§ 5.

Drawee to be named.

*

5. A bill drawn by a party upon himself is a bill of exchange in the hands of an indorsee: Randolph v. Parish, 9 Porter, 76 (1839).

6. Where the president of a company drew upon its treasurer for the amount due the payee as contractor, the holder may treat it as a draft of the company on itself or as a note of the company: Fairchild v. Ogdensburgh R. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 337 (1857); approved in Mobley v. Clark, 28 Barb. 391 (1858). See Taylor v. Newman, 77 Mo. 257 (1883).

6. The drawee must be named or otherwise indicated in a bill with reasonable certainty: Imp. Act, s. 6. (1).

The name and address of the drawee, preceded by the word "To," are usually placed at the lower left hand corner of a bill, but they may be placed on any part of it provided it be clear to whom the bill is meant to be addressed. The certainty is required in order that the payee may know upon whom he is to call to accept and pay the bill; and in order that the drawee may know whether he would be justified in accepting and paying the bill on account of the drawer. At common law the name of the drawee is not necessary, if he be otherwise sufficiently indicated. Blanks may be filled up in accordance with the provisions of section 20,-even after acceptance: section 18 (a). If the drawee be a fictitious person, see section 5, s-s. 2. If not addressed to a drawee, but accepted, is it a bill of exchange? See Peto v. Reynolds, 9 Ex. 410 (1854); 11 Ex. 418 (1855).

ILLUSTRATIONS.

1. Where the word " At " is placed before the name of the drawee instead of "To," it is sufficient: Shuttleworth v. Stephens, 1 Camp. 407 (1808).

2. Where the words "payable at No. 1 Wilmot Street, § 6. London" appeared on a bill in the place where the name of the drawer is usually written, and it was accepted by defendant who lived there, held sufficient, and M. liable as acceptor: Gray v. Milner, 8 Taunt. 739 (1819).

3. A bill addressed " To the agent and owners" of a certain ship without naming them is a sufficient indication of the drawee: Taber v. Cannon, 8 Metc. 456 (1844).

4. A bill addressed "To the Steamer Dorrance and owners" is a sufficient designation: Alabama Coal Mining Co. v. Brainard, 85 Ala. 476 (1860).

more than

2. A bill may be addressed to two or more If there are drawees, whether they are partners or not; but an one. order addressed to two drawees in the alternative, or to two or more drawees in succession is not a bill of exchange. Imp. Act, s. 5 (2).

Where a bill is addressed to two or more drawees, it must be accepted by all or it is a qualified acceptance: section 19, 2 (d). But those who accept are bound even if the others do not.

A bill might formerly be addressed to two drawees in the alternative: Anon. 12 Mod. 447 (1701), where an instrument directed to A. or in his absence to B. and beginning, "Gentlemen, pray pay," etc., was held by Lord Holt to be a bill of exchange. If the bill is addressed to two persons, "or either of them," acceptance by either is a sufficient compliance with its mandate: Thomson on Bills, 212. The referee in case of need sometimes named in a bill, as one to whom the holder may resort in case it is dishonored by the drawee, is not considered an alternative or successive drawee: section 15.

§ 7.

7. Where a bill is not payable to bearer, the Certainty payee must be named or otherwise indicated thereto payee. in with reasonable certainty: Imp. Act, s. 7 (1).

required as

In the definition of a bill the payee is spoken of as "a specified person": section 3. He should be clearly specified so that the drawer, when he accepts, may know to whom or to whose order he can safely pay. The payee need not be mentioned by name; it is sufficient that he be indicated so that he can be clearly identified. As to indication by office see notes to the following sub-section. Where the name of the payee is mis-spelt, or where he is described by his office or otherwise, parol evidence is admissible to identify him; but not to show who is meant where he is neither named nor described. Where the payee is wrongly designated or his name is mis-spelt, see section. 32, s-s. 2. If the name of the payee be left in blank, the legal holder of the bill may fill up the blank Civil Code, Art. 2282; Cruchley v. Clarence, 2 M. & S. 90 (1813).

ILLUSTRATIONS.

1. An order to pay to the order of the trustees of an insolvent firm, without naming them, is sufficiently certain: Auldjo v. McDougall, 3 U. C. O. S. 190 (1831).

2. A note payable to the order of J. B. G. for the use of W. M. is a promissory note: Munro v. Cox, 30 U. C. Q. B. 363 (1870). 3. A note payable" to the estate of D." is valid: Dominion Bank v. Beacock, 9 C. L. T. 252 (1889).

4. A note payable to- or order cannot be recovered by the person to whom it was given either as payee or bearer, without inserting his name in the blank as payee: Mutual Safety Ins. Co. v. Porter, 7 N. B. (2 Allen) 230 (1851).

5. If no one be named or definitely referred to as payee, the instrument is not a valid bill: Gibson v. Minet, 1 H. Bl. 569 (1791); Enthoven v. Hoyle, 13 C. B. O. S. 373 (1853).

6. Where a bill was made payable to

-or order, evidence § 7. to show that C. was intended to be the payee was held to be inadmissible: Rex v. Randall, R. & R. 195 (1811).

7. Where a bill was made payable to the order of J. Smythe, evidence was admitted to show that T. Smith was the person intended: Willis v. Barrett, 2 Stark. 29 (1816). See Soares v. Glyn, 8 Q. B. 24 (1845); Jacobs v. Benson, 30 Me. 132 (1855).

8. A note payable "to the order of the indorser" was held to be valid, and payable to any holder who might endorse it: United States v. White, 2 Hill, 59 (1841).

9. An instrument payable "to the estate of L. deceased" held not to be a note: Lyon v. Marshall, 11 Barb. 241 (1851),

to two or

more

payees, or to holder of office.

2. A bill may be made payable to two or more If payable payees jointly, or it may be made payable in the alternative to one of two, or one or some of several payees. A bill may also be made payable to the holder of an office for the time being: Imp. Act, s. 7 (2).

Chalmers says "this sub-section materially alters the law." From the illustrations given below it will be seen that the decisions on the subject have been conflicting both in the United States and Canada, and also that they were not absolutely uniform in England. The second sentence would more naturally belong to the first sub-section, but in this the Imperial Act is followed.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

1. A promise to pay "to E. S. R. or J. F. his guardian" is not a promissory note: Reed v. Reed, 11 U. C. Q. B. 26 (1853).

2. A promise to pay "A. B. treasurer, etc., or his successor or successors in office" is a valid note: McGregor v. Daly, 5 U. C. C. P. 126 (1855).

§ 7.

3. A note payable to A. "or to his wife and to no other person " is a good note and the same as if payable to A. alone: Moodie v. Rowatt, 14 U. C. Q. B. 273 (1856).

4. A promise to pay J. P. "treasurer of the building committee of St. John's Church, or his successor duly appointed" is a promissory note: Patton v. Melville, 21 U. C. Q. B. 263 (1861).

5. A note payable to A. "or his heirs " is not a promissory note: Doak v. Robinson, 12 N. B. (1 Han.) 279 (1868).

6. A promise to pay to "W. & D. stewardesses for the time being of the P. D. Society, or their successors in office," held to be a promissory note: Rex v. Box, 6 Taunt. 325 (1815).

7. A promise to pay "to A. or to B. or to C." is not a note: Blanckenhagen v. Blundell, 2 B. & A. 417 (1819).

8. A promise to pay "to the trustees acting under the will of the late W." held to be a promissory note: Megginson v. Harper, 2 C. & M. 322 (1834).

9. A promise to pay the secretary or treasurer for the time being of a society is not a note: Cowie v. Stirling, 6 E. & B. 333 (1856).

10. A promise to pay "to the W. M. P. or order, or the major part of them" is a good note: Watson v. Evans, 1 H. & C. 662 (1863).

11. A promise to pay "to the trustees of the Wesleyan Chapel, Harrogate, or their treasurer for the time being" is a good note: Holmes v. Jacques, L. R. 1 Q. B. 376 (1866). See Auldjo v. McDougall, ante.

12. A note in the alternative is payable to, and may be sued on by, either one of the payees: Spaulding v. Evans, 2 McLean, 139 (1840).

13. A note payable to A. B. " or heirs," held to be a promissory note: Knight v. Jones, 21 Mich. 161 (1870).

14. A promise to pay a sum "to A. or B." is not a note: Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass. 561 (1871).