. at p. 69 (1878).

8. A promise to pay at Auburn, N. Y. $3,361 " with exchange not to exceed one half per cent": Saxton v. Stevenson, 23 U. C. C. P. 503 (1874).

9. An order to pay $400 "with current rate of exchange on New York": Cazet v. Kirk, 9 N. B. (4 Allen) N. B. 548, (1860). But see now section 9 (d).

10. An order by A. on B. requesting him to pay to K. "the amount of my account furnished" on which B. had written "Correct for say $75" and had initialled it: Kennedy v. Adams, 15 N. B. (2 Pugs.) 162 (1874).

11. "I will pay J. C. $90 for D. V. or otherwise settle the sum of $90 for him on a note that he says he gave J. C. for $100" Cochrane v. Caie, 16 N. B. (3 Pugs.) 224 (1875).

12. A promise to pay a sum "to collaterally secure the payment of the money mentioned in an assignment of mortgage": McRobbie v. Torrance, 5 Man. L. R. 114 (1888).

13. An order requiring payment in good East India Bonds: Buller, N. P., p. 268.

14. An order to pay "in cash or Bank of England notes": er parte Imeson, 2 Rose, 225 (1815). This was prior to 3 & 4 Wm. 4 c. 98, s. 5, making these notes a legal tender.

15. An order to pay the proceeds of a shipment of goods, value about £2,000: Jones v. Simpson, 2 B. & C. 318 (1823).

16. An order requiring payment of "the balance due to me for building the Baptist College Chapel ": Crowfoot v. Gurney, 9 Bing. 372 (1832).

17. A promise to pay £695 in 4 instalments, 3 of £200 each, § 3. and the balance £95 to go as a set-off for an order: Davies v. Wilkinson, 10 A. & E. 98 (1839).

18. A promise to pay in current bank bills or notes: McCormick v. Trotter, 10 Serg. & R. 94 (1823).

19. A promise to pay "in office notes of a bank ": Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Peters, 293 (1840).

"in Canada currency":

20. A promise in New York to pay Thompson v. Sloan, 23 Wend. 71 (1840).

"A specified person."-The person to whom or to whose order a bill is made payable is called the payee. As to the necessity for the payee being clearly specified when the bill is payable to order, see section 7. The payee may be the same person as the drawer or the drawee or a fictitious person: section 5. As to the change in the law making negotiable a bill payable to a specified person, and not to his order, see notes on section 8, s-s. 4. " Person" is here used in the wide sense of the Interpretation Act R. S. C. c. 1, s. 7 (22), and includes corporations, partnerships, etc.

"Bearer."—A bill payable "to John Smith or bearer" is a bill payable to bearer. All persons except chartered banks are prohibited under a penalty of $400 from issuing, making, drawing, or endorsing any bill, note, or cheque intended to circulate as money; and such intention is presumed if the sum is less than $20, and the instrument is payable to bearer, or at sight, or on demand, or within 30 days, unless given by the maker directly to his immediate creditor Bank Act, 53 Vict. c. 31, s. 60. Companies incorporated by special Dominion Act, to which the general Act applies, or by letters patent are prohibited from issuing a note payable to bearer or intended to circulate as money: R. S. C. c. 118, s. 35; c. 119, s. 76. Companies incorpor

§ 3. ated by special Acts or by letters patent in most of the provinces are subject to a like disability: R. S. O. c. 156, s. 33, s-s. 2; c. 157, s. 59, s-s. 2; R. S. Q. Arts. 4689 and 4746; R. S. N. S. c. 79, s. 67; C. S. Man. c. 9, s. 269; Rev. Ord. N.-W. T. c. 30, s. 80. They may apparently accept bills payable to bearer, except such as come within the foregoing prohibition in the Bank Act. In France a bill cannot be drawn payable to bearer, but must be to the order of a third party or of the drawer himself: Code de Com. Art. 110.

When instrument

bill.

2. An instrument which does not comply with is not such these conditions, or which orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not, except as hereinafter provided, a bill of exchange : Imp. Act, s. 3 (2).

"Except as hereinafter provided."-These words are not in the Imperial Act, and it is doubtful if they serve any useful purpose. They were not in the bill as introduced, but were inserted in the House of Commons ostensibly to 'meet the case of a bill payable with exchange (section 9 (d)), which was assumed not to be for a sum certain : Commons Debates, 1889, p. 778. That section, however, declares such a bill to be for a sum certain, within the meaning of the Act. Probably the only instruments recognized as bills by the Act, which do not fairly come within the definition in the first clause of this section are those in which the drawer and the drawee are the same person, which, strictly speaking, are not addressed by one person to another.

The use of the word "conditions" here is not the most felicitous, in view of the use of "unconditional" in the definition; but it is the order to pay that must be unconditional.

The following are examples of instruments held not to be valid bills or notes on account of their ordering or promising some act to be done in addition to the payment of money.

$ 3.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

1. An instrument in the form of a note, with the following clause added This note to be held as collateral security ": Hall

66

v. Merrick, 40 U. C. Q. B. 566 (1877).

2. A note payable in 3 years, with the following words. added: "This note is given as collateral security for a guarantee of $5,000 given to John Sutherland by Alexander Sutherland": Sutherland v. Patterson, 4 O. R. 565 (1884).

3. A promise to pay a certain sum, half in cash and half in goods Gillin v. Cutler, 1 L. C. J. 277 (1857); Burnham v. Watts, 4 N. B. (2 Kerr) 377 (1844).

4. An instrument promising to pay £25 for a mare, by instalments, and further to give a mortgage on a day named, and if this were not given the whole amount should be payable at once: Coté v. Lemieux, 9 L. C. R. 221 (1859).

5. An order on defendant to pay £5, "half cash and half goods": Melville v. Beddell, Stevens N. B. Digest, p. 95 (1832).

6. A promise to pay a sum of money on a particular day, "and deliver up horses and a wharf": Martin v. Chauntry, 2 Str. 1271 (1747).

7. A promise to pay £65, "and also all other sums which may be due ": Smith v. Nightingale, 2 Stark. 375 (1818).

8. A promise to pay £1,200, "this being intended to stand. as a set-off to a legacy": Clarke v. Percival, 2 B. & Ad. 660 (1831).

9. A promise to pay £30, and the demands of the sick club: Bolton v. Dugdale, 4 B. & Ad. 619 (1833).