(b.) On or at a fixed period after the occurrence § 11. of a specified event which is certain to happen, though the time of happening is uncertain: Imp. Act, s. 11 (1) and (2); 54-55 Vict. c. 17, s. 1 (Can.)

(a.) This clause in the Act of 1890 was copied from the Imperial Act without change and read, "At a fixed period after date or sight." As mentioned in the notes under section 10, sight bills in England are payable on demand. The Canadian Parliament refused to abolish the days of grace on these bills, and they were struck out of section 10, but were not then inserted in this section, so that they did not appear in either list. The first section of the amending Act of 1891 placed them in the first clause of the present section.

As to when bills payable at a determinable future time fall due, see section 14. In the case of acceptance for honor, see section 64, s-s. 5.

It is not necessary to use either the word "date" or "sight" to bring a bill within the provisions of clause (a) of this section.

The following are examples of bills and notes that have been held to be valid as coming within the rule laid down in this subsection.

1. An instrument payable 17 months after date without interest or 41 months after date with interest, as falling due at the later date: Hogg v. Marsh, 5 U. C. Q. B. 319 (1848).

2. A promise to pay on a specified date, with a proviso that if the maker should sooner sell certain lands, the note should be payable on demand: Elliott v. Beech, 8 Man. L. R. 213 (1886). A promise to pay 12 months after notice: Clayton v. Gosling, 5 B. & C. 360 (1826); or on six months notice: Walker v. Roberts, Car. & M. 590 (1842); or two months after demand in writing:

§ 11. Price v. Taylor, 5 H. & N. 540 (1860); or upon notification of 30 days in any newspaper: Protection Ins. Co. v. Bill, 31 Conn. 534 (1863).

As to contingencies.

"Certain to happen."-Most of the instances of valid notes under this head are those payable at or after the death of some person.

The following are illustrations:

1. "Six weeks after the death of my father": Cooke v. Colehan, 3 Str. 1217 (1745); "one year after my death": Roffey v. Greenwell, 10 A. & E. 222 (1839); "on demand after my decease" Bristol v. Warner, 19 Conn. 7 (1848).

2. It was held in Andrews v. Franklin, 1 Str. 24 (1717), that a note payable two months after a Government ship was paid off, was a good note as Government was certain to pay; but this decision is open to question.

3. A promise to pay when an infant comes of age, naming the day is a good note: Goss v. Nelson, 1 Burr. 226 (1757); also a promise to pay on a day named, or when a certain work is completed, the day named being held to be the day when it fell due: Stevens v. Blount, 7 Mass. 240 (1810); "on or by" a certain day: Massie v. Belford, 68 Ill. 290 (1873); Preston v. Dunham, 52 Ala. 217 (1875); on or before a certain time: Bates v. Leclair, 49 Vt. 229 (1877); Holmer v. Krolick, 36 Mich. 371 (1877).

2. An instrument expressed to be payable on a contingency is not a bill, and the happening of the event does not cure the defect. Imp. Act, s. 11.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

Orders or promises to pay a certain sum of money on the following terms and conditions have been held not to be valid bills or notes, under the rule laid down in this sub-section :

1. At the sale of timber marked P. A. in Quebec: Russell v. Wells, 5 U. C. O. S. 725 (1848).

2. On the arrival of a certain ship: Wood v. Higginbotham, § 11. 2 Rev. de Leg. 28 (1813); Palmer v. Pratt, 2 Bing. 185 (1824); Coolidge v. Ruggles, 15 Mass. 386 (1819).

3. Three days after the sailing of a vessel: Dooly v. Ryarson, 1 Q. L. R. 219 (1875); Duchaine v. Maguire, 8 Q. L. R. 295 (1882).

4. Within so many days after the maker married: Pearson v. Garrett. 4 Mod. 242 (1693); Beardsley v. Martin, 2 Str. 1151 (1741).

5. £116 on the death of G. H. provided he left the makers so much, or if they were otherwise able to pay it: Roberts v. Peake, 1 Burr. 323 (1757).

6. Ninety days after sight, or when realized Carlos v. Fancourt, 5 T. R. at p. 486 (1794).

7. When I am in good circumstances: ex parte Tootell, 4 Ves. 372 (1798).

8. When a certain sale is made: Hill v. Halford, 2 B. & P. 413 (1801); De Forest v. Frarey, 6 Cow. 151 (1826).

9. Ninety days after sight or when realized: Alexander v. Thomas, 16 Q. B. 338 (1851).

10. When in funds: Gillespie v. Mather, 10 Penn. St. 28 (1848).

11. When an estate is settled up: Husband v. Epling, 81 Ill. 172 (1876).

12. On demand, or in three years: Maloney v. Fitzpatrick, 133 Mass. 151 (1881).

of date in

12. Where a bill expressed to be payable at a Omission fixed period after date is issued undated, or where

bill pay a

able after date.

the acceptance of a bill payable at sight or at fixed period after sight is undated, any holder may insert therein the true date of issue or acceptance, and the bill shall be payable accordingly;

$ 13. Hayes v. David, 3. L C. R. 112 (1852); Evans v. Cross, 15 L. C. R. 86 (1865); Hutchins v. Cohen, 14 L. C. J. 85 (1869); Smith v. Battens, 1 M. & Rob. 341 (1834); Anderson v. Weston, 6 Bing. N. C. 296 (1840); Roberts v. Bethell, 12 C. B. 778 (1852).

Certain datings not

date.

Parol evidence is admissible to show that the date on the bill is not the true date: Pasmore v. North, 13 East 517 (1811); Montague v. Perkins, 17 Jur. 557 (1853); Bayley v. Taber, 5 Mass. 286 (1809); Drake v. Rogers, 32 Me. 524 (1851); Germania Bank v. Distler, 4 Hun 633 (1875); Biggs v. Piper, 86 Tenn. 589 (1888).

If a bill be dated on an impossible date, such as the 31st of September, the law adopts the nearest day by the doctrine of cy pres; and the computation will be from the 30th of September: Wagner v. Kenner, 2 Robinson (La.) 120 (1842).

2. A bill is not invalid by reason only that it is tali antedated or postdated, or that it bears date on a Sunday or other non-juridical day. Imp. Act, s. 13 (2).

Bills, cheques, and notes are sometimes postdated or antedated for purposes of convenience; and the fact that they are negotiated prior to the day of date, is not a suspicious circumstance against which parties must guard; Daniel, § 85. The indorsee of a bill that was postdated, and indorsed by the payee who died before the day of date, was held to have derived title through the indorser and entitled to recover against the drawer: Pasmore v. North, 13 East, 517 (1811). This case has been followed in the United States: Brewster v. McCardel, 8 Wend. 479 (1832). Time is computed on such bills with reference to the actual date they bear. A postdated cheque is equivalent

to a bill payable after date: Forster v. Mackreth, L. R. § 13. 2 Ex. 163 (1867).

The above rule as to a bill dated on Sunday, is that of the Imperial Act and also of the English law before the Act. But if a bill were given in pursuance of a contract declared by 29 Car. 2, c. 7, to be illegal, as being made on a Sunday in the course of a man's ordinary calling, it would be void as between the immediate parties, and as to any person who takes it with notice: Begbie v. Levi, 1 C. & J. 182 (1830). The fact of its being dated on Sunday would not be such notice. The above Act of Charles II. is in force in some of the provinces; and in several of the provinces, similar Acts have been passed. See R. S. O. c. 203; R. S. Q. Art. 3498; R. S. N. B. Tit. 39, c. 144, s. 2; 20 Geo. 3, (P. E. I.) c. 3. The words or other non-juridical day," are not in the Imperial Act, and were not in the bill but were added in the Senate to remove possible doubts: Senate Debates, 1890, p. 463.

66

A note void as between the immediate parties on account of its being a Sunday transaction, would be valid. in the hands of a holder in due course.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

1. A note made on Sunday in payment of goods sold on that day is void as between the original parties, but not as against an indorsee for value and without notice: Houliston v. Parsons, 9 U. C. Q. B. 681 (1852); Crombie v. Overholtzer, 11 U. C. Q. B. 55 (1853).

2. A promissory note dated on Sunday given in payment of a horse purchased on that day, is null and void: Coté v. Lemieux, 9 L. C. R. 221 (1859).

3. A promissory note made on Sunday is valid: Kearney v. Kinch, 7 L. C. J. 31 (1863).

Bill dated

on Sunday.